Protecting climate with forests

Policies for climate mitigation on land rarely acknowledge biophysical factors, such as reflectivity, evaporation, and surface roughness. Yet such factors can alter temperatures much more than carbon sequestration does, and often in a conflicting way. We outline a framework for examining biophysical...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental research letters 2008-10, Vol.3 (4), p.044006-044006 (5)
Main Authors: Jackson, Robert B, Randerson, James T, Canadell, Josep G, Anderson, Ray G, Avissar, Roni, Baldocchi, Dennis D, Bonan, Gordon B, Caldeira, Ken, Diffenbaugh, Noah S, Field, Christopher B, Hungate, Bruce A, Jobbágy, Esteban G, Kueppers, Lara M, Nosetto, Marcelo D, Pataki, Diane E
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Afforestation
Biophysics
Carbon
Carbon sequestration
Climate change mitigation
Deforestation
Energy consumption
Environmental restoration
Evaporation
Forest management
Forestry
Forests
Policies
Snow
Snow cover
Surface roughness
Urban forests
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Policies for climate mitigation on land rarely acknowledge biophysical factors, such as reflectivity, evaporation, and surface roughness. Yet such factors can alter temperatures much more than carbon sequestration does, and often in a conflicting way. We outline a framework for examining biophysical factors in mitigation policies and provide some best-practice recommendations based on that framework. Tropical projects—avoided deforestation, forest restoration, and afforestation—provide the greatest climate value, because carbon storage and biophysics align to cool the Earth. In contrast, the climate benefits of carbon storage are often counteracted in boreal and other snow-covered regions, where darker trees trap more heat than snow does. Managers can increase the climate benefit of some forest projects by using more reflective and deciduous species and through urban forestry projects that reduce energy use. Ignoring biophysical interactions could result in millions of dollars being invested in some mitigation projects that provide little climate benefit or, worse, are counter-productive.
ISSN:1748-9326
1748-9326
DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/044006