Deforestation and Climate Change

[TheVat]

32 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I'm not sure about the logic of restricting wood burning for heat. After all, it replaces fossil fuel, it's not operating in a vacuum. If all heating was done by renewables, then I would agree that wood burning adds to the CO2 levels. 

I believe that coal power stations in the UK are now burning North American wood chips, as a renewable alternative. 

Erm, I was referring to fire codes and stove regs to prevent houses burning down, not preventing some using of wood as fuel.  I meant safe installation and design of woodburning stoves and fireplaces, so that the carbon fixed in house structures (as Studiot referenced) would stay there.  In terms of a home's main heat source, however, then yes wood is not so great given that its combustion is far less efficient than NG and can lead to overharvesting of woodlots and profiteering.

[mistermack]

Here in Gloucester, they built a giant incinerator not far from me. There was a lot off opposition to it, but it does mean that demolition timber in the area is used to generate electricity for 25,000 homes, rather than put into landfill, where it would be generating methane eventually. 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Also, subsidize renovation by governments

Thanks for the support of my comments. I apologise for the poor spelling in my post.

May I respectfully suggest that renovation of governments would be a far better option ?

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

Better than what?  It wasn't a contest between termites and cattle. I'm not suggesting we should cultivate termites; I'm suggesting that a great deal of that termite emission  - if it is, indeed a more prolific emitter that cattle are* -

You misunderstand.

Oxidation of one molecule of methane (CH4) produces one molecule of carbon dioxide and 4 molecules of water.

1 hour ago, mistermack said:

Methane is 80 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas.

You misread that somewhere bro. The international CO2 equivalent for methane is 25.

However water vapour is the biggest contributor to global warming so producing 4 molecules is bad news.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Oxidation of one molecule of methane (CH4) produces one molecule of carbon dioxide and 4 molecules of water.

Only, the post to which I was responding was about termites and methane. What I questioned was the quantity of methane released. Mistermack has since been vindicated in his assertion, though his "I read somewhere" took me a little while to track down.

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

However water vapour is the biggest contributor to global warming so producing 4 molecules is bad news.

And I'm still not advocating for termites. I'm suggesting that if we reduce the use of dead trees in our construction, we might provide less food for termites to turn into anything we don't want in the atmosphere.

In the old growth forest, termites, and all the other cellulose-reducing organisms have only what dies naturally to feed on. If we kill trees and drag the carcasses into heavily populated, protected environments, where the termites have no natural enemies or hazards to contend with, and an unlimited food supply, since we keep replenishing the dead wood with repairs, extensions and renovations, we encourage urban termite population explosions. The only means we have of keeping them in check is through the application of copious amounts of toxic chemicals to which they become immune (through a far more rapid turnover) faster than we do.   

[studiot]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Only, the post to which I was responding was about termites and methane. What I questioned was the quantity of methane released. Mistermack has since been vindicated in his assertion, though his "I read somewhere" took me a little while to track down.

So why did you respond by linking to a paper that states explicitly methane is oxidised?

I have quoted this once directly from your post but here it is again for your convenience

Quote

Using field measurements, we show that termite mounds oxidize, on average, half of the CH4 produced by termites before emission.

 

I still think you misunderstood my post and still do.

But I am with you on a good deal of your thoughts here.

[Peterkin]

Just now, studiot said:

So why did you respond by linking to a paper that states explicitly methane is oxidised?

Because I was questioning the quantity. I had never heard the assertion "termites produce a lot more methane than cattle" before, and that was the first article that came up when I started looking into the subject. At the time, in the circumstances, it appeared to make sense. In retrospect, of course, like the outset of so many enterprises  it looks absurd.

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

You misread that somewhere bro. The international CO2 equivalent for methane is 25.

There's no discrepancy there. Methane is 80 times more warming, but CO2 persists much longer. So, over a 100 year period, the factor is 25, because the Methane has dwindled but the CO2 is still around.

[Peterkin]

7 minutes ago, studiot said:

I still think you misunderstood my post and still do.

I understand it; I just don't see how I can mitigate the context of then with the slightly more advanced knowledge of now. .

[Ken Fabian]

 

35 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Since we keep replenishing the dead wood with repairs, extensions and renovations, we encourage urban termite population explosions.

A lot of effort goes into preventing termites eating buildings and wood products. Building codes around here include significant requirements including physical barriers (eg crushed stone layers and stainless steel mesh) as well as chemical treatments. Posts and piles have to have "inspection" plates - they aren't so much barriers as forcing them to make external routes that make them visible, to allow follow up treatments. Poor construction remains vulnerable but well made structures should manage to keep them at bay.

I suspect we have less termites because of humans, not more, and mostly by deforestation and agriculture but if anyone has evidence otherwise I'd be interested.

I am always a bit dubious when natural GHG sources are cited as significant compared to human emissions without including the bigger picture - ie The Carbon Cycle - that includes processes that take them out of the atmosphere. 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

However water vapour is the biggest contributor to global warming so producing 4 molecules is bad news.

Methane breaks down to CO2 plus 4x H2O - but I don't see it significantly adding to water vapor or greenhouse potential from raised water vapor. The overall increase in water vapor is from warmer air - ie from global warming from CO2 and CH4 mostly - which will far exceed such direct contributions, which, like all water vapor, will have a short turnover time in the atmosphere. I don't think the linked reference supports the idea that the water vapor from methane combustion (oxidation) has significant impacts - rather, that water vapor feedback accounts for about 60% of the overall increase in greenhouse potential - "It's water vapor. " Yes, but because of and in addition to raised CO2.

Burning fossil fuels of all kinds release water vapor when used - from water content of the fuel or produced by combustion but still small compared to water vapor feedback.

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

I suspect we have less termites because of humans, not more, and mostly by deforestation and agriculture but if anyone has evidence otherwise I'd be interested.

This is new to me, so the only evidence I have so far are those two articles, about the most termite-infested cities in the US and the desert termites on overgrazed pasture.

There are a couple of reasons I don't think humans are particularly effective in controlling termites. The intensive safety measures - treated lumber, barriers, chemical sprays, etc. - are only applied in rich countries, and even there, only in the rich portion of the rich countries, which also have more or less invisible high-density poor portions. So, the 'nice' new subdivision is termite-free until the houses start losing their curb appeal, decline in resale value, are bought by people who can't afford up-scale pest control. Until it gets run-down and really cheap, when a new wave of ambitious immigrants or yuppies buy them all them up and start a gentrification phase: they rip out all the rotten bits and throw the material in huge dumpsters, buy all new pressure-treated lumber and add on decks and things... You know what I mean about the life-cycle of cities? In warm climates - of which there will be more as time passes - wood rots faster. Humans are profligate in their use of building materials. New housing may be termite-proofed, but I doubt the demolition dumps are.  Where we spray for termites, we also kill the spiders and wasps that prey on them; and at least deter, if not eradicate the snakes, lizards and rodents. Humans get involved in ways that mess up balances and proportions and processes.

Here's one study says they are not declining as the forests and wetlands recede: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5288252/  

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Building codes around here

Where is 'here' and how global are those requirements?

 

2 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

"inspection" plates - they aren't so much barriers as forcing them to make external routes that make them visible, to allow follow up treatments.

IOW, poison spray, yes?

Edited December 6, 2021 by Peterkin
thought of some more

[skydelph]

Excuse me, if the information is repeated here.
https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/whats-new-oco-2/

'The annual OCO-2 End of Year Review for 2021 concluded after reviewing all aspects of the project and the performance trends of the observatory and instrument.  Overall, the hardware is performing well and we look forward to many more years of continued successful science operations and acquiring high quality data to support advances in carbon cycle science.'

Officially, we don't know exactly what is CO2 situation, methane, the, burning in the debris higher atmosphere impact.
What there is now - and an action done on all possible levels.

[Ken Fabian]

5 hours ago, Peterkin said:

This is new to me, so the only evidence I have so far are those two articles, about the most termite-infested cities in the US and the desert termites on overgrazed pasture.

I was thinking deforestation and agriculture brings overall reduced opportunities for all kinds of species, including termites. For grass eating termites I would expect overgrazing to reduce their food supply. I understand the economic impacts; I'm in a forested part of Eastern Australia in a home NOT well built - it's been the wettest Spring for a long while and they are very active in the forest around us and well within reach. Whilst fence posts and rough sheds in the bush are expected to be temporary structures... if a house gets destroyed that would be our fault - poor design, materials, construction and/or lack of care.  Mostly now building standards require resistant or chemically treated plantation timber framing - with those barriers. Or steel framing - with those barriers. Which are not considered absolute preventatives; vigilance is still needed, especially in the tropics. There can still be a lot of wood in a house here. I like wood.

It is just a personal observation that the forest ecosystem around here has a lot of termites - many nests of a range of species, whilst in the cities and towns - and in the farmers' fields - they are hunted down and slaughtered relentlessly wherever they appear. And I think modern design and construction is very good at keeping them out.

[studiot]

11 hours ago, mistermack said:

There's no discrepancy there. Methane is 80 times more warming, but CO2 persists much longer. So, over a 100 year period, the factor is 25, because the Methane has dwindled but the CO2 is still around.

Thank you for this information. +1

10 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Methane breaks down to CO2 plus 4x H2O - but I don't see it significantly adding to water vapor or greenhouse potential from raised water vapor. The overall increase in water vapor is from warmer air - ie from global warming from CO2 and CH4 mostly - which will far exceed such direct contributions, which, like all water vapor, will have a short turnover time in the atmosphere. I don't think the linked reference supports the idea that the water vapor from methane combustion (oxidation) has significant impacts - rather, that water vapor feedback accounts for about 60% of the overall increase in greenhouse potential - "It's water vapor. " Yes, but because of and in addition to raised CO2.

Burning fossil fuels of all kinds release water vapor when used - from water content of the fuel or produced by combustion but still small compared to water vapor feedback.

Obviously my scribe was having a bad hair day since so many misunderstood his scribblings.

I didn't say my link supports or does not support any particular source of water vapour.

I said it states that water vapour is the biggest single contributor.

It doesn't matter how the water got there it all adds up.

So consider the skies over a desert termite.

How much water vapour is present ?

All this discussion is proving is that atmouspheric dynamics is complicated and multifactorial.

In the carboniferous period carbon dioxide levels were high as were temperatures.

But then so were oxygen levels.

Do you consider oxygen a greenhouse gas ?

We couldn't have either water or carbon dioxide without it.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

I was thinking deforestation and agriculture brings overall reduced opportunities for all kinds of species, including termites.

You would think so, but hat we've done, in the case of woodland termites is urbanize them - we just brought them, along with their food, into the cities, where we become more aware of their activity. Aware and annoyed -- without thinking about the vital role they play in nature: they're part of the recycling brigade.

The grassland is a different story: termites don't hurt the grass, until the cattle have already damaged it and leave nothing for the insects to eat but the roots. 

In fact, left to their own devices, they would do more good than harm.

Quote

Desert termites do not damage man-made structures and rarely harm rangeland, crops or turfgrass. In fact, desert termites are generally considered beneficial because they break down plant material into useable soil nutrients, and their nesting behavior can improve soil structure and moisture retention. https://agrilifeextension.tamu.edu/library/landscaping/desert-termites/

Quote

The mounds provide a moist refuge that allows plants to flourish and keep desertification at bay. These mounds could be key for mitigating some of the worst impacts of global warming in drylands.https://environmentalgeography.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/news-how-termites-hold-back-the-desert/

 

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

It is just a personal observation that the forest ecosystem around here has a lot of termites- many nests of a range of species, whilst in the cities and towns - and in the farmers' fields - they are hunted down and slaughtered relentlessly wherever they appear.

Yes. We poison our own environment and habitation to get rid of them - except in the places I mentioned where they go unseen. Even in the forest, when we go in to cut timber, we leave a lot of unwanted dead limbs and stumps behind - waste wood that choke all the new growth if something didn't actively break it down into usable mulch and compost. 

 

1 hour ago, Ken Fabian said:

And I think modern design and construction is very good at keeping them out.

How much better to not import them from the forest in the first place?

Quote

Inside of buildings and out, opportunities to replace conventional building materials with plastic are plentiful. Willoughby, Ohio-based plastics fabricators Shini USA made a list of some of the most promising uses for recycled plastics in a more sustainable construction industry.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/02/plastic-waste-building-materials-canada/

I like wood, too. So we can make the frame and shell from recycled plastic and put a wood facing on it, where it's exposed and uninviting to termites. Just one suggestion.

Anyhow, I think this whole termites and climate change 'problem' is a red herring. Yes, they make methane and carbon dioxide - they always did, without anybody getting upset, until we, who produce a whole lot more of those harmful gases, needed a scapegoat  "Hey Look over there! Thetermitesdoneit."

The plants are not here for us; we are here only because the plants were here first. The insects are not here to help or hurt us; they were here before us, maintaining a system that made us possible. They didn't mess it up; we did.

Edited December 6, 2021 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

On 11/1/2021 at 5:21 PM, TheVat said:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/01/cop26-what-is-deforestation-and-is-stopping-it-really-possible-aoe

 

The loss of forests and their capacity as carbon sinks, as well as their effects (especially rainforest) on weather patterns, poses serious problems for us.  Where do you think effort would be best concentrated?  

Paying developing nations not to chop, giving them carbon capture credits, seems like one practical approach.  

Indeed, we have to re-evaluate what an economy means, the problem is, most of us (by which I mean the important people) are too comfortable...

[studiot]

1 hour ago, Peterkin said:

How much better to not import them from the forest in the first place?

etc etc

+1

55 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, we have to re-evaluate what an economy means, the problem is, most of us (by which I mean the important people) are too comfortable...

+1

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, we have to re-evaluate what an economy means, the problem is, most of us (by which I mean the important people) are too comfortable...

Yep.  Too many labor-saving devices to the point that we suffer physical ailments as a result of underusing our bodies.  And too many "hidden costs" that lurk behind all our amazing comforts.  We don't pay directly the ecological costs or cleanup costs when we buy a product, usually.  

There was some famous activist in The Netherlands back in the sixties who wanted to give everyone a free bicycle.  I liked that idea, but I knew he was going to have little success in selling it,  as a daily use device, to most people.  

[CharonY]

18 hours ago, mistermack said:

Here in Gloucester, they built a giant incinerator not far from me. There was a lot off opposition to it, but it does mean that demolition timber in the area is used to generate electricity for 25,000 homes, rather than put into landfill, where it would be generating methane eventually. 

There is a bit of a discussion about the role of landfills as emitters of GHG. However, when it comes to wood products, it depends on the decomposition rate, which will obviously vary quite a bit. For example, in a study by an Australian group (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.11.006) they found no loss of dry mass within 29 years and found loss of ~18% of the carbon content over 46 years. 

This indicates that release of GHG from wood might be rather slow at least for the tested landfills and would function as sinks for some time, whereas burning would rather quickly release the carbon. One would balance that calculation with the carbon released from using alternate energy sources. I.e. if the power could be obtained from solar, hydro and/or nuclear power, then landfills might be a better option. If coal is used instead, perhaps not.

 

[Peterkin]

49 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I liked that idea, but I knew he was going to have little success in selling it,  as a daily use device, to most people.  

Maybe not to most people, but a greater percent (36) of the Dutch than most other nation do use bicycles as their most common form of transport.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/28/17789510/bike-cycling-netherlands-dutch-infrastructure

The Danes do better. https://denmark.dk/people-and-culture/biking

It's a matter of public decision-making: what people want their cities to be like to live in; getting the government action required to install the infrastructure; letting a culture develop in favourable conditions. In north American cities, councils flip and then flop on the issue as fickle voters choose people-first progressives in one election, then business-friendly conservatives the next. Bike lanes and share rides in; support program cancelled.  

56 minutes ago, CharonY said:

This indicates that release of GHG from wood might be rather slow at least for the tested landfills and would function as sinks for some time, whereas burning would rather quickly release the carbon. One would balance that calculation with the carbon released from using alternate energy sources.

Not if the incinerator is equipped with carbon-capture filters - which, according to recent regulations, it has to be. It can't stink, and it must save both the water and the ash residue.

 

59 minutes ago, CharonY said:

obtained from solar, hydro and/or nuclear power,

All renewable sources, even coal if the byproducts are processed properly. But not nuclear - because of its waste product 

Quote

Though it makes up a small proportion of overall waste volumes, it accounts for the majority of radioactivity. This most potent form of nuclear waste, according to some, needs to be safely stored for up to a million years.https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/?sh=4c79223c29cf

That's a lot worse than *shudder!* - wood as biofuel.

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Not if the incinerator is equipped with carbon-capture filters - which, according to recent regulations, it has to be. It can't stink, and it must save both the water and the ash residue.

I have read mixed reports in terms of efficiency of such filters, and I was not actually aware that they were widespread. From a report last year I was under the impression that worldwide only four such plants existed worldwide (Norway, Japan and two in the Netherlands). These carbon capture system, which effective (I believe Norway reported up to 90% capture) is more complex and expensive than simply adding a filter.

[Ken Fabian]

10 hours ago, studiot said:

I didn't say my link supports or does not support any particular source of water vapour.

I said it states that water vapour is the biggest single contributor.

It doesn't matter how the water got there it all adds up.

But the link supports 60% of enhanced greenhouse coming from increased water vapour as a consequence of warming due to increase in other GHG's, ie water vapour as feedback. It is implicit rather than explicit - and the title, whilst impactful, could be misleading. Without the changes induced by change to other GHG's there would be little change to water vapour ie it does matter how the capacity to hold water vapour got increased -

Quote

However, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain.

As for termites, I expect the total water vapour evaporating from an area of land to be quite large even in deserts and the contributions of termites via methane oxidation to be relatively small in comparison. Just to exist termites need and use water (carrying it up from underground sources), with significant amounts of water vapour apart from methane's oxidation. I just don't think it can be a big proportion or big contributor to local air humidity or to global warming - not zero, but not highly significant.

I would also note that whilst more downwelling IR in lower troposphere is a consequence of Greenhouse Effect it is a local effect that doesn't directly impact the overall global heat balance; it is Top of Atmosphere - high troposphere to mid stratosphere where IR can radiate directly to space - that is most significant. Raised CO2 raises the altitude where that occurs, where such air is thinner and colder and radiates less.

@Peterkin I still expect more loss of overall termite activity from forest and ecosystem destruction than any increase of termite species of concern eating construction timber in buildings. More broadly any cultivated land will have little opportunity for termites and grazing will limit available food for grass eating species. I don't know if there have been studies of changes to global termite numbers. Using wood in ways that lock up carbon make some sense, including selective harvesting of natural grown as well as plantations; as always, sound management is essential. Made more difficult for forestry because of climate change and the long time scales for forest growth.

We are in a post-drought, post-fires climate phase around here - there is a lot of dead wood around; whilst many local tree species are drought and fire hardy there were still a lot of dead trees amongst the survivors. Lots of food for termites. Some will get eaten hollow and become animal habitat before the termites eat it all. I am seeing disruption to ecosystems from global warming that mean what comes back is not all the same as what came before.

[Peterkin]

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I have read mixed reports in terms of efficiency of such filters, and I was not actually aware that they were widespread.

The picture is mixed, at this point. Brand new technology and very promising, but not yet widespread. It is far more expensive than dirty burning, but such a facility should last a long time, and produce some usable byproducts, as well as carbon that will have to be stored - which is yet another question mark. There is some literature floating around, including good sources, but my internet connection is iffy because of a storm right now; i can lose it any second. Tomorrow.... 

[thidmir]

I'm not sure of the solution, but reforestation is considered a major approach to carbon capture, so it's definitely important. 

[paulsutton]

On 11/2/2021 at 1:59 PM, TheVat said:

From today's COP26, an attempt at least (not getting excited,  as the pledge has been made before...) 

GLASGOW, Scotland (AP) — More than 100 countries pledged Tuesday to end deforestation in the coming decade — a promise that experts say would be critical to limiting climate change but one that has been made and broken before.

Britain hailed the commitment as the first big achievement of the U.N. climate conference known as COP26 taking place this month in the Scottish city of Glasgow. But campaigners say they need to see the details to understand its full impact.

The U.K. government said it has received commitments from leaders representing more than 85% of the world’s forests to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. Among them are several countries with massive forests, including Brazil, China, Colombia, Congo, Indonesia, Russia and the United States.

More than $19 billion in public and private funds have been pledged toward the plan.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that “with today’s unprecedented pledges, we will have a chance to end humanity’s long history as nature’s conqueror, and instead become its custodian.”

Only the  move towards Electric Vehicles has created a huge demand for Lithium,  which needs to be extracted from the ground, Modern technology  has also created demand for other elements that are either only found in certain locations in enough quantity to make it viable to extract. 

People are able to upgrade their phone every 2 years with some mobile contracts,    devices still seem to suffer from planned obsolescence to force us to upgrade.

i agree we need to simple live with what we do have and consume much less.

Paul

 

[Peterkin]

6 hours ago, paulsutton said:

i agree we need to simple live with what we do have and consume much less.

We wouldn't need to reduce consumption so much, if we just stopped the waste.

Quote

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the answer is 34%. In other words, 66% of the primary energy used to create electricity is wasted by the time the electricity arrives at the customer meter. 

https://blog.constellation.com/2021/01/22/energy-wasting-habits-at-home/

Quote

A crucial step towards this achievement is to identify the top industries with highest energy wasted and to outline the areas where this wastage takes place.

Quote

A recent report released by WWF-UK and Tesco in 2021 found that global food waste on farms amounted to 1.2 billion tonnes per year, approximately 15.3% of the food produced globally.

Quote

When completed, the study showed colossal loss and waste along farm-to-fork production – enough, in fact, to feed all of the world’s 870 million hungry people four times over. https://www.fao.org/in-action/seeking-end-to-loss-and-waste-of-food-along-production-chain/en/

Quote

Transportation waste is the unnecessary movement of manufacturing resources outside of the area where production occurs. Examples of these resources include raw materials, finished parts, material handling equipment, tools, and employees.

Quote

While each individual production line may not produce a huge amount of waste, the totals add up to almost $8 trillion of waste per year. https://matics.live/glossary/manufacturing-waste/

 

I almost neglected my noirest of betes!

https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/environmental-challenge-military-munitions-and-federal-facilities

Edited April 22, 2023 by Peterkin