How Many Acres of Hemp Would Stop Global Warming? – Thought Experiment
I got curious about carbon sequestration and did some math.
According to my sources, we have about 770,000,000,000 (770 billion) tons of excess carbon dioxide that we need to remove from our atmosphere.
One ton of carbon equals 3.67 tons of carbon dioxide (carbon dioxide has two oxygen molecules for every carbon).
So we need to remove 210,000,000,000 tons of carbon from the air.
One tree removes 13 pounds of carbon per year. Let’s give it a ten-year lifespan for this purpose. One tree sequesters 130 pounds of carbon in a ten year time period.
A forest contains about 100 trees per acre.
So an acre of trees over a ten year period can sequester 13,000 pounds or 6.5 tons of carbon.
So we need about 32,300,000,000 (32.3 billion) acres of trees planted to capture the excess carbon within a decade.
And this assumes we don’t add any more C02 to the atmosphere. Plus we are losing 200,000 acres of rainforest every day (73,000,000 acres a year), so that too would have to stop.
What about hemp?
Glad you asked! An acre of hemp can absorb 4.2 tons of carbon per year per acre. That’s 42 tons in a decade. But we can’t just chop down the hemp, let it decompose, and plant more. We need to do something with the hemp, or else much of that carbon goes back into the air. That’s where hempcrete (we need this bad, look it up!) and a variety of textiles and other uses come in! We can make much better concrete out of hemp and concrete is a massive source of C02 output (Cement is the source of about 8% of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions).
So if we only planted hemp instead of the trees we need (obviously we should do both) we would need 5,000,000,000 (5 billion) acres of hemp. Let’s add another billion acres for fertilizer production and transportation and other production-C02 costs.
Wildfires, Air Pollution, and the Fire Retardant’s Toll On the Ecosystem
The wildfires in California have dominated the headlines lately. The devastation has been serious, but it’s easy to forget about the what this means for the health of those both caught in the fires and trying to live their lives normally in spite of the high levels of air pollution they’re currently dealing with. Those in California are being exposed to hazardous air conditions, and air pollution can cause serious health issues. Additionally, a new study from the University of Texas has found that poor air quality has reduced global life expectancy by 2 years. The severity of these wildfires is another sign of how close we are to this kind of climate event becoming our new normal, leaving us fighting environmental and medical battles on multiple fronts.
Quality of Life
Life won’t return to normal for CA residents for a while. During the peak of the smoke and air pollution from the fires, the air quality index (AQI) in areas of CA was registering as high as a 313. For some context, good quality registers from 0 to 50. Numbers are down from their peak, but parts of Northern CA are still dealing with air unhealthy for sensitive groups. Vulnerable populations include children, the elderly, those with heart or lung conditions, and pregnant women.
Air pollution can have a serious impact on health. A recent study from the University of Texas examined air pollution data from the Global Burden of Disease Study in an effort to understand the consequences of atmospheric particulates. Joshua Apte is an assistant professor in the Cockrell School’s Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering and in the Dell Medical School’s Department of Population Health.
The fact that fine particle air pollution is a major global killer is already well known…And we all care about how long we live. Here, we were able to systematically identify how air pollution also substantially shortens lives around the world. What we found is that air pollution has a very large effect on survival – on average about a year globally.”
The Great Outdoors
2018 is the most destructive wildfire season recorded in California, with over 1.6 million acres burned and 2.9 million dollars in damage costs. The previous holder of that title was 2017, and that isn’t a new trend. All of the conditions needed for an intense fire season are there: dry conditions due to little rain, the hottest summer on record, warm winds that regularly exceed 50 miles an hour, and plenty of fuel for the fire to consume. Those conditions are also creating an increasingly longer wildfire season. According to Scott McLean, deputy chief of communications for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, that trend will likely continue.
It’s progressively been getting longer. We don’t even call it a season anymore, to be frank with you. We’re seeing wildfires every week of each year right now…We’ve basically taken the season aspect out of the equation.”
The Red Stuff
There are also environmental concerns with the way we fight forest fires, namely Phos-chek, the weapon of choice for modern firefighters. Previously owned by Monsanto (the product is now produced by Israel Chemicals Ltd.), Phos-chek is frequently seen streaming out of planes like a crimson waterfall. Although the formula is kept secret, the fire retardant is composed primarily of fertilizers like ammonium phosphate combined with clay or guar thickeners designed to keep the solution from dispersing in the air. Phos-chek use in the state of CA has multiplied rapidly over the last few years, going from 9 million gallons sprayed in 2014 to 19 million gallons used in 2016. That trend promises to continue, as more than a million gallons of the chemical were used on the Mendocino Complex fire this year.
There wasn’t a serious look at the environmental impact of Phos-chek until a Montana judge ordered a thorough examination of the product in 2014. Previous attempts by the U.S. Forest Service to determine the environmental impact of the fire retardant have proclaimed it safe, despite marine plant and animal deaths recorded after the use of the chemical. In 2002, fire retardant chemicals dropped in the Fall River in Oregon killed 22,000 fish in one day. Now, reports maintain that Phos-chek does no harm if it’s used correctly and well away from bodies of water, which are highly susceptible to phosphate pollution.
The Feedback Loop
Proponents of Phos-chek and other phosphate-based fire retardants mention that the chemicals perform a service beyond fire containment – fertilization. But how does that actually work? Phosphorus is an essential nutrient for plant growth, but too much of it is detrimental to plant health. Excess phosphorus, which remains in the soil for 3 to 5 years, causes plants to develop yellowing leaves due to an inability to properly absorb nutrients like iron, manganese, and zinc. It also harms root funghi, interfering with a plant’s ability to absorb water.
Firefighting organizations are dumping 19 million pounds of this phosphate-based fertilizers a year, and that’s also harming native plants. According to Andy Stahl, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics,
Phosphate fertilizer, e.g., Phos-Chek, can have adverse effects on plants adapted to nutritionally poor soil by increasing competition from invasive species better suited to growing in the newly-fertilized soil. For this reason, the U.S. Forest Service bars aerial fire retardant from being used in critical habitat of many threatened or endangered plants.”
In many ways, we keep telling the same story. We eliminate the natural systems that keep our bodies and environment healthy. We look for the most likely cause and often accept the first plausible explanation. It’s not that simple and the longer we think it is, the likelihood of actually addressing climate change drastically decreases.
Trump Administration Report Accepts Climate Change but Says It’s Too Late To Do Anything About It
With the media frenzy of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, you wouldn’t be blamed for missing some pretty big news regarding the state of our environment. A 500-page environmental impact report states the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century. The statement by for Trump Administration was issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. It was written to justify Trump’s decision to end current federal fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks. The report says that man-made climate change is inevitable at this point, with temperatures set to rise by seven degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. The report states that the emissions policy would be inconsequential.
In other words, they’ve been telling us that climate change is a hoax while they position themselves to profit from it, and now they say it’s inevitable so there’s no use trying to change things.
Michael MacCracken served as a senior scientist for the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002. Washington Post quotes him as saying,
The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it.”
A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit will be ruinous for our way of life. Oceans will acidify, cities will be underwater, there will be mass extensions the likes of which we have never seen, and we will be dealing with record-breaking storms, droughts, and famines all over the world.
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” – Donald Trump
Climate Change, Droughts, and the Future: How Plants Can Help Us Find an Alternative Scenario
The last four decades have provided insurmountable evidence that the planet is experiencing rising temperatures, a situation that is perhaps irrevocable. The traditional view holds that this will lead to a unilateral move towards northern climes from both animal and plant species, the death of a wide variety of species across the globe, and an inability for humanity to feed itself.
Scaremongering or an inconvenient truth? Unfortunately, the latter seems more likely, although scientists have recently uncovered promising avenues that may avert disaster. The core of the issue is drought-tolerance and climatic resilience. In order to ensure an extension of our lease on this planet, we need to lower emissions both as individuals and through government policy, but we also must make significant inroads into concrete solutions for an ever-changing atmosphere.
Plants, Climate, and Thirst
How do plants respond to the changes we’re experiencing in the earth’s atmosphere? The short answer is: we don’t know. At least not exactly. A study by the University of Washington shows that it’s incredibly difficult to predict exactly how species will react to a changing environment, with up to 60% of plant species showing a preference for warmer climes. There are far too many variables at play for accurate predictions.
What scientists are able to do is consider the response of specific traits to experimental stimulations. These test how species react to water loss and carbon differentials. Under water-limiting conditions, the trade-off is particularly obvious and presents the basic problem plants face: during drought, do you continue photosynthesis or close off the stomata (and risk starvation)?
The choice rests on essentially two traits: the plant’s so-called ‘internal plumbing’ and its ‘breathing apparatus.’ The Fynbos of South Africa offers some insight, with plants that close their stomata more likely to survive increased temperatures. Another study led by Christine Scoffoni suggests that the salt levels of cell sap can provide insight into which plants are more likely to survive. With these results in tow, we can make educated guesses on which plants to invest in going forward.
It’s Not All Good News (Spoiler: But There is a Silver Lining!)
Bearing the aforementioned in mind, consider the potential future of corn (the major crop of many countries, including the United States). When temperatures reach higher than 95 degrees, corn does not reproduce. Considering the bleak projections for greenhouse gas emissions by 2040, it’s a very real possibility that corn-based products will be a luxury of a distant past.
Speaking at Ted Global, Jill Farrant provides a promising answer by suggesting the use of ‘resurrection’ plants as drought-tolerant crops. These plants can survive droughts by lying dormant, resurrecting when given water. They can tough it out with just 5% of their cellular water for years. Using these plants as models for drought-tolerant crops it is possible to create resilience against persistent droughts (which, let’s face it, are going to happen).
What are the Options for Individual Households?
Ensuring our planet continues to be a hospitable environment for humanity, we need both the government and individuals to make drastic changes to the status quo. While this can be a little daunting to the average homeowner, there’s still plenty that can be done in terms of plant choices and gardening practices.
Households should try and steer clear of the obvious; think luscious green landscaped grass in the middle of a desert, for example (yes, we’re talking to you, Los Angeles) Instead, invest in aesthetically pleasing plants that won’t hurt the environment.
For example, the succulent is an excellent alternative to plants that require a lot of water. These resilient plants can survive with very little water (just monthly during winter!); if anything, overwatering is the more likely problem. A cultural shift towards a preference for this type of plant, one that requires very little care, would go a long way in reducing carbon emissions and water shortages.
In addition, individuals should consider growing their own produce on a small scale, using natural fertilizers (think compost heaps over nasty commercial varieties) to create sustainable produce. With the potential to cut down supermarket consumption by a very respectable 20%, doing this is more than a token gesture.
What Does the Future Look Like?
The findings that certain plant species are moving towards warmer climates is evidence that, when it comes to climate change, there are multiple variables other than just temperature. While the planet is undeniably getting warmer, there’s potential for us (and other living species) to adapt to more challenging environments. Plants that can survive the challenging conditions we are throwing at them can offer a solution. Of course, reducing emissions is still a key part of the necessary strategy. All is not lost… yet.
Travel is Worse for the Environment Than We Thought
Thanks to climate change, the world is looking at previously accepted practices with a greater focus on sustainability and a new study finds one area that’s a bigger problem than we thought – travel. Global tourism in the year 2013 was responsible for 4.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or 8% of the year’s total emission. Previous studies have focused on the fuel costs associated with air travel, but newly published research in Nature Climate Change examined the impact that tourism-driven food, shipping, and hotels have as well. Unsurprisingly, the majority of the traffic comes from travelers to and from high-income countries. If travel trends continue, global emissions from tourism will amount to 6.5 billion metric tons by the year 2025. Climate-conscious travel might be harder to achieve than imagined.
Running on Fumes
Planes are a major source of air pollution, which is the cause of an estimated 5.5 million deaths a year). While 92 percent of those deaths occur in lower or middle-incomes, plane exhaust and emissions are still causing significant casualties. Earlier in the decade, researchers found that those emissions kill more people than actual plane crashes, with annual deaths recorded at 10,000 and 1,000 respectively.
Smaller trips are worse for the environment, as airplane pollution is highest at takeoff and landing. For the traveler who wants to save time, airplanes are the best option. But the question of how sustainable it is will increasingly take the forefront in discussions of tourism and travel options. How much more serious would the climate change discussion be if Americans made chose airplanes instead of cars for the majority of trips from 500 to 1000 miles?
Where Travel is Going
People are still trying to define ethical and environmentally-friendly travel. But that has butted against climate change tourism, otherwise known as visiting places where climate has or will change the landscape fundamentally. It’s easy to take advantage of the current fear of missing out (FOMO) by promising trips to locales that will no longer exist in the future like Greenland, Venice, the Great Barrier Reef, and the Amazon rainforest.
The irony of climate change tourism is deeply upsetting from an environmental point of view. By seeing these wonders up close, we hasten their demise. But seeing them up close forges a connection, often times inspiring the traveler to do something about or inspiring deeper thought into the issues of climate change. Travel also brings knowledge and diversity, our best chances of future success. So is it worth it? And what will VR bring to the table?
Scientists Predict Mercury in the Arctic Permafrost Will Be Released by Climate Change
Much has been made of the diseases that will be released once the world’s ice has melted, but scientists have now raised a new concern: mercury. Published in Geophysical Research Letters, scientists found that mercury levels in permafrost soil are twice that of all other soils. An Arctic Council report predicts that 20 percent of the surface permafrost will melt by 2040, and large amounts of mercury will be released. The permafrost studied was taken from Alaska, and study co-author and scientist with the National Snow and Ice Data Center Kevin Schaefer says,
As permafrost thaws in the future, some portion of this mercury will get released into the environment, with unknown impact to people and our food supplies…”
Mercury Buildup
This mercury is built up from before the last ice age, which will likely have effects we might not have thought of. Mercury exposure and poisoning can lead to mood swings, insomnia, headaches, pain, and tremors, while chronic mercury exposure can lead to the development of serious neurological issues. The neurotoxin has been phased out of objects like thermometers, light bulbs, dental amalgams, and most vaccines, but people are most commonly exposed to mercury through seafood.
The timeline for climate change leaves little wiggle room. Yet things like the release of the mercury in the permafrost aren’t necessarily being considered. This study estimates that this is the largest deposit of mercury in the world. Who knows where that will end up?
Your Grass-Fed Beef is About to Get More Expensive
More people want to consume meat in a more humane or ethical way, and grass-fed beef has been a large part of that equation. The grass-fed beef market is on the verge of a crisis though, as the levels of protein in the grass for grazing have decreased by 20 percent over the last twenty-five years. Jonah Ventures of Boulder, CO analyzed 50,000 cow pies from Texas and found that the nutritional content of the grass is down, leading to smaller cattle. According to Joe Craine, the co-owner and a researcher at Jonah Ventures, “If we were still back at the forage quality that we would’ve had 25 years ago, no less 100 years ago, our animals would be gaining a lot more weight…”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmKhFDYLDWw
Two Likely Reasons
Researchers haven’t pinpointed the exact reason for the declining nutritional content of grass, but there are two likely suspects. Grass-fed, grain-finished cattle are moved from the prairie to a feedlot for the last 90 to 160 days of their lives. This move takes away cow pies, the best means of returning valuable nutrients back to the soil.
Another reason for the decline of nutritious? The increasing amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is causing plants to grow larger, more quickly with the same nutrient content. According to Irakli Loladze, a mathematician studying the effect of CO2 on pants for 15 years, “Every leaf and every grass blade on earth makes more and more sugars as CO2 levels keep rising…We are witnessing the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history―[an] injection that dilutes other nutrients in our food supply.”
It All Begins With Food
There aren’t many people talking about what happens when our food is no longer able to sustain us. As many beef farmers are now finding out, that time is fast approaching. It doesn’t really matter why the grass is no longer as nutritious. The most important thing here is that it’s happening to the cows, and it will happen to us.
