Guest blog #25: Ashwin Salvi on greenhouse gases and reforestation

Here are some thoughts from Ashwin, a previous guest blogger, on reforestation. I appreciate the post, particularly because its nature is different than what is typically written about on the blog.

Over the past few years, there has been a lot of talk about carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration to combat climate change. Sequestration is, in a nutshell, the capturing of airborne CO2, which has a warming effect on the climate, and storing it in liquid or solid form, either underground or on the surface. Darshan has written about such geo-engineering approaches and the ethical and procedural justice issues surrounding them previously. Today, I want to focus a bit more on the technical aspects of sequestration.

A recent Michigan Energy Club lecture got me thinking about CO2 sequestration via reforestation to reduce the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere. While replanting trees is a good idea, the issues are a bit more complicated once they are unpacked a bit.

Firstly, it is important to note that growing trees does absorb a considerable amount of CO2 from the atmosphere. It is estimated that that global forests absorb ~20% of CO2 emitted from fossil fuel combustion. However, all living things respire; trees also emit CO2 via respiration! While the amount of CO2 released through respiration is less than the CO2 absorbed for their growth, the point is that we cannot forget that the CO2 and trees is not a one-way operation. In addition and possibly more significant, trees also emit a variety of hydrocarbons (HC) that can lead to increased tropospheric ozone levels. Of course, these biogenic emissions are completely natural. (Click here to read about an interesting study comparing HC emissions from different trees.) It is what is anthropogenic that is of deeper concern.

Furthermore, it also matters where reforestation takes place. Trees growing in tropical climates are more effective at absorbing CO2 than those growing in higher latitude forests. Higher latitude forests have actually been seen to produce a net warming effect on the climate. The darker leaves of these trees absorb more heat and outweigh the cooling effect CO2 absorption and evapotranspiration. This is because the albedo, or reflectivity, of the earth’s surface changes from a higher value (with snow), to a lower value (darker leaves), making less of the incident solar radiation reflect back into space. In addition, higher latitude forests experience seasonal effects, reducing their ability to absorb CO2 due to tree hibernation.

Tropical forests are seen to be more effective at CO2 absorption due to faster growth rates stemming from year round growth, abundant sunlight and rain. In addition, evapotranspiration from the leaves of trees also contribute to a net cooling effect.

Let’s think further down the line, though, toward the end of the tree’s life. The tree spent its entire life absorbing carbon from the atmosphere and now that the tree is dead, where does the carbon go? Well, as the tree decomposes, the carbon goes back into the atmosphere as CO2 and methane, with methane being one hundred times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2. So while, the tree does a great job taking carbon out of the atmosphere while it is alive, the problem of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere really isn't solved, but just kicked down the road; the tree is just an ephemeral holding box. Therefore, trees as a means of CO2 sequestration will help in the shorter term, but a longer term solution (like reduction of emitted CO2) must be what is tackled.

What do you call it?

If a problem is "environmental", does that mean the environment needs fixing? That is what it seems to imply to most people. That is what drives the ecomodernism stance of continued technologisation, of continuing down a path of trying to find abundance and infinity in a finite and fragile world. And that is what drives geo-engineering projects...that it is not our behaviour that is at fault, but rather the ways in which the environment around us changes in response to our behaviour that is the real issue. Therefore, we feel that human intervention in the environment is what the solution should look like.

But what fundamentally needs to change? The environment? Or how we behave? I would say the latter, for an environmental problem exists only if we've created it (like pollution in water, like climate change), or if we perceive it (like the threat of hailstorms and tornadoes). Yet, if we call a problem "environmental" without also tagging the word "social" with it, then we fail to address the true causes of the problems.

This goes back to what I was trying to say in my last post. What we call things matters in how we perceive them. Words and names have the capacity to connote, and depending on our backgrounds, words bring to the surface a plethora of emotions, feelings, thoughts, and actions. Consequently, there are associations that I would not make, because they are incommensurable, because the existence of one thing makes the other impossible (or close to impossible). For example, a drastic re-envisioning of the world would be one in which food we eat would not be, as Michael Pollan states, marinated in crude oil. In an ecologically sustainable world, food that travels fifteen hundred miles before it lands on your plate just would not exist. Ecologically sustainable food provided to you graciously by Exxon? No, thank you. More and more "environmentally-friendly" cars that constantly require newer and newer materials and more and more material extraction from the Earth? No, thank you.

Associations matter. If I call something collaborative rather than competitive, that would at least provide some rhetorical force to collaboration. Customs, on an individual scale, and customary international law on a larger scale, are rhetorical forces. They associate practices with social relations, and consequently outcomes. (Of course, many of these customs need to change or be altogether done away with.)

What is required is changes in language and diction. We need a new vocabulary to describe the world around us. It would be nice if that vocabulary wasn't hijacked by those who profit most from keeping things the way they are. But I'm not holding my breath on it. Therefore, we must associate things that are commensurable, and avoid associating things that are not. We are avoiding the issue if we do the latter.

Ethics in research design and the longevity of interest

Dale Jamieson's article on Ethics and Intentional Climate Change speaks to the ethical considerations that need to be seriously looked into before we deploy large-scale interventions to combat global warming. It seems as if more and more people are resting their hopes on some geo-engineering breakthrough that will combat, virtually instantaneously, decades and centuries of environmental neglect. It seems unlikely that these approaches will be foolproof; it is likely that there will be significant unforseen impacts of such interventions. Indeed, there seems to be a sort of arrogance if we solely rely on geo-engineering to get us out of such a huge mess. Regardless, there is a huge community of people that are looking at geo-engineering options. Research is being done constantly.

Does everything that can be research need to be researched? There are consequences to research that many researchers would not like to admit. Jamieson points out that:

"In many cases, research leads unreflectively to deployment. There are at least two reasons for this. The first is that we seem cultural imperative that says if something can be done it should be done. For whatever reason technologies in this society often seem to develop a life of their own that leads inexorably to their development and deployment. Opposing the deployment of technology is seen as 'Luddite' - an attempt to turn back progress that is doomed to failure. The second impetus to move unreflectively from research to development is well-documented with respect to medical technology. A research program often creates a community of researchers that functions as an interest group promoting the development of the technology that they are investigating. Since the researchers are the experts and frequently hold out high hopes for a rosy future if their technology is developed, it can be very difficult for decision makers to resist their recommendations. In many cases the social and ethical issues created by the deployment of the technology are explored only after we are already committed to it, but by then it is too late."

It is difficult to know what drives research - are we looking into things the world really needs, or are we trying to find out things we think the world needs? From a corporate standpoint, research leads to the development of newer technologies, potentially (only potentially) less environmentally harmful than current ones, and often with perverse incentives of an increase in use of resources (as things become more efficient, people use more of them, negating any efficiency gains). At the same time, to remain "competitive" requires competitors to constantly "innovate," and get newer and newer products out before others can. Further, there is a sort of hegemony that advertising and consumption has on our society; there is very little longevity of interest in one particular thing, because the next thing is out before you can make full use of what you have already. This incentivises resource extraction and trash.

In all of this, corners can be cut everywhere, resulting in poor worker conditions and environmental harm. There are reasons why industrial production is done far away from where many of us choose to live. What is guaranteed currently, however, is that ethical considerations of product deployment - asking who is affected, positively and negatively, what is affected (nature, birds, water, air, archaeological sites, etc.), and how they are affected - are left to be determined later.

Intentional climate change, procedural justice and the case for individual action

I shall try to continue to make the case for individual action in this post, particularly in relation to trash and the effects of our consumerist decisions. I have written about the issue of personal responsibility and individual action here, here, here and here, each with slightly different emphases.

I just re-read a thoughtfully written article by Dale Jamieson on Ethics and Intentional Climate Change. He describes the current lack of ethical accountability for geo-engineering the climate, whether it be by large-scale reforestation using a single, fast-growing tree species, or putting up mirrors in space to reflect the downwelling incoming solar radiation by a certain amount. He also describes issues of unintentional consequences, which abound in engineering and technofixes that have been implemented in the past. For example, he describes the evolution of superbugs because of excessive use of pesticides and medicines in today's world. One of the most interesting things he talks about is the issue of procedural justice. We cannot argue against the fact that the current negative state of the world's environment is primarily due to a Western ethic of domination over nature, and that such an ethic promulgated to others in the East and "under-polluted" South without a full understanding of its consequences leads to even more environmental and social destruction. In response to growing concerns about climate change, you may know that that the United Nations has tried to facilitate talks to have a global agreement on the reduction of greenhouse gases under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. What has come out of such talks are ineffective "protocols" like Kyoto, and "declarations of goodwill" like that out of Copenhagen last year. If you are following climate change negotiations, you may be pessimistic about what may come out of Cancun in the next round of climate talks. Regardless, such approaches to solving global environmental issues, although coming out of the confluence of actions of institutions, organisations and people, are inherently dominated by the voices and money of a few actors. Nothing came out of the Copenhagen round of talks because of stalling on the part of the US and China. In the end, those most affected are those whose voices are silenced. It is the "freedom" and "sovereignty" of the US and China to stall important talks and agreements, but there is an inherent domination of sub-Saharan Africa that comes along with it. The same goes with geo-engineering and climate change. There are significant hurdles of procedural justice. Whose voices will be considered when making monumental decisions such as intentionally altering the Earth's climate to fight against "unintentional" climate change? Indeed, many of the ideas that are floating around for geo-engineering are much cheaper to implement than say providing "less fortunate" countries with resources and money for adaptation. The unintended consequences of changing large physical systems are most likely not reversible - climate change is likely irreversible, too. Jamieson lays the case that some serious ethical foundations must be laid before we can even think about implementing any large-scale geo-engineering scheme like seeding the world's oceans with iron so that large algal blooms can soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But how are we to find common ground with such a diversity of moral philosophies and traditions in the world? Many decades may pass before the US will see eye-to-eye with China. Indeed, the US is probably more concerned about cyber espionage and warfare with China than about dealing with climate change.

But what is reversible?  Human behaviour is reversible, even though it is difficult to get people to change their behaviour. We cannot wait for top-down, "global consensus" strategies to be implemented to solve such a dynamic, divisive problem. Individual action and choices have profound effects for our localities, economies and environment. When we take individual action to refuse, reduce and reuse we concretely address issues of greenhouse gas emissions, landfilling trash, burning toxic wastes, and shipping electronics to China and India for "recycling." No one can deny this. These actions do have an effect on those in contact with us. I can attest to that. There are no questions of procedural justice, distributive justice, or consensus that need to be addressed.