How much does deforestation contribute to climate change?

The emissions coming from deforestation play significant role in climate change phenomenon though not as much as previously predicted. According to a latest NASA study the previous estimates about the contribution of emissions from deforestation in total worldwide man-made carbon emissions need to be significantly reduced to get the real picture.

The NASA used satellite data in order to determine the actual contribution of deforestation in global emissions in period from 2000-2005. Their conclusion was that deforestation accounted for approximately 10 percent of the total worldwide man-made carbon emissions in the period from 2000-2005.

This percentage is roughly one third of previously published estimates. It also has to be said that is the first study that used satellite data while previous studies mostly used tabular bookkeeping models to obtain the numbers.

Though this is a significantly smaller percentage than previously thought this doesn't change the fact that deforestation is still one of the top climate change contributors.

Deforestation is primarily connected with tropical rainforests. These ancient forests are huge carbon sinkers and absorb large quantities of CO2 from the atmosphere. This means that the destruction of these forests not only creates new emissions but also reduces the total forests cover, doubling the negative impact on climate change.

We are still talking about the losses of millions of hectares of forest per year which represents a major environmental issue, not only because of the climate change issue, but also because tropical forests are areas with the richest biodiversity on our planet, meaning that many plant and animal species will lose their homes if we continue this path of destruction.

The scientists soon plan to update this study with information whether the carbon emissions from deforestation increased or decreased in the second half of the 2000s.

Deforestation doesn't always release all stored carbon from the trees

The scientists from the University of California have discovered that deforestation doesn't always release all stored carbon from the trees into the atmosphere. The major conclusion from their latest study was that the amount of carbon emissions released when a forest is cleared depends primarily on how the trees will be used and in which part of the world the trees are grown.

They say that if cleared trees are used to create solid wood products (lumber) then wood retains much of its carbon for decades. On the other hand if wood is used to produce biofuels or is turned into pulp for paper, almost all of its stored carbon is released back into the atmosphere.

All previous models started from the presumption that all stored carbon was released immediately so this study could provide new information when creating future climate models. It should give researchers a deeper understanding of the complex global impacts of deforestation on climate change.

Since the tropical forests of the Southern hemisphere are frequently cleared for biofuels and paper production they are also the ones responsible for the biggest amount of greenhouse gas emissions coming from the deforestation.

On the other hand, temperate forests in the United States, Canada and parts of Europe are cleared primarily for use in solid wood products which means that they store its carbon for decades.

This study is another proof that land use is one of the main driving factors of climate change.

World needs to make switch to zero-carbon economy

We can still stop climate change from totally running out of control. However in order to do so we have to make sure to stop global temperatures' increase of two degrees. Many climate change scientists are convinced that this decade could well be our last chance for decisive action against climate change.

If only world leaders would share their opinion and agree on new climate deal. At this moment however new climate change deal looks anything but possible.

World needs to significantly reduce carbon emissions at global level and there are several possible solutions to achieve this- transition to renewable energy, increased energy efficiency as well as different other carbon-free technologies.

The temperatures will grow as long as we keep emitting carbon emissions therefore the perfect solution to tackle climate change would be for world to switch to zero carbon economy.

The first step to zero-carbon economy would no doubt be ambitious renewable energy targets and a quick transition to renewable energy sources as the primary sources of energy.

The zero-carbon economy scenario wouldn't sit well to powerful fossil fuel lobbies and since these lobbies still have huge influence over politics it is no surprise all major political decisions go their way.

The global politics needs to look above the individual interests because climate change is global threat which means that only united world has the chance to tackle it.

Will EU be able to meet its climate targets?

EU's main climate goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020. After a 7% drop in greenhouse gas emissions in 2009 many thought that EU will achieve this goal with relative ease. But 2009 was anything but a representative year in terms of emission cuts because of global recession.

According to the latest data European greenhouse gas emissions rose by 2.4% in 2010 boosted by an economic recovery and the increased use of heating fuels due to a very cold winter.

The European Environment Agency (EEA) said that this increase in emissions in 2010 does not mean that EU is no longer at the right track to achieve its climate target. What this really means is that the existing measures are not enough and that some EU countries will have to put lot more efforts in order to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.

For instance, EU countries like Austria, Italy and Luxembourg will fail to achieve their Kyoto targets which will have negative effect on collective EU climate target.

One thing is sure, namely that EU will need different policies that would ensure further cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. These policies will have to put lot more emphasis to renewable energy, energy efficiency and pollution reduction.

Jacqueline McGlade, EEA executive director said that "we (EU) can reduce emissions further if we consider the climate impacts of various policies more systematically."

Some policies are more efficient than others, some give better short-term some better long-term results, some can be applied only in certain EU countries while others can be used everywhere. EU must be aware of all these details if it wants to successfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help tackle climate change on global level.

World needs forests to sink carbon

Forests are together with our oceans the largest carbon absorbers on our planet. This is the main reason why deforestation is one of the most significant factors contributing to global climate change impact.

Luckily for us, even despite the fact that forest area have expanded very little or none at all in EU and North America, forests are still managing to increase their capacity of sinking carbon. This is because many forests in these areas are becoming increasingly dense, and increased density means larger carbon sinking ability.

According to the latest study by U.S. and European researchers led by Aapo Rautiainen of the University of Helsinki, Finland, there were substantial forests density gains in both EU and North America, while the forest areas in Africa, South America and Asia experienced a small rise in forest density.

Particularly interesting was the data according to which U.S. timberland area grew only 1 percent between 1953 and 2007 while on the other hand the combined national volume of growing stock increased by a remarkable 51 percent.

The good news is that most nations have stopped losing forests while the bad news is that rainforests are still affected with large deforestation (particularly in Indonesia and Brazil).

Our forests remain one of our most important allies in global fight against climate change so heavy deforestation has to be stopped in all corners of the world. This particularly applies to rainforests because they are significantly larger carbon absorbers compared to other forests.

Stopping the deforestation will be one of the key battles in war against climate change. And although nothing guarantees our victory with the forests on our side at least we have some chance of winning it in the end.

Indian ocean sinks huge amounts of carbon emissions

Our oceans are the largest absorbers of carbon dioxide (CO2), and they (together with forests) play a vital role in global fight against climate change. Are all oceans equally important in sinking the carbon emissions from the atmosphere? Well, if the results of the latest international study are true, then the answer is no they're not.

According to the latest study resulting from the joined work which included 400 scientists from 10 countries Indian Ocean absorbs three times more carbon dioxide than the Atlantic Ocean.

Why is that? Professor Carlos Duarte explained this by saying that this is because of the proliferation of a particular kinds of algae called diatoms. Diatoms are one of the most common types of phytoplankton which contribute up to 45% of the total oceanic primary production.

Many scientists across the globe have been lately putting more efforts into ocean research because they are aware that oceans are our most important ally in fight against climate change.

World must gain a better knowledge about natural defense systems against climate change such as oceans and forests because climate change impact is constantly growing in strength.

Improving our knowledge is the only way to success in fight against climate change, and so the scientists around the world need to share their data and work together in order to find the adequate solutions against climate change.

Climate change is global issue that can be solved only at global level, and world leaders need to be aware of that. Sadly, when it comes to politics individual interests still outweigh global interest, and world leaders will continue to care very little about the carbon sinking ability that our oceans posses.

Is it too late to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

The most obvious solution to tackle climate change is to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But would this solution actually stop warming of our planet?

According to the researchers from the University of Washington even if greenhouse gas emissions were to be stopped right now, earth would still very likely continue the warming trend because of the excessive greenhouse gas emissions that have occurred up to now.

Greenhouse gases such as CO2 which are already emitted are likely to persist in the Earth's atmosphere for thousands of years so it is very possible that warming would still continue even if all greenhouse gas sources would be suddenly eliminated.

Kyle Armour, a UW doctoral student in physics explains this by connecting greenhouse gases with aerosols. According to Armour aerosols which tend to counteract the effect of greenhouse warming by reflecting sunlight back into space, would last only a matter of weeks once emissions stopped, while the greenhouse gases would continue on. However, Armour also notes that the overall effect of aerosols is still the largest uncertainty in climate research so this is really only a very likely possibility.

This research does not send the message that we should be indifferent to reducing the greenhouse gases because if we continue current trend of emissions things will likely become much worse in years to come.

Today's temperature is already about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit higher than it was 200 years ago. Many scientists agree that a threshold at which the climate change related damage begins to occur is if the average temperature on our planet would rise to 3.5 degrees F higher than before the Industrial Revolution.

UK not doing enough to decrease carbon emissions

UK will have to seriously increase its efforts in order to ensure low-carbon economy in years to come because based on the last report UK will need to triple its current efforts towards cutting emissions in order to transform to a low-carbon economy by 2050.

According to the latest report by wildlife charity WWF and innovation company Ecofys UK is well behind Germany, Denmark, Ireland and Sweden on the overall efforts to cut carbon emissions and transform to a low-carbon economy.

Carbon emissions can be decreased on several different ways, for instance by adding more renewable power to energy grid or improving energy efficiency. At this moment UK is well behind Denmark and Germany on renewables, behind Ireland on energy efficiency and behind France and the Czech Republic on cutting emissions associated with buildings.

Overall speaking, UK belongs to the average category when describing EU countries efforts to cut carbon emissions by between 80% and 95% by mid-century. Average is definitely not enough for UK because UK certainly wants to become one of clean energy leaders in years to come.

Though UK was the first country in the world that set the legally binding long-term targets for cutting emissions in form of Climate Change Act, this is far from being enough, and UK will have to look its current policies regarding renewable energy and efficiency in order to get on the right track.

Renewable energy sector in UK is currently experiencing positive trend in UK, which cannot be said about the issues connected with energy efficiency, transport and industry.

Is it possible to completely eliminate CO2 emissions in the next few decades?

A new climate change deal that recently so miserably failed was all about reducing the amount of greenhouse gases (most notably CO2 emissions) in order to stop a further strengthening of the climate change impact. Can world really reduce the amount of carbon emissions in years to come? Well some scientists are even convinced that we can not only significantly reduce the amount of carbon emissions but also to eliminate these emissions completely. Sounds too optimistic for you? Well, you're not the only one.

The scientists from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the Columbia University Earth Institute, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, and 2030 Inc./Architecture 2030 have said that the global climate change problem becomes solvable only if society deals quickly with carbon emissions from burning coal in electric power plants.

These scientists are also convinced that the United States could completely eliminate carbon emissions from coal-fired electric power plants within 20 years by using technology that already exists or could be commercially available within a decade.

Their strategies in achieving this include elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, putting higher prices on carbon emissions; major improvements in electricity transmission and the energy efficiency of homes, commercial buildings, and appliances; replacing coal power with biomass, geothermal, wind, solar, and third-generation nuclear power; and after successful demonstration at commercial scales, deployment of advanced (fourth-generation) nuclear power plants; and carbon capture and storage at remaining coal plants.

These strategies definitely sound good on paper but I would like to see them in real life. Are people ready to pay extra high energy prices, are renewable energy sources capable to replace coal in the next few decades? I believe the answer to both of these above questions is no, and therefore I do not see how we could transform this strategy into a real life.

Don't get me wrong, I would gladly pay higher energy prices, and would be more than happy if renewable energy technologies could mature enough in the next few decades to become cost-competitive with fossil fuels but I just don't see this coming.

Renewable energy can be considered only as some form of long-term solution to climate change problem. Many would say how come long-term solution since many energy experts predict dominance of renewable energy even before the end of this century so we are only talking about 50 years or so? 50 years or so is sadly very long lifespan given the current pace of climate change, and if current climate change predictions are true we don't have luxury of the next 50 years at our disposal to make things happen.

Therefore our only chance is some breakthrough science discovery that would somehow turn fossil fuels into clean energy sources, or that would somehow enable us an extremely rapid development of certain renewable energy source(s). I seriously doubt that anything else can really help us against climate change. In real life, that is.

Germany to continue with significant CO2 reduction targets

Despite the climate deal has very much failed this will not stop Germany to continue with very ambitious target of 40% less CO2 emissions by 2020. Of course to do so, the emphasis will be on even bigger share of renewable energy sources in domestic energy supply. This highly industrialized country is the sixth largest CO2 emitter in the world, and any significant decrease from its part would be more than welcome to tackle climate change on global level.

This won't be very easy to do, because Germany being highly industrialized country, also has some powerful industry lobbies that have already started talking how such ambitious target would hurt German industry too much, causing lot of people to lose their jobs.

On the other hand such CO2 reduction target could also give further boost to German renewable energy sector, and could give German economy the edge in the clean energy race.

Since Copenhagen climate deal turned out to be a major setback, world really needs much more positive examples, or otherwise temperature increase will cause devastating damage to our planet, and irreversibly change our current way of life. It is nice to see that some countries are well aware of that.

From the current point of view it certainly looks like the Germany will be the leading country, and the driving force behind the EU's clean energy policy.

Solutions to reduce global CO2 emissions?

This is the question that world will have to answer before the new climate deal if we want to have any chance of tackling the climate change. As long as world's energy demand keeps on growing world needs more and more fossil fuels to satisfy ever-growing energy demand, and the more fossil fuels we use the more CO2 emissions are released into the atmosphere. As long as fossil fuels remain dominant energy sources it is difficult to see how will the world reduce CO2 emissions on global level.

The most obvious answer would be strengthening the renewable energy sector but all current estimates say how renewable energy sector still needs at least couple of decades before becoming competitive with fossil fuels. Will climate change wait us for so long? Different climate models have showed that world needs to make drastic CO2 cuts as soon as possible if we want to avoid global temperature increase of 2 degrees Celsius, a temperature increase that is likely to cause much more serious climate change impact.

So what can we do? We can't stop using fossil fuels because we need them for energy, and we also can't rely on renewables because this energy sector is still to weak. Any alternative? Some say that solution is in clean coal technologies, most notably carbon capture and storage technology but all these "clean energy technologies" are still really in development phase so they can't offer real guarantee for major CO2 cuts.

Another problem are transition countries whose C02 emissions are constantly increasing. Many transition countries are following China's example by using coal to boost their economies. Coal is relatively cheap energy source but is also one of the dirtiest fuels, and the more we use it more CO2 will end in the atmosphere.

As you can see solutions to climate change problem are very limited, and politics is unlikely to give us an exact answer on how to reduce global C02 emissions. What we really need is to ensure more funds to science because science is really are only chance against climate change. Only scientific approach can result in answer to climate change problem, but science has yet to provide us with an adequate answer. In order to do so science will have to answer the question "how to reduce global CO2 emissions and satisfy world's demand for energy in the same time"? Can science ensure quick transition to renewable energy sector or develop clean fossil fuels technologies that would do the trick? The shape of the final solution isn't really so important, the most important is that this solution actually works.

United States - CO2 emissions down in 2008

Global economic slowdown hit by financial crisis is mostly judged negatively but it has done a few good things as well. Among these few good things is definitely less CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere from U.S. power plants in 2008. This is really something positive, especially if we look back in 2007 when U.S. CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels increased by 1.6 percent. Can we finally start looking forward to even bigger decline in U.S. CO2 emissions in years to come or was 2008 just an exception?

This decline in CO2 emissions is almost entirely a result of two major factors: global economic slowdown and milder temperatures. The Environmental Integrity Project reports how these two factors are responsible for decline of 3.1 percent in carbon emissions from U.S. power plants in 2008. This of course is far away from Obama's goals to cut greenhouse gas emissions 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020 and more than 80 percent from 2005 levels by 2050 but is still a good news.

However, as Environmental Integrity Project Senior Attorney Ilan Levin said. "Unfortunately, one year of improved data does not mean that we are on the right path for carbon dioxide reduction from U.S. power plants". This is definitely true, it will take lot more than one year before we can speak of real CO2 reduction trend in U.S., and Obama really has lot of work ahead of him if he is to achieve his goals.

To reach his goals Obama will try to convince Congress to pass legislation that will establish a system capping carbon emissions where polluters will be required to acquire permits to emit carbon. Even if Congress accepts this plan U.S. will still need to put lots of efforts to reach these goals, and many of the nation's dirtiest power plants will need to be cleaned up or closed if U.S. seriously wants to curb down greenhouse gas emissions.

What is required cut in carbon emissions?

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, most notably carbon (CO2) emissions, are the solution to stop global warming impact in years to come. But world still delays necessary action because politicians can't agree on a required cut in carbon emissions. Developing countries are suggesting emission cuts of more than 50 percent while most industrialized nations are reluctant to go over 30 percent.

The latest study carried out by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany showed that world will overshoot its long-term target on greenhouse gas emissions within two decades, and that if we continue our current trend in emissions the average global temperature will rise above the threshold causing dangerous climate change during that time. Scientists have warned us many times that world needs to keep temperature increase under 2C because anything above is likely to cause a real catastrophe. Since world has already produced about a third of the total amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) that could be emitted between 2000 and 2050 and still keep within a 2C rise in global average temperatures, we really do not have much time for political discussions.

In situation where current global rates of CO2 are increasing by 3 per cent a year, politicians really do not have much room for maneuvers because if we continue burning fossil fuels at current tempo, we will exhaust the carbon budget in merely 20 years, and global warming will go well beyond 2C, opening the door for the worst imaginable climate change scenario. Scientists concluded how significant reductions in global emissions definitely have to begin as sooner as possible, in any case before 2020. The longer world awaits new Kyoto protocol the more problems will arise in form of much bigger economic costs and different technological challenges. Time is really a key factor that could mean the difference between success and total failure in the whole climate change story.

However time is not only factor that will determine the success of future climate deal, there is also the how much question that needs to be answered before scientists can make further calculations. Authors of this study concluded that the world must agree on a cut in carbon dioxide emissions of more than 50 percent by 2050 if the probability of exceeding a 2C rise in average temperatures is to be limited to a risk of 1 in 4 (25 percent). As Reto Knutti from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, a member of the research team, said: With every year of delay in agreeing on further cuts, we consume a larger part of our emissions budget, losing room to manoeuvre and increasing the probabilities of dangerous consequences. Is politics aware of this? We'll soon see.

Carbon dioxide levels already too high

Latest study carried out by a group of 10 scientists from the United States, the United Kingdom and France showed that if we want to prevent climate disaster we have to even reduce existing levels of carbon dioxide (CO2). According to this study that was published in "Open Atmospheric Science Journal" optimum CO2 levels should be less than 350 ppm in order to maintain similarity to conditions that were present when civilization start developing.

This study is different from all other recent studies that were suggesting danger levels of 450 ppm or even higher. Atmospheric CO₂ is currently somewhere about 385 parts per million (ppm) and is increasing by about 2 ppm each year mainly because of fossil fuels burning. If we are to believe this study than we have already reached danger levels, in fact we passed them significantly. This study was based on latest data involving Earth's climate history and ongoing observations of change, especially in the polar regions. Scientists involved in this study agree that we have already reached CO₂ levels that compromise the stability of the polar ice sheets, and things will only become worse if current levels of CO2 emissions continue.

The largest source of CO2 in atmosphere is coal, with countries like China, US, Australia doing most of the damage. Coal is relatively cheap fuel, has very large reserves, so it is very likely that we won't see major cut in coal use in years to come, especially given the constant rise in energy demand. Different clean coal technologies are still in the phase of development so there is very small chance that we will see improvements in CO2 emissions in upcoming years.

However authors did point out what can we do to lower atmospheric CO2, namely reforestation of degraded land and improved agricultural practices that retain soil carbon could lower atmospheric CO₂ by as much as 50 ppm, which would really be a significant decrease. Of course only massive turn to renewable energy sector on global scale would really make the difference. But such turn in global energy policy still looks like utopia.

China - Carbon emissions worse than expected

China carbon dioxide emissions are growing on much higher level than expected and this is very bad news in fight against global warming since carbon dioxide is harmful greenhouse gas, mainly responsible for global warming.

According to new analysis by economists at the University of California, Berkeley, and UC San Diego, China annual increase in CO₂ emissions won't be already high 2.5 to 5 percent as first predicted for period between 2004 and 2010, but huge 11 percent as by the year 2010 there will be gigantic increase of 600 million metric tons of carbon emissions in China over the country's levels in 2000.

With such high levels of carbon dioxide emissions there won't be much use of famous (but only on paper) Kyoto protocol since Kyoto protocol's main task was reduction of greenhouse gases emissions into atmosphere. As we all know China is experiencing rapid economic growth and China's dominant use of coal is increasing CO2 emissions growth which are already too high.

China has some plans that should involve significant use of renewable energy sources (mainly hydropower), but even if these projects would be successful, this will still mean dominant use of coal for at least next couple of years.

In order to have decent chance in fight against global warming it's vitally important to cut down C02 emissions and stabilize amount of Co2 in atmosphere. More Co2 emissions means more greenhouse gases and this would make global warming problem impossible to solve. China, USA and other countries that lead the way in CO2 emissions should be making more efforts to reduce fossil fuels use and to put much more emphasis on renewable energy sector that still trails behind coal and other ecologically unacceptable fossil fuels.

Global warming problem needs global action to be solved and big countries like China, USA, India and some others should put more efforts to create joined action that would stop increase of CO2 emissions and give us hope that we are indeed doing something to save our planet and ourselves from global warming and climate change that will become much worse as time goes bye. China is perhaps the biggest problem at this moment, but definitely not the only one.