We
have a small backyard, but there are those of us who love it. It's
only about 50 by 35 feet or so, but we have a full size 100 year old
California redwood – sequoia sempervirens – and a full
size dawn redwood – metasequoia. The latter can't be 100
years old, since it was thought to be extinct and was rediscovered in
China in 1944. The shortest of the redwoods and the only one that is
deciduous, its eventual height should be about 165 feet. Both of
them are quite beautiful. We also have some yuccas and a couple of
loquats – eriobotrya japonica – which is also from China.
And a grapefruit tree, purchased at Costco 25 years ago. Small it may be, but our backyard is certainly woody!
Since I lived in West Philadelphia until the age of 13, living in
the midst of woods is something of a wonder to me.
So
I was thinking the other day as I ducked out back and looked around,
what if more people had backyard trees the way we do? We also have
trees up and down our little street. What if the rest of Berkeley
had trees on their streets the way we do, and what if everyone in the
country did it, and what if the rest of the world did it? Would it
make a difference to the overriding existential issue of our time,
global warming? After all, trees drink up the CO2 that is poisoning
the atmosphere and keeping the heat in as we burn up the planet.
To
review our situation in one paragraph, the basic equation for global
warming is based on carbon dioxide atmospheric concentration. CO2
generation - CO2 uptake = total CO2 added to atmosphere. Since the
major change that has produced global warming is an increase in CO2
generation, our attention has centered on efforts to reduce that CO2
production. While there has been progress and there is hope and
expectation of a great deal of further progress, it won't be easy.
But the part of the equation after the minus sign has been paid less
attention – the so-called carbon sink. The sink cannot be the only
change to be made, but I wondered, could more trees make a
significant impact? And if so, how much? What if others had my
backyard; what if others had our tree-lined street, what if we as a
city, a state, a country, a collection of nations, went full bore
Johnny Appleseed and planted, planted, planted? Would that make a
difference?
Only
a few weeks after I wondered this, a significant paper appeared the
Science.
RESTORATION
ECOLOGY
The
global tree restoration potential
Jean-Francois
Bastin1*,
Yelena Finegold2,
Claude Garcia3,4,
Danilo Mollicone2,
Marcelo
Rezende2,
Devin Routh1,
Constantin M. Zohner1,
Thomas W. Crowther1
tin
et al., Science 365, 76–79 (2019) 5 July 2019
The
intent of it is to answer the question I had posed in my back yard –
could trees significantly contribute to the solution to the global
warming problem? The article says:
“This
highlights global tree restoration as our most effective climate
change solution to date.
Our
results highlight the opportunity of climate change mitigation
through global tree restoration but also the urgent need for action.”
“More
than 50% of the tree restoration potential can be found in only six
countries (in million hectares:Russia, +151;United States, +103;
Canada,+78.4; Australia, +58; Brazil, +49.7; and China,+40.2)
(data file S2), stressing the important responsibility of some of the
world’s leading economies.”
“Nevertheless,
under the assumption that most of this additional carbon was sourced
from the atmosphere, reaching this maximum restoration potential
would reduce a considerable
proportion
of the global anthropogenic carbon burden (~300 GtC) to date (1).
This places
ecosystem
restoration as the most effective solution at our disposal to
mitigate climate change.”
As
an article in Science, the turbidity of the prose and
presentation is regrettable but rather standard. It is
policy-relevant, rather than a policy article. But, frustrating as
that is, the article nonetheless appears to answer my question –
trees should be a significant part of the climate change answer.
Which leads us to think – why do we hear so little about it? Why
do we hear only technological answers to our technologically
introduced global warming? Especially when we could easily envision
tree-planting solutions that involved millions of people
participating, companies making money from it, a part of a green new
deal?
I
don't know the answer, but one thing we do know is that deforestation
has been severe and it is ongoing. Lots of people and companies are
making a lot of money in the developing world by developing, which
means clearing land, which is deforestation. How can one stop them?
It's a classic case of the tragedy of the commons.
What is Tragedy Of The Commons?
The tragedy of the commons
is an economic problem in which every individual has an incentive to
consume a resource at the expense of every other individual with no
way to exclude anyone from consuming. It results in overconsumption,
under investment, and ultimately depletion of the resource. As the
demand for the resource overwhelms the supply, every individual who
consumes an additional unit directly harms others who can no longer
enjoy the benefits. Generally, the resource of interest is easily
available to all individuals; the tragedy of the commons occurs when
individuals neglect the well-being of society in the pursuit of
personal gain.
The answer to the tragedy of the
commons is strong government, which is hard enough to muster in one
country, but virtually impossible in the world at large, where the
local rich say, why shouldn't I have my piece of the action,
especially when it was the First World that made the problem in the
first place?
Still, as the article points out, the
developed world could make a contribution, and one wonders if
straight payoffs to the developing world to preserve forest could
work.
While we have a moral imperative for
optimism, and we must remain optimistic, some are pessimistic. The
originator of the Gaia theory of the world
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis), James
Lovelock, postulated years ago that we would develop our way to
oblivion. Oblivion, he was asked? The end of human beings? Well,
he responded, the species will probably survive. There will be
mating pairs at the poles. Shiver, and not from the cold....
Which leads to the question, maybe, is
the human species worth saving? How special are we? Are we just
another species that comes and will go, as >90% of species have
done? Are we just sentimental about our own species, putting
ourselves speciously at the center of the universe, indulging in
pre-Copernicus species thought?
I like to read short, sweet works of
genius. Edward O. Wilson, the originator of sociobiology, author of
Ants, has just published Genesis, The Deep Origin of
Societies.
(https://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Origin-Societies-Edward-Wilson/dp/1631495542/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=edward+o+wilson&qid=1563808585&s=gateway&sr=8-1)
He lists the Great Transitions of
Evolution, where “In each..., altruism at a lower level of
biological organization is needed to reach the one above.”:
- The origin of life
- The invention of complex (“eukaryotic”) cells
- The invention of sexual reproduction, leading to a controlled system of DNA exchange and the multiplication of species
- The origin of organisms composed of multiple cells
- The origin of societies
- The origin of language
Language! How did that get in there?
I think it must be true. It's based on the rise of the brain from
600 cubic centimeters to 1,400 cubic centimeters in guess who, you
and me. It's recent, maybe over 3 million years, which is nothing in
geological and evolutionary terms, but more than we can imagine on
the basis of our lifetimes. And what allowed our brains to grow, was
necessary but not sufficient? The taming of fire, which led to
cooking, which led to markedly more calories per meal (heating does
that), which allowed our brains to be nourished by what people could
find to eat in a few hours a day of hunting and gathering. (I read
this in a great book by an Oxford biologist, but I can't find the
exact reference right now. It's an amazing book, carefully
calculating calories and time, with numbers.)
So, yes, we are indeed a special
species. Our attachment to the power of our brains – Woody Allen's
second favorite organ – isn't just sentimental. How on earth did
this brain every evolve? If we exit, it won't be invented again.
We need to plant trees. We need much
more powerful governments. We might need the end of democracy, the
end of non-state capitalism. We're back to better Red than Dead
thinking, grim as that is.
Apocalypse.
Wouldn't it be worthwhile planting the
world full of trees, and buying up huge swaths of land, while we
pursue technological improvements in our energy generation and
utilization?
And oh yes, in today's NYT there's a
nice little article on the potential of trees:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/opinion/trees-global-warming.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage.
The author refers to the NYT summary of the Science article I
started with. Since that article a few weeks ago, this is the only follow up I've
seen.
I guess this essay of mine is what
you'd called discursive.
Budd Shenkin