Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Australia Earth

Australia's Bushfires Have Emitted 250m Tonnes of CO2, Almost Half of Country's Annual Emissions (theguardian.com) 91

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Bushfires in New South Wales and Queensland have emitted a massive pulse of CO2 into the atmosphere since August that is equivalent to almost half of Australia's annual greenhouse gas emissions, Guardian Australia can reveal. From a report: Analysis by Nasa shows the NSW fires have emitted about 195m tonnes of CO2 since 1 August, with Queensland's fires adding a further 55m tonnes over the same period. In 2018, Australia's entire greenhouse gas footprint was 532m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. Experts say the pulse of CO2 from this season's bushfires is significant, because even under normal conditions it could take decades for forest regrowth to reabsorb the emissions. But scientists have expressed doubt that forests already under drought stress would be able to reabsorb all the emissions back into soils and branches, and said the natural carbon "sinks" of forests could be compromised.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia's Bushfires Have Emitted 250m Tonnes of CO2, Almost Half of Country's Annual Emissions More

Australia's Bushfires Have Emitted 250m Tonnes of CO2, Almost Half of Country's Annual Emissions

Comments Filter:
  • I'll jut assume you know the drill.
  • Mother Nature is really the biggest emitter of CO2.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by hey! ( 33014 )

      Most natural CO2 emissions are part of an equilibrium -- they're balanced by corresponding CO2 absorption. For example the largest source of CO2 emission on the planet is the oceans, which are also the largest *sink* of CO2. Oceans are actually CO2 negative, although this has marine ecology consequences.

      If you eliminate this kind of thing, then the biggest source of CO2 emissions is burning fossil fuels. Major volcanic eruptions are huge CO2 events, but humans emit on average roughly 100x the CO2 that volc

      • As a previous poster pointed out, eruptions usually have a cooling effect. Particulates filter more than CO2 blankets.

    • Mother Nature is really the biggest emitter of CO2.

      Yes, and no. For the most part, natural CO2 emissions and absorptions balance. You can actually see this in the carbon dioxide record; a decrease in carbon dioxide in northern-hemisphere summer, and peak in northern hemisphere winter: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/... [noaa.gov]

  • Now that a lot of forest has burnt away, now will be a period of regrowth, and it will suck a lot of CO2 in a rather short period of time. I don't know how much or how fast, but I think that the actual contribution, after a period of time, will not be as bad as these measurements suggest.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If you'd bothered to read to the end of the summary before posting, you'd have noticed this was addressed.

      even under normal conditions it could take decades for forest regrowth to reabsorb the emissions. But scientists have expressed doubt that forests already under drought stress would be able to reabsorb all the emissions back into soils and branches, and said the natural carbon "sinks" of forests could be compromised.

    • Sure, it will grow back to what it was and the carbon will go back where it was. That is, assuming the climate is stable...
    • Yeah. I was going to say the same thing about regrowth and how after all the fuel is burnt, Austrailia should be set for for a prosperous 21st century.

    • Regrowth requires water. Australia is currently in the midst of a record drought [farmonline.com.au]. You can see how much vegetation that Australia has lost recently here [theland.com.au].

      I heard it said: "This is how deserts form". I don't doubt it. Much of this vegetation will probably never ever grow back.

      If you want to see the most sobering thing you'll see all week, check out the Rural Fire Service website [nsw.gov.au] that tracks the bushfires.

  • Ironically, carbon neutral. (Score:3)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Friday December 13, 2019 @10:39AM (#59515784)

    Why? Because the plants also took in the same amount of carbon to grow from the air.

    Fossil fuel burning is different. Those carbons were largely gone from the carbon cycle and on their way to being subducted into the earth over geologic time.

    This is a fine path if you want to go back to megafauna dominance over millions of years by creating a giant empty niche for them... not so great if you care about the diversity and stability of existing life populations though.

    Ryan Fenton

    • Because the plants also took in the same amount of carbon to grow from the air.

      Fossil fuel burning is different. Those carbons were largely gone from the carbon cycle and on their way to being subducted into the earth over geologic time.

      Put those two together and you realize that the way to reverse the CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels is to chop down trees and bury them underground (and plant new trees to replace them). The easiest way to do this is to stop recycling paper, and stop composting u

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jbengt ( 874751 )

        . . . paper and landscaping waste should be thrown in the trash, where it will be buried underground in a landfill where very little biodegredation goes on.

        Most landfills emit methane produced by decomposition of garbage, including the non-recycled buried paper and yard waste you think will become sequestered carbon. Methane is a stronger greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but If we're lucky, the landfill burns off the methane, which makes carbon dioxide, the standard greenhouse gas you were trying to a

        • The amount of methane generated is tiny compared to the amount of carbon sequestered. We've dug core samples into landfills over a century old, and found newspaper clippings still legible, indicating there's very little decomposition going on so the vast majority of carbon remains sequestered. If you want to stop decomposition entirely (thus guaranteeing 100% sequestration), all you need to do is tweak the pH to make the landfill interior slightly acidic and cut off oxygen. That would mimic the condition

      • False. You're focusing on a very small part of the production system. You should see the CO2 emissions from actually having to farm and harvest trees from paper. You're just comparing a recycling centre to a fresh pulp mill, and that is massively skewing your understanding of how to solve the carbon problem... so much so that your idea would make it much worse.

  • How much libraries of congress is that?

  • That CO2 doesn't matter. It was already a part of the carbon cycle.

    This is fundamentally different than fossil fuels that have been removed from the carbon cycle for millions of years.

    • That CO2 doesn't matter. It was already a part of the carbon cycle.

      All carbon can be said to be part of the carbon cycle, some of it simply on a longer period than other parts. But that's really an irrelevant argument. By the same token, you can't reasonably say the CO2 doesn't matter if it's being released more rapidly than it's being fixed, which is in fact the case.

  • CO2 is till only a trace gas at 0.04% and plants are still CO2 limited. To Canadians and Russians, global warming is a good thing. It would be a good thing to Antarticans too if there were any.

    • and the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth is water vapor, which is extremely difficult to model.

      • Bad for America, but good for Russia and Canada (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Friday December 13, 2019 @11:12AM (#59515908) Homepage

        CO2 is till only a trace gas at 0.04% and plants are still CO2 limited.

        There are some places on the Earth where plant growth is CO2 limited, but for most of the planet, no, CO2 is not the limiting factor. Of the six critical factors to optimize plant growth (temperature, humidity, carbon dioxide, water, nutrients, and light), getting enough carbon dioxide is very rarely the limiting factor.

        and the dominant greenhouse gas on Earth is water vapor, which is extremely difficult to model.

        The thing about water vapor is that is enters and leaves the atmosphere. In the long term, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is a function of the temperature. So it's not an input factor-- it is a feedback factor.

        To Canadians and Russians, global warming is a good thing.

        Yeah, probably true. Bad for the continental United States (US climate is currently pretty good for farming), but good for Canada and Russia.
        https://www.economist.com/euro... [economist.com]

        Oddly, Canada and Russia are the two nations ramping up greenhouse gas production. Coincidence?

        • In this scenario (climate change wrecking american farming, and bolstering canadian) -- Canada would become the 51st state within a matter of weeks.

          But, more seriously -- even if those northern latitudes were to be warmed; the light they do get is much weaker than it is farther south, and also the soil is probably no where near as fertile.

          Also bear in mind cotton and corn are grown in Phoenix AZ. It's probably still more economically viable to step up irrigation (from the great lakes for example) in a hot

          • I'm a little confused why we don't just take over North America at this point.

            It'll solve the southern immigration issue, who cares what the candadians say, and obviously we'll still be bigots to *south* americans, and cubans.

            Army can go in and destroy the cartels, we'll finally use our military budget for good.

            I won't be worried about American farming until our farming pushes up against our northern border much more than it has. Also - I thought meta-patterns were supposed to push more cold air down into

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by wontie ( 2368458 )

      CO2 is till only a trace gas at 0.04% and plants are still CO2 limited. No, I'm Sorry. In reality they are more Nitrogen limited, and combined with drought en heat, plantlife really doesn't get to enjoy those extra portions of CO2. For example: https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com] To Canadians and Russians, global warming is a good thing. It would be a good thing to Antarticans too if there were any.

      Canadians and some Russians might enjoy a little warming, but when the permafrost melts, not all Russians will be happy. (Not even talking about the methane stores below that permafrost)

  • They grow back and burn, don't contribute much to the CO2 in the atmosphere.

  • Sadly coastal homes aren't getting any cheaper

  • Quarter Tonne (Score:3)

    by evanh ( 627108 ) on Friday December 13, 2019 @11:19AM (#59515930)

    Come on Slashdotter's! No one making geek jokes about Milli vs Mega?

  • This is why planting trees is NOT a solution, and it should not count towards emissions reductions. Plants and trees store carbon TEMPORARILY in their stems and leaves. When the leaves fall, or the plant/tree dies, the carbon is liberated once again into the atmosphere through burning or decomposition. Welcome to the carbon cycle, people!

    • It's sort of a piece of a solution, but planting a tree is basically rolling dice for a chance at some carbon sequestration. That's how the fossil fuels got there in the first place after all. But trees are also too slow and land-inefficient to rely on for AGW-counteracting sequestration, so most of it will have to be done artificially.

  • They must be over-reporting that campfire in someone's backyard. xD
    Please, editors, you should know the difference between the lower-case 'm' and the uppercase 'M', mmkay?
  • So, half of Australia output is NOT caused by humans directly. I wonder if this increased tendency to burn (+ add to the Carbon - + make the planet incrementally hotter) in the hotter / dryer world has been factored into the Paris Accords in our carbon goals?

    Obviously, the solution is to get rid of anything that burns. Burning it would be the quickest way of getting rid of it.

    • You joke but running those trees through a BECCS power plant before they can all go up in a forest fire would be an excellent idea.

  • Nature needs to get on the ball with cap and trade...

  • Australian forests need fire to grow correctly. The carbon emitted in fires will be absorbed by new growth, and arguably, the resulting healthier forests will provide a better carbon sink than the forest which burned.

    • You couldn't be bothered to read to the bottom of the summary?

      But scientists have expressed doubt that forests already under drought stress would be able to reabsorb all the emissions back into soils and branches, and said the natural carbon "sinks" of forests could be compromised.

      It won't be a healthier forest if it doesn't even grow back to the state it was already in before.

  • Good news indeed!

    With a bit of luck there won't be terrible fires next year. So that next year the government can claim a huge reduction in green house gas emissions compared to this year.

    No need to actually do anything, just fiddle the books.

    (That is about what we are proposing for Paris. We happened to chop down a lot of trees during they Kyoto baseline year, so now we claim that by not doing so we have reduced emissions.)

  • By the logic of using "green" bio-ethanol in your gas, or bio-diesel, that must be GREEN CO2, so nothing to worry about.

Slashdot Top Deals

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!

Close