Restoring tree cover is now firmly established as a strategy for removing carbon from the atmosphere to help tackle climate change.
But there is an elephant in the room when it comes to estimating just how promising a climate solution it is in different locations. This is “albedo” – the fraction of the solar radiation that is reflected from the Earth’s surface.
In essence, brighter surfaces – such as a large snowy expanse or a grassland – will generally reflect a high proportion of sunlight back into space. Trees, meanwhile, tend to be darker coloured and absorb more sunlight, keeping it on Earth – usually in the form of excess heat.
Because restoring tree cover often involves replacing brighter land covers – such as grasslands – with darker ones – namely, trees – this can lead to some degree of global warming.
In some locations, this warming can partially or even completely outweigh the benefit of increased carbon uptake by the trees. Many know of this problem, but it has been difficult to quantify the impact of albedo in specific locations.
In our new study, published in Nature Communications, we map albedo change from restoring tree cover and show that carbon-only estimates of the global climate benefits of tree-planting may be 20-81% too high.
Our maps reveal that the climate benefits of tree-planting in savannahs in Africa and central Asia would be the most reduced by albedo. But we show that it is possible to find places that provide net-positive climate mitigation benefits in all biomes.
Tree cover affects albedo
It is getting harder to ignore albedo when planning projects to restore tree cover for climate mitigation.
For example, a recent study published in Science showed that albedo, among other factors, could substantially reduce the climate mitigation benefit of restoring tree cover.
However, despite its importance, albedo is often only given a brief mention as an important factor in research attempting to quantify the climate benefits of restoring tree cover. Its impact is frequently not accounted for – or only via coarse adjustments.
In some places, restoring tree cover modifies albedo enough to dwarf smaller changes in carbon, leading to an overall (net) increase in global warming. In other locations, the impact of albedo does not outweigh the carbon removal, contributing to an overall global cooling effect.
Understanding and quantifying these variations in albedo and carbon change is crucial to the success of a project that aims to restore tree cover for climate mitigation.
Yet there has been a lack of tools to provide this information. Our study sets out to change that.
Mapping albedo change
Our study provides the maps that quantify the absolute and relative changes in albedo anywhere on Earth where we might grow trees.
We first created a series of 24 maps that quantified how albedo would change if an area transitioned from one of four open land cover classes – such as grassland or croplands – to one of six different forest-cover classes, such as deciduous broadleaf or evergreen needleleaf forest. These are useful for individual projects that know their starting and end conditions.
However, to examine general global patterns, we used a data-driven approach to model the albedo change resulting from the “most likely” open-to-forest transition for each part of the world. We then combined that with a map of maximum potential carbon storage to map net climate impact in carbon dioxide equivalents.
In this map (below), red and orange shading indicates regions where restoring tree cover leads to net warming and blue indicates regions where restoring tree cover leads to net cooling.
The map shows that, in many places, increasing tree cover is likely to contribute to global warming. These include the dryland ecosystems of central Asia and the Sahel region of Africa, as well as northern reaches of North America, Europe and Asia.
However, all biomes had at least some climate-positive locations, indicating that the coarse exclusions used in the past have missed opportunities. Moreover, some locations experience little to no albedo change, such as in south-east Asia, central Africa and the Amazon.
This map makes it possible for people to determine the best places to restore tree cover to achieve climate mitigation, as well as evaluate different scenarios of where restoration of tree cover might happen.
For example, we examined three previously published global studies of large-scale increases in tree cover. We find that, after accounting for albedo, the global climate mitigation benefit of restoring tree cover may actually be 20-81% lower than expected from carbon-only estimates.
Notably, the study with the greatest deduction included large areas of tree-planting within the tundra and other locations where we predict very negative climate outcomes. We show that constraining this study’s tree-planting to only the more climate-positive areas – about a third of the total area (311m hectares instead of 889m hectares) – would lead to a 2.5-fold increase in mitigation potential.
This demonstrates the value of strategic project placement to maximise climate benefit, because it is possible to achieve more mitigation with less investment of space.
Forest restoration projects
Encouragingly, our study also finds that hundreds of thousands of on-the-ground tree-planting projects tend to be concentrated in places where the potential for carbon removal is high and albedo change is moderate.
One example is the moist tropical ecosystems in Brazil and Indonesia. Most of these on-the-ground projects can be found at Restor, a data-driven and community-based platform that aims to accelerate restoration and makes it possible for the first time to evaluate outcomes of the global restoration movement.
This suggests that ongoing or planned projects are concentrated in places that are good for achieving climate mitigation. However, the majority – around two-thirds – of these on-the-ground projects still face an albedo offset of at least 20%, indicating that most – if not all – projects should consider albedo change in their accounting.
None of this is to criticise projects that fall in places with negative climate outcomes. There are many wider reasons for restoring tree cover in a given landscape, beyond climate mitigation, including cleaner water, wildlife habitat, stabilised soils, sustainable livelihoods and cooler local temperatures.
However, for projects where the emphasis is on achieving climate mitigation, it is important to consider changes in albedo alongside changes in carbon removal, especially now that the tools are available to do so.
In general, climate accounting is not for the faint of heart. There are many factors such as albedo that can alter the total climate mitigation of natural climate solutions. However, we are in a critical time when pragmatic decisions need to be made now about which climate solutions to deploy and where.
Alongside our study, we have produced a dedicated web platform – called “naturebase” – to help policymakers, practitioners, communities and governments identify where, why and how to implement nature-based projects with the highest carbon mitigation.
This tool includes maps, data and case studies to show how different natural climate solutions – including restoration of tree cover – could benefit the climate across the world.
Policymakers and land managers are under growing pressure to make complex choices in line with global agreements. We hope that the science in our study and the tools in the naturebase platform will help enable smarter, more nature-positive decisions.
The post Guest post: Mapping where tree-planting has the greatest climate benefit appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Guest post: Mapping where tree-planting has the greatest climate benefit
The governor’s office said the city’s two main reservoirs could dry up by May, much sooner than previous timelines. But authorities still offer no plan for curtailment of water use.
City officials in Corpus Christi on Tuesday released modeling that showed emergency cuts to water demand could be required as soon as May as reservoir levels continue to decline.
Corpus Christi Cuts Timeline to Disaster as Abbott Issues Emergency Orders
Lena Luig is the head of the International Agricultural Policy Division at the Heinrich Böll Foundation, a member of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food. Anna Lappé is the Executive Director of the Global Alliance for the Future of Food.
As toxic clouds loom over Tehran and Beirut from the US and Israel’s bombardment of oil depots and civilian infrastructure in the region’s ongoing war, the world is once again witnessing the not-so-subtle connections between conflict, hunger, food insecurity and the vulnerability of global food systems dependent on fossil fuels, dominated by a few powerful countries and corporations.
The conflict in Iran is having a huge impact on the world’s fertilizer supply. The Strait of Hormuz is a critical trade route in the region for nearly half of the global supply of urea, the main synthetic fertilizer derived from natural gas through the conversion of ammonia.
With the Strait impacted by Iran’s blockades, prices of urea have shot up by 35% since the war started, just as planting season starts in many parts of the world, putting millions of farmers and consumers at risk of increasing production costs and food price spikes, resulting in food insecurity, particularly for low-income households. The World Food Programme has projected that an extra 45 million people would be pushed into acute hunger because of rises in food, oil and shipping costs, if the war continues until June.
Pesticides and synthetic fertilizer leave system fragile
On the face of it, this looks like a supply chain issue, but at the core of this crisis lies a truth about many of our food systems around the world: the instability and injustice in the very design of systems so reliant on these fossil fuel inputs for our food.
At the Global Alliance, a strategic alliance of philanthropic foundations working to transform food systems, we have been documenting the fossil fuel-food nexus, raising alarm about the fragility of a system propped up by fossil fuels, with 15% of annual fossil fuel use going into food systems, in part because of high-cost, fossil fuel-based inputs like pesticides and synthetic fertilizer. The Heinrich Böll Foundation has also been flagging this threat consistently, most recently in the Pesticide Atlas and Soil Atlas compendia.
We’ve seen this before: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 sparked global disruptions in fertilizer supply and food price volatility. As the conflict worsened, fertilizer prices spiked – as much from input companies capitalizing on the crisis for speculation as from real cost increases from production and transport – triggering a food price crisis around the world.
-
‘Completely delusional’: UN climate chief warns against fossil fuel push after Iran crisis
As Gulf disruptions send oil and gas prices soaring, Simon Stiell urges leaders to double down on renewables and fight fossil fuel dependency -
Gulf oil and gas crisis sparks calls for renewables investment
Energy analysts and some politicians say the Iran war’s effect on oil and gas prices shows renewables are the path to energy security
Since then, fertilizer industry profit margins have continued to soar. In 2022, the largest nine fertilizer producers increased their profit margins by more than 35% compared to the year before—when fertilizer prices were already high. As Lena Bassermann and Dr. Gideon Tups underscore in the Heinrich Böll Foundation’s Soil Atlas, the global dependencies of nitrogen fertilizer impacted economies around the world, especially state budgets in already indebted and import-dependent economies, as well as farmers across Africa.
Learning lessons from the war in Ukraine, many countries invested heavily in renewable energy and/or increased domestic oil production as a way to decrease dependency on foreign fossil fuels. But few took the same approach to reimagining domestic food systems and their food sovereignty.
Agroecology as an alternative
There is another way. Governments can adopt policy frameworks to encourage reductions in synthetic fertilizer and pesticide use, especially in regions that currently massively overuse nitrogen fertilizer. At the African Union fertilizer and Soil Health Summit in 2024, African leaders at least agreed that organic fertilizers should be subsidized as well, not only mineral fertilizers, but we can go farther in actively promoting agricultural pathways that reduce fossil fuel dependency.
In 2024, the Global Alliance organized dozens of philanthropies to call for a tenfold increase in investments to help farmers transition from fossil fuel dependency towards agroecological approaches that prioritize livelihoods, health, climate, and biodiversity.
In our research, we detail the huge opportunity to repurpose harmful subsidies currently supporting inputs like synthetic fertilizer and pesticides towards locally-sourced bio-inputs and biofertilizer production. We know this works: There are powerful stories of hope and change from those who have made this transition, despite only receiving a fraction of the financing that industrial agriculture receives, with evidence of benefits from stable incomes and livelihoods to better health and climate outcomes.
New summit in Colombia seeks to revive stalled UN talks on fossil fuel transition
Inspiring examples abound: G-BIACK in Kenya is training farmers how to produce their own high-quality compost; start-ups like the Evola Company in Cambodia are producing both nutrient-rich organic fertilizer and protein-rich animal feed with black soldier fly farming; Sabon Sake in Ghana is enriching sugarcane bagasse – usually organic waste – with microbial agents and earthworms to turn it into a rich vermicompost.
These efforts, grounded in ecosystems and tapping nature for soil fertility and to manage pest pressures, are just some of the countless examples around the world, tapping the skill and knowledge of millions of farmers. On a national and global policy level, the Agroecology Coalition, with 480+ members, including governments, civil society organizations, academic institutions, and philanthropic foundations, is supporting a transition toward agroecology, working with natural systems to produce abundant food, boost biodiversity, and foster community well-being.
Fertilizer industry spins “clean” products
We must also inoculate ourselves from the fertilizer industry’s public relations spin, which includes promoting the promise that their products can be produced without heavy reliance on fossil fuels. Despite experts debunking the viability of what the industry has dubbed “green hydrogen” or “green or clean ammonia”, the sector still promotes this narrative, arguing that these are produced with resource-intensive renewable energy or Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), a costly and unreliable technology for reducing emissions.
As we mourn this conflict’s senseless destruction and death, including hundreds of children, we also recognize that peace cannot mean a return to business-as-usual. We need to upend the systems that allow the richest and most powerful to have dominion over so much.
This includes fighting for a food system that is based on genuine sovereignty and justice, free from dependency on fossil fuels, one that honors natural systems and puts power into the hands of communities and food producers themselves.
The post Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems appeared first on Climate Home News.
Middle East war is another wake-up call for fossil fuel-reliant food systems
Parts of the Southern and Northeastern U.S. faced tornado threats this week. Scientists are trying to parse out the climate links in changing tornado activity.
It’s been a weird few weeks for weather across the United States.
The Ultimate Guide to Biochar: The “Black Gold” Fueling Durable Carbon Removal Market
Corpus Christi Cuts Timeline to Disaster as Abbott Issues Emergency Orders
UK Fusion £2.5B Strategy Links AI Growth with Clean Energy Breakthroughs
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy2 years ago
GAF Energy Completes Construction of Second Manufacturing Facility