Abstract
Policies for climate mitigation on land rarely acknowledge biophysical factors, such as reflectivity, evaporation, and surface roughness. Yet such factors can alter temperatures much more than carbon sequestration does, and often in a conflicting way. We outline a framework for examining biophysical factors in mitigation policies and provide some best-practice recommendations based on that framework. Tropical projects - avoided deforestation, forest restoration, and afforestation - provide the greatest climate value, because carbon storage and biophysics align to cool the Earth. In contrast, the climate benefits of carbon storage are often counteracted in boreal and other snow-covered regions, where darker trees trap more heat than snow does. Managers can increase the climate benefit of some forest projects by using more reflective and deciduous species and through urban forestry projects that reduce energy use. Ignoring biophysical interactions could result in millions of dollars being invested in some mitigation projects that provide little climate benefit or, worse, are counter-productive.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Article number | 044006 |
| Journal | Environmental Research Letters |
| Volume | 3 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2008 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Afforestation
- Albedo
- Avoided deforestation
- Biophysics
- Carbon sequestration
- Climate change
- Climate policy
- Forest restoration
- Global warming
- Temperate and boreal forests
- tropical
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Environmental Science(all)
- Renewable Energy, Sustainability and the Environment
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Cite this
Protecting climate with forests. / Jackson, Robert B.; Randerson, James T.; Canadell, Josep G.; Anderson, Ray G.; Avissar, Roni; Baldocchi, Dennis D.; Bonan, Gordon B.; Caldeira, Ken; Diffenbaugh, Noah S.; Field, Christopher B.; Hungate, Bruce A; Jobbágy, Esteban G.; Kueppers, Lara M.; Nosetto, Marcelo D.; Pataki, Diane E.
In: Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 3, No. 4, 044006, 2008.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Protecting climate with forests
AU - Jackson, Robert B.
AU - Randerson, James T.
AU - Canadell, Josep G.
AU - Anderson, Ray G.
AU - Avissar, Roni
AU - Baldocchi, Dennis D.
AU - Bonan, Gordon B.
AU - Caldeira, Ken
AU - Diffenbaugh, Noah S.
AU - Field, Christopher B.
AU - Hungate, Bruce A
AU - Jobbágy, Esteban G.
AU - Kueppers, Lara M.
AU - Nosetto, Marcelo D.
AU - Pataki, Diane E.
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - Policies for climate mitigation on land rarely acknowledge biophysical factors, such as reflectivity, evaporation, and surface roughness. Yet such factors can alter temperatures much more than carbon sequestration does, and often in a conflicting way. We outline a framework for examining biophysical factors in mitigation policies and provide some best-practice recommendations based on that framework. Tropical projects - avoided deforestation, forest restoration, and afforestation - provide the greatest climate value, because carbon storage and biophysics align to cool the Earth. In contrast, the climate benefits of carbon storage are often counteracted in boreal and other snow-covered regions, where darker trees trap more heat than snow does. Managers can increase the climate benefit of some forest projects by using more reflective and deciduous species and through urban forestry projects that reduce energy use. Ignoring biophysical interactions could result in millions of dollars being invested in some mitigation projects that provide little climate benefit or, worse, are counter-productive.
AB - Policies for climate mitigation on land rarely acknowledge biophysical factors, such as reflectivity, evaporation, and surface roughness. Yet such factors can alter temperatures much more than carbon sequestration does, and often in a conflicting way. We outline a framework for examining biophysical factors in mitigation policies and provide some best-practice recommendations based on that framework. Tropical projects - avoided deforestation, forest restoration, and afforestation - provide the greatest climate value, because carbon storage and biophysics align to cool the Earth. In contrast, the climate benefits of carbon storage are often counteracted in boreal and other snow-covered regions, where darker trees trap more heat than snow does. Managers can increase the climate benefit of some forest projects by using more reflective and deciduous species and through urban forestry projects that reduce energy use. Ignoring biophysical interactions could result in millions of dollars being invested in some mitigation projects that provide little climate benefit or, worse, are counter-productive.
KW - Afforestation
KW - Albedo
KW - Avoided deforestation
KW - Biophysics
KW - Carbon sequestration
KW - Climate change
KW - Climate policy
KW - Forest restoration
KW - Global warming
KW - Temperate and boreal forests
KW - tropical
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=60649091702&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=60649091702&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/044006
DO - 10.1088/1748-9326/3/4/044006
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:60649091702
VL - 3
JO - Environmental Research Letters
JF - Environmental Research Letters
SN - 1748-9326
IS - 4
M1 - 044006
ER -