Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Water

Could Protecting Levees Be a Key in Halting Global Warming?

By Joan Melcher, Miller-McCune.com. Posted January 6, 2009.


Restoring freshwater wetlands not only may help save levees, protect farmland and save freshwater supplies but also address climate change.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This article originally appeared on Miller-McCune.com.

It's obvious that carbon is stored in wetlands. But could it be stored at a rate that would merit their inclusion in carbon cap-and-trade programs?

That question has been asked since researchers looking at the safety of levees uncovered a promising way to capture atmospheric carbon. The preliminary answer is a definite ... maybe.

Well before Katrina, scientists studying central California's Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta speculated that restoring wetlands on abandoned farmland would mitigate the hydraulic force on miles of delta levees, which in some places hold back 20 feet of water. Then, Katrina's devastation of New Orleans drew national attention to concerns about the delta's aging levees and the potential for another catastrophic failure.

Exacerbating the problem was the likelihood of certain disasters (such as California's looming "Big One") allowing saltwater intrusion from San Francisco Bay, a threat to millions of acres of farmland in the state's Central Valley as well as freshwater supplies for some 25 million Californians.

As U.S. Geological Survey scientists studied the subsidence of land drained for agricultural uses in the delta, they began to notice surprisingly high rates of carbon captured -- or accreted -- in their study plots.

Could restoring these freshwater wetlands not only help save the levees, protect farmland and save freshwater supplies but also address global climate change? That was something USGS scientist Robin Miller said people inside and outside her 10-year-old project on Twitchell Island have started asking.

Let's Find Out

The USGS recently launched a three-year, $12.3 million project that will attempt to answer the question. Scientists from the USGS California Water Science Center and the University of California, Davis have joined Miller at Twitchell Island. If they find that "carbon capture" farming in the delta is a viable idea, farmers could be paid for restoring wetlands while helping save the planet.

Specifically, Miller's research has shown that as tule (a species of sedge grass also known as bulrush) and cattails grow in these soggy study plots, the land surface rises an average of 4 to 6 centimeters a year -- from decomposing plants that form a peat soil -- with some areas rising about 0.63 meter, or two feet, over 10 years. Typical rates documented in scientific literature are a centimeter or less a year, she said.

That decomposed matter contains lots of stored carbon. The project has shown an average of 1,000 grams of carbon per square meter per year has been captured over the past five years. That dwarfs the rate of carbon sequestration achieved in reforested agricultural land, which is typically less than 100 grams of carbon per square meter per year, according to a study by Gail Chmura, associate professor of geography at McGill University and director of the Global Environmental and Climate Change Center of Quebec.

The idea of looking at wetlands as carbon sinks is relatively new, and little scientific quantification has been made of wetlands' potential to offset global warming, Chmura said.

Scientists working with Miller put some numbers to what carbon-capture farming could do for California's efforts to offset greenhouse gas emissions. They claim restoring an area the size of subsided lands in the delta could see greenhouse gas reduction equal to turning all the SUVs in California into small hybrids or turning off all residential air conditioners in the state. They're looking to find a place for carbon farming in California's carbon-trading market, which state law requires be online by 2011.

But There's a Catch

Wait a minute, say other scientists, who note methane is typically released from freshwater wetlands, and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. To put it in perspective, one molecule of methane is equal to 70 molecules of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, Chmura said.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: water, global warming, climate change, levees, wetlands

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Such a carbon sequestration scheme too little too late
Posted by: dobermanmacleod on Jan 6, 2009 11:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Processes that would normally regulate climate are being driven to amplify warming. Such feedbacks, as well as the inertia of the Earth system — and that of our response — make it doubtful that any of the well-intentioned technical or social schemes for carbon dieting will (work). What is needed is a fundamental cure." --Dr James Lovelock

Here is what Climate Code Red says:

--Human emissions have so far produced a global average temperature increase of 0.8 degree C.

--There is another 0.6 degree C. to come due to "thermal inertia", or lags in the system, taking the total long-term global warming induced by human emissions so far to 1.4 degree C.

--If human total emissions continue as they are to 2030 (and don't increase 60% as projected) this would likely add more than 0.4 degrees C. to the system in the next two decades, taking the long-term effect by 2030 to at least 1.7 degrees C. (A 0.3 degree C. increase is predicted for the period 2004-2014 alone by Smith, Cusack et al, 2007).

--Then add the 0.3 degree C. albedo flip effect from the now imminent loss of the Arctic sea ice, and the rise in the system by 2030 is at least 2 degree. C, assuming very optimistically that emissions don't increase at all above their present annual rate! When we consider the potential permafrost releases and the effect of carbon sinks losing capacity, we are on the road to a hellish future, not for what we will do, but WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

"We underestimated the risks ... we underestimated the damage associated with temperature increases ... and we underestimated the probabilities of temperature increases." -- Sir Nicholas Stern, author of "The Stern Report," April 17, 2008

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Absurd
Posted by: FreeAmerica on Jan 9, 2009 10:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Methane is a deal killer for wetlands as carbon sinks. Certainly much carbon is sequestered as soil and even an oil, but much is dispersed via methane.

In fact, if methane were really an issue, we would be digging up swamps to make them lakes, not building more swamps. The whole idea is absurd, and a huge waste of money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]