Burning coal worse for climate than clearing rain forests

Deforestation has had a big influence on the increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the past three centuries, but its impact is tapering off relatively. Nowadays, the burning of fossil fuels is a more crucial factor. This is the contention of Dutchh professor Rik Leemans of the Environmental Systems Analysis Group.

Together with colleagues from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), he has calculated the effect of land use on the global carbon cycle. The results are published in the latest issue of Climatic Change.

The authors first succeeded in reproducing a closed carbon cycle with small margins for uncertainty in the period between 1700 and 2000. They then calculated how much carbon is released into the atmosphere due to the use of fossil fuels and changes in land use and how much of this CO2 is absorbed by forests and oceans. Any surplus would result in a higher CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

The research model developed by Leemans and PBL, IMAGE (Integrated model to assess the global environment), is at the root of the results. 'Since we know how much CO2 the oceans absorb globally and how high the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is, we could calculate fairly accurately the effects of deforestation and fossil fuels', says Leemans. 'The impact of deforestation has been over-estimated in earlier research.' This is because temperate forests now absorb more CO2 than a century ago, as a result of reforestation in Europe and the United States of America. In the 18th and the 19th centuries, these areas were still responsible for big increases of CO2 due to the clearing of temperate forests.

Tropical regions were CO2 neutral until 1950; since then, large scale deforestation has caused more CO2 to be released than absorbed. In these regions, changing land use is a more crucial factor for the increase of the than the use of fossil fuels. In the USA and Europe, the exact reverse is true.

'At this moment, changes in land use - mostly deforestation - account for fifteen percent of the total carbon emissions. And such contributions are becoming less relatively, says Leemans. Emissions caused by fossil energy were almost non-existent at the beginning of the 20th century, but rose enormously afterwards. This happened especially in western countries, but recently also in India, Brazil, China and the Middle East. 'The International Energy Agency expects a shortage of fossil fuels in ten years' time. The use of coal is currently growing at the fastest rate', adds Leemans.

He hopes that his findings will be taken into account in climate negotiations. 'We can still point a finger at in countries such as Brazil and Indonesia, but the use of is currently a more crucial factor in the global CO2 increase.

Provided by Wageningen University


Explore further

CO2 emissions continue significant climb

Citation: Burning coal worse for climate than clearing rain forests (2009, November 26) retrieved 16 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2009-11-coal-worse-climate-forests.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 27, 2009
Another piece of fiction! See article in Der Spiegel 19 November 2009 which points to global temperature decline for the past decade.

'Peer reviewed' y Marvell Comix!

Nov 29, 2009
Deforestation in Brazil not only releases CO2 directly by burning, but prevents the now absent forest from absorbing C02. Worse, most of the land is being cleared to raise cattle, whose methane production quadruples the problem.
I find the article to be misleading, as there is no mention of the relative sizes of the areas being deforested. Acre for acre, the Brazilian rainforest is disappearing at a far more rapid rate than temperate forests in the US and Europe are being regenerated. The cooler temperatures and deciduous nature of the temperate forests prevent them from accumulating CO2 at anywhere near the same rates as equatorial forests.

Nov 30, 2009
Is this another study that is based on Climategate data?

Nov 30, 2009
Climatology is not science proper, it is reverse engineering of chaos.

And no, that's not to say that Co2 absorption of heat radiation is not fundamental science, it is.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more