Science Communication

As our energy demands shift as a result of climate change, the market which once supported the practicality of Canada’s carbon tax is changing too. A new study in the Science Advance journal calls into question the efficacy of carbon taxing in coming years due to projected increases in demand for the new “carbon-neutral” energy source that has hopes of reducing our net carbon emissions: forest-based biomass.

Though biomass energy is coined as a green energy alternative, there is some debate in the scientific community regarding whether it is truly carbon neutral as it is commonly advertised to be. Biomass energy is a form of energy generated from burning living organisms-- in the context of this recently published study, forest-based. Without a demand stronger than 1.1 billion m3/year, higher timber prices would boost the harvest of natural forests but fail to reach a profit threshold that would encourage investments in forest regeneration and maintenance, ultimately resulting in emissions. Fortunately, the demand for biomass energy is projected to climb well-past that baseline requirement. A report by IRENA shows rapid 1.6% per year projected increases in bioenergy demand, predicting nearly 50% growth from 2014 to 2030. With 30% of global energy being supplied by bioenergy by 2100 and a third of the supply is assumed to be provided by forests, the question is not its relevance but rather the policies we employ to ensure its efficacy.

Biomass energy policies’ impact is wide-reaching. The value of timber, the degree of investments in forest management and afforestation, as well as the amount of forest carbon stocks over time are all influenced by the efficiency of policies governing energy production’s emissions. Despite projected increases in carbon sequestration, without policy and proper management response carbon emissions from biomass energy production will likely fail to reach neutrality. We require an efficient policy to mitigate the negative impacts associated with the new bioenergy demand. The authors of the study used a Global Timber Model (GTM) to simulate the efficacy of two policies ability to incentivize limiting emissions: a carbon tax, and a carbon sequestration subsidy in conjunction with a carbon tax.

First, the GTM was used to generate a baseline to understand the degree of impact either policy scenario will have by examining what would happen should we fail to implement any policy at all. As previously explained, biomass energy demand impacts forest management. By encouraging investments in harvesting, managed plantation area could increase by up to 61 million hectares (Mha) globally. With no biomass energy policy, 15% of the 250 Mha of global natural forest area could be converted to a more intensive management regime. This is particularly relevant for Canada, where our land is dominated by 347 Mha of forest that is ecologically sensitive and biodiverse, threatening important ecosystem services that could cost us in the long run. We require efficient, well-informed policies to ensure our inaccessible forest land remains inaccessible.

Unfortunately for Canada, the policy approach which has been deemed inefficient by the study under the growing demand for bioenergy is using only a carbon tax to incentivize the avoidance of emissions. It creates less demand for forest products which depresses timber prices and forest area and lowers investment in forest management as well as failing to place any value on standing natural forest stocks. Average stocks could still increase their ability to sequester by 0.4 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions per year (GtCO2¬e/yr) compared to a no policy scenario, but under an alternative, more efficient policy, that number could climb up to five times higher at 2.3 GtCO2¬e/yr, offsetting 7.1% of current annual carbon emissions.

Created in biorender.com

A more efficient policy is incentivizing the avoidance of emissions through a carbon tax and subsidy. A subsidy for sequestering carbon places value in standing natural forests while still discouraging emissions. Even though total forest carbon increases in both scenarios, failing to implement a system that doesn’t place value on standing forest stocks exacerbates one of the issues the policies are designed to prevent: the loss of natural forests by up to 200 Mha and associated ecosystems. Forest area could expand by more than 500 Mha with a carbon subsidy approach which avoids allowing the higher timber prices to tempt landowners to convert natural forests to more managed forest types.

You would be hard-pressed to find an industry that isn’t weak in the knees from the impact of COVID-19. For obvious reasons, airlines around the globe are definitely one of the first that pop into mind. With the restriction of domestic travel and the complete halt of international flights over recent weeks, passenger numbers and shares alike are plummeting drastically and rapidly. It may seem like an odd time for the UN to slap on even stricter rules for the standard of aviation carbon offsets purchased by airlines in attempt to achieve “carbon-neutral” growth… However, the climate crisis may have more of a hand in our novel virus pandemic than one may first think.

The appearance of the COVID-19 documents a virus’s path from animal to human, demonstrating a process called zoonosis. Zoonosis occurs when diseases that may be completely harmless to an animal leap to humans and can cause serious illness. The passing of the virus from an animal to a human with devastating effects such as this is an incredibly low probability event, resulting from a stochastic combination of low probability events. Increasing environmental disturbances as a result of human activity create conditions that make these occurrences inevitable. Human behaviour has almost always been shown to be the underlying cause of zoonotic spillover. For example, when deforestation occurs in a bat’s ecosystem they are displaced from their normal habitat. As a result, they may run into other animals or humans more frequently, increasing the likelihood of a chance encounter.

There’s no longer room for debate. The mountains of scientific publications steadily accumulating only point in one direction: the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is rising, and the fault lies in our hands. Despite the wealth of data that refutes any doubt, some people still are not sold on why they should be worried about some extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What’s wrong with a little more plant food for our trees to munch on? The misconception that we can kick back and let our trees deal with our CO2 problem perhaps flows from Canada’s reputation as a country with bountiful wilderness and nature. Forty percent of our country is covered by forest, the second most in the world, and yet our expansive forests extending from coast to coast are still unable to compensate for the gases produced in our relatively few larger urban centres. Trees have the ability to sequester carbon from the atmosphere by absorbing it during photosynthesis, but they are not the unlimited carbon storage lockers they are more commonly, falsely, advertised to be. Warming temperatures have resulted in insects traveling northwards, causing more pest outbreaks as well as increasing annual wildfires. Both of these impacts have led to higher rates of tree death and the subsequent release of the bulk of their lifetime carbon supply into the atmosphere. Alarmingly in recent decades, our Canadian forests have been acting as a carbon source because trees are dying faster than they are being planted. A powerful first step to reaching our reduced annual carbon emission targets, which Canada missed by over 15% in 2019 according to a UN report, is to get our trees back on track.

Recent studies suggest that reforestation initiatives may be a more powerful weapon against climate change than was previously projected. Youtubers, CEO’s and even the POTUS— using the platform at the World Economic Forum in January— have voiced their support of the new initiative to have a trillion new trees planted in the next century. The relatively newly trending solution to is certainly gaining some traction within the scientific community, particularly considering recent research presented at this year’s American Association for the Advancement of Science conference suggesting planting an additional trillion trees in the world’s existing parks, forests and abandoned land has the potential to remove a decade of anthropogenic emissions from the atmosphere.

The newly planted trees cannot be placed aimlessly. To have the highest greenhouse gas mitigation potential, reforestation efforts have to be targeted to areas where the historical natural vegetation is forest. Proper reforestation handily bests other contenders like wetland restoration and avoided forest conversion with more than three times the carbon sequestering potential. By-products of restoring wooded areas include restoring lost habitat for species who were previously forced from their homes and reintroducing previously lost ecosystem services such as improved air and soil quality which are highly costly processes to undertake artificially. When reforesting, the subsequent biodiversity and improved function of the forest can thrive and thus become more resilient to the adverse effects of climate change, such as the forest fires and pest outbreaks previously mentioned.

There is a solid basis for immediately prioritizing natural climate solutions such a reforestation as a cost-effective way to sequester carbon within the next decade. Currently only 2.5% of climate mitigation dollars goes to land-based sequestration efforts. The bulk of funding is being directed towards innovating technology to remove carbon from the atmosphere. A more cost-friendly option, which can be readily implemented, is to simply use what we already know works: supporting our trees in performing as they are intended. By implementing natural climate solution pathways at cost-effective levels and simultaneously holding emissions at their current level for ten years, there is a greater than 66% chance we can hold warming to below 2 degrees the preindustrial global temperatures in accordance with the Paris agreement. Under these conditions, 37% of the necessary carbon dioxide mitigation would be provided by the natural climate solution pathways between now and 2030. Natural climate solution pathways are cheaper to implement than carbon removal technology, thus if we want to take advantage of them as a transitionary tool towards a carbon neutral economy, we should start immediately. Otherwise, over the next couple decades the pathways will saturate, and their potential value will be lost.

According to Marc Benioff, 1 trillion.

At the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, the tech billionaire CEO announced his ambitious initiative to have one trillion trees planted, restored or conserved over the next decade under the new platform 1t.org. According to an article in the journal of Science, up to two-thirds of the 300 billion metric tons of carbon emitted since the Industrial Revolution could be removed from the atmosphere by this organization’s efforts.

Brilliant! Looks like we can all sleep soundly once more because the planet is saved... right?

There is no question that any initiative to rectify our planet’s deteriorating conditions should be welcomed with open arms, although Greta Thunberg and other climate activists bring up the valid point that this initiative may function as more of a band-aid to the true crisis: corporations’ unsustainable carbon emissions. 

The article I’ve attached below explains some arguments from both sides on the merit of 1t.org. There is some interesting research done in recent years that champions trees as unsung warriors against our carbon output, claiming their ability to greatly slow global warming. Important to note however is that trees are inevitably subjective to massive companies harmful and systematic overexploitation of the environment. While planting one trillion trees is a fantastic start, what will be the point of their efforts if corporations’ emissions continue to climb, dragging the global temperature up with it?

Despite the good intentions of Benioff’s ambitious new project, it is important not to be fooled by flashy headlines and sweeping statements about a cure-all approach to saving our planet. Will this allow large corporations the opportunity to sneak by, making donations towards 1t.org and labelling themselves as “environmentally conscious” without being held accountable for their mass destruction?

Hi everyone!!

My name is Maddie and I am in my fourth year of a bio-math/stat degree. I grew up in Fredericton and I love living here, I never seem to get tired of our amazing trail system or weekly farmers market visits. I am pretty high energy and love to be active, especially by going out for a run or doing a hot yoga class. Another one of my favorite pastimes is experimenting with new recipes. One of my recent commitments this year was to buy less plastic, particularly while grocery shopping and I’ve been having a lot of fun trying to recreate some of my favourite packaged snacks in my kitchen. 

While I understand climate change is a complex, multi-faceted issue that will require action on a much larger scale, I do feel as though consumer behaviour can highly influence corporations to make positive and necessary changes. Holding ourselves and our community accountable from a respectful and educated place is a powerful step forwards. 

What drew me to this course was the idea of being able to sharpen my communication skills so that I can increase the accessibility of current research in the scientific community to the general public. I want to be able to critically digest the large volume of questionable, not-so-scientific articles swarming the internet, particularly regarding climate change.

I can’t wait to read everyone’s blogs!! :-)