Extension 17.7: Planting Trees
Extension 17.7: Planting Trees
Extension 17.7: Planting Trees
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Energy, Ch. 17, extension 7 <strong>Planting</strong> trees 10<br />
Africa. F. Myers (760) of the World Wildlife Fund instead used tropical pines and<br />
eucalyptus to estimate a net fixation of 10 tonnes of carbon per hectare per year. Thus,<br />
foresting of 465 to 670 Mha, compared to a current forest area of 3.4 Gha, would be<br />
required to sequester the 5 Gt/yr released by fossil fuel burning. (40) Marland and<br />
coworkers at the New Zealand Forest Research Institute found that Pinus radiata that is<br />
harvested and replanted socked away 112 tonnes of carbon per hectare over the course of<br />
the lifetime of the trees. (761)<br />
A recent estimate of the one-time cost of planting enough trees to absorb 2 to 3 Gt of<br />
carbon per year is $186 to $372 billion. (762) It would cost $230 to $1,000 per hectare for<br />
planting plus land cost of $400-$1,000 per hectare. (762) The estimated cost is $2.2/t of<br />
carbon removed. (40) This cost should be compared to the cost of doing nothing. A sea<br />
level rise could cause $300 million in land loss alone. A recent estimate by the EPA of the<br />
total cost of protecting against a 1 m rise in sea level would be $73 to $110 billion. (496) Of<br />
course, not all the CO 2<br />
would have to be compensated. It would be possible, for example,<br />
to forest 300 Mha for $120 billion and achieve a 26% CO 2<br />
reduction. (763)<br />
One study of vegetative storage asserts that “[t]emporary carbon stores would only be<br />
beneficial for climate change impacts related to the cumulative impact of CO 2<br />
, but it could<br />
even worsen impacts mediated via the instantaneous effect of temperature or those related<br />
to the rate of change. Hence, the planting of trees is only beneficial in reducing climatechange<br />
impacts if the most serious impacts are those related to the cumulative effect of<br />
increased temperature.” (764)<br />
Costs are expected to range between $10 and $150 per tonne and worldwide up to 2<br />
Gt/yr could be stored at this price, but secondary benefits occur as well that can reduce<br />
the final cost—if these are high enough, forest storage of CO 2<br />
may be a “no regrets”