Could a global tree-planting programme really save us from climate change?

Trees are our friends. Image: Getty.

Restoring the world’s forests on an unprecedented scale is “the best climate change solution available”, according to a new study. The researchers claim that covering 900m hectares of land – roughly the size of the continental US – with trees could store up to 205 billion tonnes of carbon, about two thirds of the carbon that humans have already put into the atmosphere.

While the best solution to climate change remains leaving fossil fuels in the ground, we will still need to suck carbon dioxide (CO₂) out of the atmosphere this century if we are to keep global warming below 1.5˚C. So the idea of reforesting much of the world isn’t as far-fetched as it sounds.

Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have cut down three trillion trees – about half the trees on Earth. Already 43 countries have pledged to restore 292m hectares of degraded land to forest worldwide. That’s an area ten times the size of the UK. But what the new study advocates is reforesting something like ten times that amount.

Trees absorb CO₂ from the air and store the carbon as bark and other tissue. Image: author provided.

Rewilding habitats and reforesting may be easier in the future as the world is already becoming a wilder place in many areas. This may seem a strange prediction, given that the global population will grow from 7.7 billion to 10 billion by 2050, but by then nearly 70 per cent of us will live in cities and have abandoned rural areas, making them ripe for restoration. In Europe already, 2.2m hectares of forest regrew per year between 2000-2015, and forest cover in Spain has increased from 8 per cent of the country’s territory in 1900 to 25 per cent today.

Massive reforestation isn’t a pipe dream and it can have real benefits for people. In the late 1990s, environmental deterioration in China became critical, with vast areas resembling the Dust Bowl of the American Midwest in the 1930s. Six bold programmes were introduced, targeting over 100m hectares of land for reforestation.

Grain for Green is the largest and best known of these. It reduced soil erosion and stabilised local rainfall patterns. The ongoing programme has also helped to alleviate poverty by making payments directly to farmers who set aside their land for reforestation.

Better yet, the new study suggests that bringing back 900m hectares of forest wouldn’t impact on our capacity to reserve land for growing food. This is certainly possible, and in line with other estimates. Reforestation may even result in production from farmland increasing, as was found in China when more stable rainfall and fertile soil followed the return of forests.

Where the billion hectares of forest could be planted – excluding desert, farmland and urban areas. Image: Crowther Lab/author provided.

How all of that new forest would look, alongside what’s already there. Image: Crowther Lab/author provided.

No solution without emission cuts

There should be more scepticism about how much CO₂ 900m hectares of new forest could store though. The paper insists on 205 billion tonnes of carbon, but this seems too high when compared to previous studies or climate models. The authors have forgotten the carbon that’s already stored in the vegetation and soil of degraded land that their new forests would replace. The amount of carbon that reforestation could lock up is the difference between the two.

Mature forests can store a lot of carbon, but this capacity is only reached after hundreds of years, not a couple of decades of new forest growth as assumed in this study. The most recent estimate from the IPCC suggests that new forests could store on average an extra 57 billion tonnes of carbon by the end of the century. This is still a huge number and could absorb about one sixth of the carbon that’s already in the atmosphere, but reforestation should be thought of as one solution to climate change among many.

Radically reducing carbon emissions and absorbing the carbon that’s already in the atmosphere will be necessary to avert catastrophic climate change. Image: Mark Maslin/author provided.

Even if warming is stabilised at 1.5˚C, the study indicates that one fifth of the land proposed for reforestation could be rendered too hot for growing new forests by 2050. But this concern ignores the role of carbon dioxide fertilisation – when there are higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, photosynthesis is more efficient, meaning plants need less water and can still be productive at higher temperatures. Today, the most immediate threat to tropical forests is deforestation by people and the fires they light which get out of control, not the more subtle impacts of higher temperatures.

Reforesting an area the size of the US will have massive benefits on local environments and will store a huge amount of man-made carbon emissions. It is not, however, a substitute for reducing those carbon emissions.


Even if the world reduces its carbon emissions to zero by 2050, there will still need to be negative global carbon emissions for the rest of the century – drawing CO₂ out of the atmosphere to stabilise global warming at 1.5˚C. Reforestation is essential for creating negative emissions – not reducing the amount of carbon that humans are still emitting.

There is another sting in the tail. Massive reforestation only works if the world’s current forest cover is maintained and increasing. Deforestation of the Amazon rainforest – the world’s largest – has increased since Brazil’s new far-right president, Jair Bolsonaro, came to power. Current estimates suggest areas of rainforest the size of a football pitch are being cleared every single minute.

It won’t be easy, but society needs to protect the forests we’ve got, and protect new forests in perpetuity to permanently keep carbon sequestered in trees and out of the atmosphere.

The Conversation

Mark Maslin, Professor of Earth System Science, UCL and Simon Lewis, Professor of Global Change Science at University of Leeds and, UCL.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 
 
 
 

Green roofs improve cities – so why don’t all buildings have them?

The green roof at the Kennedy Centre, Washington DC. Image: Getty.

Rooftops covered with grass, vegetable gardens and lush foliage are now a common sight in many cities around the world. More and more private companies and city authorities are investing in green roofs, drawn to their wide-ranging benefits which include savings on energy costs, mitigating the risk from floods, creating habitats for urban wildlife, tackling air pollution and urban heat and even producing food.

A recent report in the UK suggested that the green roof market there is expanding at a rate of 17 per cent each year. The world’s largest rooftop farm will open in Paris in 2020, superseding similar schemes in New York City and Chicago. Stuttgart, in Germany, is thought of as “the green roof capital of Europe”, while Singapore is even installing green roofs on buses.

These increasingly radical urban designs can help cities adapt to the monumental challenges they face, such as access to resources and a lack of green space due to development. But buy-in from city authorities, businesses and other institutions is crucial to ensuring their success – as is research investigating different options to suit the variety of rooftop spaces found in cities.

A growing trend

The UK is relatively new to developing green roofs, and governments and institutions are playing a major role in spreading the practice. London is home to much of the UK’s green roof market, mainly due to forward-thinking policies such as the 2008 London Plan, which paved the way to more than double the area of green roofs in the capital.

Although London has led the way, there are now “living labs” at the Universities of Sheffield and Salford which are helping to establish the precedent elsewhere. The IGNITION project – led by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority – involves the development of a living lab at the University of Salford, with the aim of uncovering ways to convince developers and investors to adopt green roofs.

Ongoing research is showcasing how green roofs can integrate with living walls and sustainable drainage systems on the ground, such as street trees, to better manage water and make the built environment more sustainable.

Research is also demonstrating the social value of green roofs. Doctors are increasingly prescribing time spent gardening outdoors for patients dealiong with anxiety and depression. And research has found that access to even the most basic green spaces can provide a better quality of life for dementia sufferers and help prevent obesity.

An edible roof at Fenway Park, stadium of the Boston Red Sox. Image: Michael Hardman/author provided.

In North America, green roofs have become mainstream, with a wide array of expansive, accessible and food-producing roofs installed in buildings. Again, city leaders and authorities have helped push the movement forward – only recently, San Francisco created a policy requiring new buildings to have green roofs. Toronto has policies dating from the 1990s, encouraging the development of urban farms on rooftops.

These countries also benefit from having newer buildings, which make it easier to install green roofs. Being able to store and distribute water right across the rooftop is crucial to maintaining the plants on any green roof – especially on “edible roofs” which farm fruit and vegetables. And it’s much easier to create this capacity in newer buildings, which can typically hold greater weight, than retro-fit old ones. Having a stronger roof also makes it easier to grow a greater variety of plants, since the soil can be deeper.


The new normal?

For green roofs to become the norm for new developments, there needs to be buy-in from public authorities and private actors. Those responsible for maintaining buildings may have to acquire new skills, such as landscaping, and in some cases volunteers may be needed to help out. Other considerations include installing drainage paths, meeting health and safety requirements and perhaps allowing access for the public, as well as planning restrictions and disruption from regular ativities in and around the buildings during installation.

To convince investors and developers that installing green roofs is worthwhile, economic arguments are still the most important. The term “natural capital” has been developed to explain the economic value of nature; for example, measuring the money saved by installing natural solutions to protect against flood damage, adapt to climate change or help people lead healthier and happier lives.

As the expertise about green roofs grows, official standards have been developed to ensure that they are designed, built and maintained properly, and function well. Improvements in the science and technology underpinning green roof development have also led to new variations on the concept.

For example, “blue roofs” increase the capacity of buildings to hold water over longer periods of time, rather than drain away quickly – crucial in times of heavier rainfall. There are also combinations of green roofs with solar panels, and “brown roofs” which are wilder in nature and maximise biodiversity.

If the trend continues, it could create new jobs and a more vibrant and sustainable local food economy – alongside many other benefits. There are still barriers to overcome, but the evidence so far indicates that green roofs have the potential to transform cities and help them function sustainably long into the future. The success stories need to be studied and replicated elsewhere, to make green, blue, brown and food-producing roofs the norm in cities around the world.

Michael Hardman, Senior Lecturer in Urban Geography, University of Salford and Nick Davies, Research Fellow, University of Salford.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.