Oops! New Study Indicates Deforestation Has Twice The Carbon Impact Previously Thought

[hatrack]

EDIT

The new figures suggest stopping deforestation could cut global carbon emissions by as much as three billion tonnes a year - the equivalent of more than one-third of fossil fuel emissions. They come from the first global assessment of carbon flows between ecosystems and the atmosphere, using millions of ground measurements as well as remote sensing, since 1994.

The statistics were buried in data published earlier this year in Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1201609) by the Global Carbon Project, a network of experts on the carbon cycle. They were highlighted here in Durban by ecologist Bob Scholes of South Africa's Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

One reason for the changed estimate is that researchers have finally disentangled emissions from deforestation - at 2.9 billion tonnes a year - from the amount soaked up by regrowth of natural forests on logged and abandoned land, which is put at 1.6 billion tonnes.

In the past, the two have often been lumped together, giving a lower net loss of carbon from tropical forests. But the logged and degraded forests where this regrowth happens are increasingly being targeted by governments and agribusiness to grow oil palm and other cash crops - so natural regrowth will decline.

EDIT

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/12/fred-pearce-durbanhalting-trop.html

[uberblonde]

1. If only there was a useful, cheap weed...

Something that could be used instead of wood... oh wait, there is! It's called hemp. But we can't use it because then the hippies would win.

[applegrove]

2. Thankfully there is some reforestation going on in Canada and New England as farming

shrinks.

[bananas]

4. And the new study makes reforestation twice as important. nt

[RufusTFirefly]

3. Just shows to go ya

You can't trust scientists to get things right.

:sarcasm:

[tex-wyo-dem]

5. Well...duh.

To me it's pretty simple:

Removal of forest = removal of net carbon sink
+
Decaying matter from removal of forest = carbon release
+
Energy required to remove said forest = carbon release
=
A lot more carbon sourced with less sinks available

No rocket science involved...

Seriously, I understand that scientists need to back-up their assertions with empirical data, but this has always seemed a no brainer to me. I've always wondered why it wasn't more part of the conversation...a major factor adding to the overall carbon excess.