Sizing Up Carbon Emissions BU Today:
Calculating your carbon footprint online involves nothing more than a couple of mouse clicks. Measuring the carbon footprint of a city? That takes more detective work.
Boston University researchers are on the case. Nathan Phillips, a College of Arts & Sciences associate professor of geography and environment and director of the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies, and his colleagues received a $300,000 grant in September from the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Forest Service to study the flow of carbon in and out of Boston. Beyond learning how to quantify and predict carbon levels, they want to inform policy decisions on carbon emissions and urban sustainability.One goal is to create a high-resolution map of Boston. Red spots would indicate carbon emission zones, Phillips explains, and green spots would reveal carbon uptake zones. Color intensity might show ongoing carbon hot spots. The graphic could predict how human activity or policy changes affect carbon concentrations.
Boston officials have pledged to reduce carbon emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 and to increase tree canopy cover from 29 percent to 35 percent by 2030; trees reduce carbon and add oxygen. BU-led research could define where best to focus to achieve those goals and could measure success.
Showing posts with label carbon storage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label carbon storage. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Monday, August 24, 2009
Tree cover and agricultural land not natural enemies as supposed
Tree cover far bigger than expected on farms: study | Green Business | Reuters
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent OSLO (Reuters)
- Almost half of the world's farmland has at least 10 percent tree cover, according to a study on Monday indicating that farmers are far less destructive to carbon-storing forests than previously believed.
'The area revealed in this study is twice the size of the Amazon, and shows that farmers are protecting and planting trees spontaneously,' Dennis Garrity, Director General of the World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi, said in a statement.
The Centre's report, based on satellite images and the first to estimate tree cover on the world's farms, showed tree canopies exceeded 10 percent on farmland of 10 million square kms (3.9 million sq miles) -- 46 percent of all agricultural land and an area the size of Canada or China.
ALSO COVERED IN: Can farms and forests mix?
By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent OSLO (Reuters)
- Almost half of the world's farmland has at least 10 percent tree cover, according to a study on Monday indicating that farmers are far less destructive to carbon-storing forests than previously believed.
'The area revealed in this study is twice the size of the Amazon, and shows that farmers are protecting and planting trees spontaneously,' Dennis Garrity, Director General of the World Agroforestry Center in Nairobi, said in a statement.
The Centre's report, based on satellite images and the first to estimate tree cover on the world's farms, showed tree canopies exceeded 10 percent on farmland of 10 million square kms (3.9 million sq miles) -- 46 percent of all agricultural land and an area the size of Canada or China.
ALSO COVERED IN: Can farms and forests mix?
Friday, August 21, 2009
Study warns that UN Climate panel's defintion of forest sets canopy cover threshold too low, puts forests at risk
Forest definition comes under fire : Nature News
Ecologists accuse framework convention of barking up the wrong tree.
Natasha Gilbert
Ecologists have questioned the UNFCCC's definition of a forest.
The health of the world's forests — and their capacity to lock away carbon — could be jeopardized by logging if the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of a forest is not changed, a study warns.
A future climate deal could see developing countries financially compensated for preserving their forests. The UNFCCC defines a forest as an area of land 0.05–1 hectare in size, of which more than 10–30% is covered by tree canopy. Trees must also have the potential to reach a minimum height of 2-5 metres.
Countries participating in the UNFCCC can choose how they want to define a forest from within those ranges. For example, in Brazil a forest is defined as an area of land greater than 1 hectare, with more than 30% canopy cover and a minimum tree height of 5 metres. By contrast, Ghana defines a forest as an area of land greater than 0.1 hectare, with more than 15% canopy cover and a minimum tree height of 2 metres.
But a report in the journal Conservation Letters, says that the UNFCCC has set the proportion of land that must be covered by tree canopy too low. Nophea Sasaki, a forest ecologist at Harvard University, and an author of the study, says that woodland could be 'severely degraded' but still be classified as a forest under the current UNFCCC definition.
MORE ON THIS STORY in: UN forest rules undermine principals of REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) initiative: Study
Ecologists accuse framework convention of barking up the wrong tree.
Natasha Gilbert
Ecologists have questioned the UNFCCC's definition of a forest.
The health of the world's forests — and their capacity to lock away carbon — could be jeopardized by logging if the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) definition of a forest is not changed, a study warns.
A future climate deal could see developing countries financially compensated for preserving their forests. The UNFCCC defines a forest as an area of land 0.05–1 hectare in size, of which more than 10–30% is covered by tree canopy. Trees must also have the potential to reach a minimum height of 2-5 metres.
Countries participating in the UNFCCC can choose how they want to define a forest from within those ranges. For example, in Brazil a forest is defined as an area of land greater than 1 hectare, with more than 30% canopy cover and a minimum tree height of 5 metres. By contrast, Ghana defines a forest as an area of land greater than 0.1 hectare, with more than 15% canopy cover and a minimum tree height of 2 metres.
But a report in the journal Conservation Letters, says that the UNFCCC has set the proportion of land that must be covered by tree canopy too low. Nophea Sasaki, a forest ecologist at Harvard University, and an author of the study, says that woodland could be 'severely degraded' but still be classified as a forest under the current UNFCCC definition.
MORE ON THIS STORY in: UN forest rules undermine principals of REDD (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) initiative: Study
Monday, July 27, 2009
Treeless suburbs fail carbon storage targets; removal plans may impact high UTC suburbs' successes; Canberra, Australia
Naked suburbs fail on carbon - Local News - News - General - The Canberra Times
Naked suburbs fail on carbon
BY ROSSLYN BEEBY, SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
27/07/2009 6:55:00 AM
Canberra's new suburbs are so devoid of trees and green spaces that most will struggle to store even one tonne of carbon a hectare by 2015, according to a new report.
While the leafy, tree-lined streets of older suburbs such as Yarralumla, Griffith and Deakin are estimated to soak up 22tonnes of carbon a hectare, the city's newer suburbs those built in the last 20 years average only 0.1 tonnes.
However, these older suburbs are earmarked to lose hundreds of street trees as part of an ACT program to overhaul the city's urban forest.
Despite being marketed as a suburb with purpose-built green credentials, Forde's trees and grasslands will sequester less than 0.4tonnes of carbon per hectare by 2015.
Naked suburbs fail on carbon
BY ROSSLYN BEEBY, SCIENCE AND ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
27/07/2009 6:55:00 AM
Canberra's new suburbs are so devoid of trees and green spaces that most will struggle to store even one tonne of carbon a hectare by 2015, according to a new report.
While the leafy, tree-lined streets of older suburbs such as Yarralumla, Griffith and Deakin are estimated to soak up 22tonnes of carbon a hectare, the city's newer suburbs those built in the last 20 years average only 0.1 tonnes.
However, these older suburbs are earmarked to lose hundreds of street trees as part of an ACT program to overhaul the city's urban forest.
Despite being marketed as a suburb with purpose-built green credentials, Forde's trees and grasslands will sequester less than 0.4tonnes of carbon per hectare by 2015.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)