4 ms·
Africa's forests have switched from absorbing to emitting carbon
- hutattedonmyarm 11mo ago> The losses are concentrated in tropical moist broadleaf forests in countries such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Madagascar, and parts of West Africa, driven by deforestation and forest degradation If I read this correctly: No, forests are not suddenly emitting carbon. People are just felling enough trees and treating them badly enough, that their forests are now dying faster than they are regrowing
- RealityVoid 11mo agoWhat horrendous title. Quick! They are emitting carbon! Cut the forests down!
- hshdhdhj4444 11mo agoI’m not sure I understand why the headline is wrong. Whatever the reason might be, the point is that African forests have gone from absorbing more carbon than they release, to releasing more carbon than they absorb. IOW, they have become net emitters as opposed to net absorbers.
- Incipient 11mo agoOne could argue the forest itself hasn't started emitting carbon, its the loss of biomass due to clearing that has had a net reduction in total biomass.
- echelon_musk 11mo agoWhile technically correct, I think your comment is disingenuous and distracts from the issue. You're right that the forests themselves are not emitting carbon. However, human deforestation is causing the sequestered carbon in the trees to be removed from the forest and that is also reducing the forest's ability to absorb carbon. TFA > their forests are now dying faster than they are regrowing > ...driven by deforestation and forest degradation. Due largely to deforestation caused by humans. A search for "logging in congos protected forest" will reveal numerous articles on this: > Despite the ban on new industrial logging, the DRC has one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world, losing 490,000 hectares (1.2m acres) of primary rainforest in 2020, according to Global Forest Watch.
- zamadatix 11mo agoThere is a top level comment taking the article's wording as meaning the trees have evolved to emit carbon because of the confusing wording. I think it's a very helpful comment to clarify what the article is trying to say, not a distraction from it.
- throw310822 11mo agoForests in their equilibrium state are not carbon sinks, they're mostly carbon neutral. So it doesn't really take much to go from "slight carbon sink" to "slight carbon emitter".
- tgv 11mo agoThat's tautological. But nature has a tendency to grow, even when it can't, so it seems natural to me to expect forests to be carbon sinks.
- lenkite 11mo agoIn 2010, Africa’s total population was estimated at about ~1.07 billion. By 2025, the population is estimated at roughly ~1.53 billion. That means the continent has seen an increase of abou 450-500 million people over merely 15 years! (~44% increase!) No wonder the forests are disappearing. Without strict birth control and population planning, things will continue to become worse. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314546723_Population_Growth_and_Forest_Sustainability_in_Africa https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314546723_Populatio... PS: Projected population is over 2.5 billion by 2050!
- gilrain 11mo ago> Without strict birth control and population planning Education, financial security, and personal liberty are actually proven to work… but they also result in economic gains for the state and increased QoL for the populace, so literally anything else I guess…
- lenkite 11mo ago> Education, financial security, and personal liberty are actually proven to work When numbers are being added at the rate of several hundred million in a decade, none of those can work and most especially when your religion is a major impediment. How do you plan on "educating, providing financial security and personal liberty" for multi-billion people in Africa yearly ? The rest of the world is not going to sign up for that.
- metalman 11mo agoThen you will agree that by having China stepping in to raise the standard of living across the whole developing world, we can expect a significant reduction in the drive to have children by impoverished and uneducated populations in africa and elsewhere as basic utilities and services become normal.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- 11mo ago
- zkmon 11mo agoIf they switched to carbon emission in a significant way, it must be an evolutionary response to some trigger. How does this response help forests? Does it increase production of leaf or seeds to compensate for logging? What chemical process is releasing carbon from trees?
- seydor 11mo agois this terminilogy as a "source of carbon" used widely ? because it doesn't seem the loss of forests somehow actively increases CO2
- wongarsu 11mo agoThe organic matter that was once a forest has to go somewhere. If you put it in a big plastic bag and sterilize it that'd be CO2 neutral, but if you leave it to decay or even burn it you release most of the carbon in the plants as CO2 It's a one-time process. But so is forests absorbing CO2 as they grow bigger and denser, and we commonly consider that a carbon sink. Makes sense to do the same for the reverse
- alan-jordan13 11mo ago[dead]
- moi2388 11mo agoHow exactly are forests absorbing carbon? Shouldn’t this carbon be released when the tree eventually dies and decomposes? I’d expect it to be carbon neutral over its lifespan?
- lnx01 11mo agoThe vast majority of carbon in trees is pulled from the atmosphere during growth. A dead tree is still made of organic molecules, which have carbon in them. So trees are not "Carbon Neutral", they're "Carbon Negative" until the wood is burned, or it decomposes enough to become crude oil and then, well...
- pupppet 11mo agoNext MAGA talking point- the trees are killing us!