I want to start posting other view points on Climate Change, as I discover them. I think it’s important to give voice to different view points. There are not too many Big Media sources I find to be credible; but I like the way this news paper talks about the subject, with just one or two exceptions – of course!
Canada’s forests are very important to me, as they are to all Canadians, as well as other countries around the world. The NY Times has an email newsletter you can subscribe to if this kind of topic would interest you.
The thing that caught my eyes with the NY Times is the recent newsletter article about Canada’s Boreal Forests. This is the kind of article that makes a lot of sense to me as opposed to some of the other stuff out there on “climate change.” I think that basically any idea out there that actually does deal with the environment in the way this article does, is something we can and should promote with friends, family, and beyond. From the article:
One Thing You Can Do: Help to Preserve Forests
If you’re in North America, some of the fiber in your paper towels (and other tissue products like toilet paper) probably started off as a tree in the boreal forest of northern Canada, one of the last big, intact forests in the world.
Boreal forests stretch across Canada, Alaska, Siberia and Northern Europe, and, together, they form a giant reservoir that stores carbon dioxide. That’s important, because that carbon would otherwise be released into the atmosphere and contribute to global warming. Collectively, boreal forests lock away about 703 gigatons of carbon in woody fibers and soil. Tropical forests, by comparison, store about 375 gigatons of carbon. SOURCE
Apparently, it is not the best solution to just plant a new tree everytime we cut one down:
Leaving existing forests to grow will be more effective at mitigating climate change over the next 80 years than reforestation or planting new forests, Dr. Moomaw and his colleagues have said. A tree planted this year won’t make much of a difference in terms of carbon sequestration over the next decade, a period many scientists say is critical for climate action. “They just don’t absorb enough carbon dioxide,” Dr. Moomaw said. “They aren’t big enough.”
Furthermore, boreal forests support a diverse array of plant and animal species. They’re also central to life for hundreds of indigenous groups. Read More
I have questions about just how and why “carbon” is involved in actually changing the climate, as opposed to how it does affect the environment. I think there are differences there, that are important.
Here is a little insight about why I have questions about the narrative surrounding CO2 emissions and “climate” change: below is just a brief extract; it is very scientific, scholarly article, from a credible source. Scientists do not see eye to eye on “Carbon:”
Why the CO2 reduction pathways are too stringent
Posted on January 8, 2020 by curryja |
by Jacques Hagoort
Why the IPCC carbon budgets in SR1.5 are over conservative, and the CO2 reduction pathways are too stringent.
Abstract Carbon Budgets specify the total amount of CO2 that can be emitted before global warming exceeds a certain threshold. Since the introduction of the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, prominently featuring the 1,5 and 2˚C global warming limits, Carbon Budgets have become the cornerstone of global warming mitigation policy by CO2 reduction. In the recent IPCC special report on global warming of 1,5˚C from 2018 (SR15), the Carbon Budgets have been substantially upgraded compared with the ones reported in the preceding IPCC Fifth Assessment Report from 2013 (AR5).
We have analyzed the new method for estimating Carbon Budgets in SR15 and found it seriously wanting, leading to non-physical future global warming profiles. The net result is Carbon Budget estimates that are over-conservative leading to time frames for the reduction of CO2 emission to net-zero that are too stringent. A simple alternative calculation method without the shortcomings of the SR15 method yields substantially larger Carbon Budgets and thus more lenient time frames for net-zero emission.
Assuming a linear emission reduction pathway, we estimate that net-zero emission for a global warming limit of 1,5˚C is reached in 2070 instead of 2043 as per the SR15 budget. In the case of a warming limit of 2˚C, net-zero happens in 2125 rather than in 2079. SOURCE: READ MORE