Filed under: Carbon Capture, Green Daily, Europe/EU
Trees can capture 20 percent of a country's carbon emissions
Figure of the day: In a country where half of the surface is covered by forests (such as Spain), trees capture 20 percent of that country's CO2 emissions. This nice information masks two facts: we still have 80 percent of those emissions still to reduce and that the group that is currently spreading this information, the FBYCC (Forum of Forests and Climate Change) is asking for forest owners to be compensated. Seventy percent of Spanish forestsare held in private hands.
The FBYCC states that trees play a very important role in fighting combat change. Species such as eucalyptus and pine trees are the fastest growing, so they capture carbon more efficiently. Also, if you have some spare land available, bear in mind that you can offset a compact car's annual carbon emissions with the following: 0.39 ha of beech trees (about 1 acre), 0.14 ha of poplars (0.34 acre) or 0.19 ha of pines (about half an acre).
[Source: FBYCC via Madrid+d]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
why not the LS2LS7? 11:01AM (6/03/2008)
Growing trees reduce CO2 as long as they are never cut down (or burned) and the carbon is released.
This article is just people who own forests looking to be paid for not doing anything to their forests. Although I'm not completely against this, I think it'll take more than a press release to convince me this is going to solve our problems.
Reply
rgseidl 11:02AM (6/03/2008)
Trees "capture" atmospheric CO2 only if they are allowed to stand for a long time. Ultimately, the CO2 is released again but in a steady-state system, the carbon spends the majority of its cycle period as part of solid biomass.
Commercial new-growth species like eucalyptus and pine have short carbon cycles, so the carbon actually spends much less time as part of biomass. Remember, climate change takes at least decades, if not centuries. Those flogging carbon credit schemes as a quick fix are really no better than medieval indulgence peddlers.
Reply
Scatter 11:18AM (6/03/2008)
"Growing trees reduce CO2 as long as they are never cut down (or burned) and the carbon is released."
Then they'll die and decompose and be returned to the atmosphere as methane mostly :(
Better to chop them down and turn them into well made furniture or building materials that will last for hundreds of years.
Reply
jpm100 1:39PM (6/03/2008)
Unless you bury it, wood will be burned or rot and return the carbon eventually.
Being for reduced carbon output is one thing. But carbon allocation schemes are just a way to control your life.
Reply
Kevin Nugent 7:01PM (6/03/2008)
How about we focus on our actual emissions and not how much trees will remove for us
Reply
drivebybiped 7:13PM (6/03/2008)
Wired: "Old-Growth Forests Can Actually Contribute to Global Warming"
once a tree hits 55 it slows down how much CO2 it can process.
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_04forests
Reply
Hans Wurst 7:25PM (6/03/2008)
"trees play a very important role in fighting combat change." - okey dokey
Reply
Manu Sharma 11:03AM (6/09/2008)
We planted some poplar trees in the spare land we have (about 3 acres) a few years ago which were recently cut and sold off. Whether the carbon will remain sequestered depends upon how the wood is used. I'm told they're most likely to end up being used as house construction support material (see here and here for examples). If true, it's likely to remain sequestered for some time. We're planning on growing Jatropha on the land now which will be used to make biodiesel.
Reply