Read the instructor’s introduction<\/a> Imagine this scenario: a \u201ctropical storm\u2026[dumps] more than 20 inches of rain on Florida\u201d (McKibben). At the same time, \u201cthe largest fire in New Mexico history [burns] on, and the most destructive fire in Colorado\u2019s annals [claims] 346 homes in Colorado Springs\u201d (McKibben). Shortly after, \u201ca heat wave across the Plains and Midwest [breaks] records that had stood since the Dust Bowl\u201d (McKibben). No, this scene is not from another post-apocalyptic movie\u2014it is from Bill McKibben\u2019s article \u201cGlobal Warming\u2019s Terrifying New Math\u201d and is a description of true events in present-day North America.<\/p>\n With these effects of climate change becoming more apparent every day, researchers, scientists, and climatologists alike are studying new methods to mitigate global warming before it destroys the planet. A handful of scientists\u2014such as Shaun C. Cunningham from Deakin University in Victoria, Australia\u2014believe that humanity already has the methods it needs to stop this imminent threat, through either reforestation efforts or sustainable investments. However, studies show that reforestation attempts on their own do not sequester enough carbon and do not last long enough to halt and reverse the effects of climate change. Similarly, in existing research, sustainable investments do not work fast enough or produce enough energy to reverse global warming. In addition, there are currently not enough resources to successfully execute policies to directly reduce man-made carbon emissions. However, instead of attempting to mitigate climate change through reforestation or sustainability separately, scientists should utilize the effects of a combination of reforestation efforts and sustainable investments in order to save the planet from further temperature increase, and furthermore, humankind. Individually, these reforestation and sustainability efforts are not strong enough to reverse climate change; however, when utilized together, these attempts may yield promising results.<\/p>\n Researchers believe that reforestation efforts could potentially mitigate the effects of climate change through carbon sequestration. In his 2014 study \u201cReforestation with Native Mixed-Species Plantings in a Temperate Continental Climate Effectively Sequesters and Stabilizes Carbon within Decades,\u201d Shaun C. Cunningham researched the ability of native mixed-species plantings to reverse biodiversity loss and sequester carbon in Victoria, Australia. Cunningham found that in a \u201cmedium rainfall area, native mixed-species plantings provide comparable rates of [carbon] sequestration to local production species, with the\u2026additional benefit of providing better quality habitat for native biota\u201d (Cunningham). Cunningham\u2019s results highlight how \u201cusing native-mixed species plantings is an effective alternative for carbon sequestration to standard monocultures of production species, [as]\u2026they can effectively store carbon, convert carbon into stable pools, and provide greater benefits for biodiversity\u201d (Cunningham). Through his study, Cunningham seems to find an effective route in creating a successful reforestation method while also sequestering carbon and providing habitat for native fauna\u00ad\u00ad. Thus, reforestation sites that model Cunningham\u2019s mixed-species sites should be able to sequester carbon from the atmosphere, effectively combating climate change.<\/p>\n However, these Australian reforestation sites are not lasting as long as researchers expect\u2014in fact, they are shrinking relatively quickly. In his 2016 study \u201cModels of Reforestation Productivity and Carbon Sequestration for Land Use and Climate Change Adaptation Planning in South Australia,\u201d Trevor J. Hobbs researched the productivity and carbon sequestration abilities of 264 reforestation sites in South Australia, similar to the location of Cunningham\u2019s study. Hobbs discovered an added layer within Cunningham\u2019s study: the ability of these mixed-species reforestation sites to mitigate climate change depends directly on the amount of rainfall in the area. For example, in a mixed-stratum (50% trees) area where annual rainfall is greater than 750 mm, there was a mean total carbon sequestration rate of around 43.79 (CO2<\/sub>-e\u00a0Mg\u00a0ha\u22121<\/sup>\u00a0year\u22121<\/sup>) over 65 years (Hobbs). Alternatively, in a mixed-stratum area where the rainfall zone is only 251-350 mm per year, there was only about a mean total carbon sequestration rate of around 2.82 (CO2<\/sub>-e\u00a0Mg\u00a0ha\u22121<\/sup>\u00a0year\u22121<\/sup>) over the 65-year span (Hobbs). In addition to this added layer, however, Hobbs discovered that the amount of plants in each reforestation area decreased over time, despite their ability to sequester carbon in high rainfall zones. In the same mixed-stratum area with a mean annual rainfall of 750 mm per year, the initial mean plant density was 2233 (plants\u00a0ha\u22121<\/sup>), but after 25 years, this density dropped to 1281 (plants\u00a0ha\u22121<\/sup>)\u2014almost half the original amount (Hobbs). Therefore, although Cunningham\u2019s mixed-species reforestation areas hold promise in sequestering carbon effectively, Hobbs\u2019 study shows that these areas consistently shrink in size over time. Reforestation attempts alone are thus ineffective in mitigating climate change in the long run, as these areas shrink relatively quickly, proving unable to sequester carbon for long periods of time.<\/p>\n Alternatively, some researchers believe that sustainable investments\u2014such as bioenergy plantations\u2014could sequester enough atmospheric carbon to reverse the effects of climate change. In Julia Rosen\u2019s article \u201cThe Carbon Harvest,\u201d climate change scientist Naomi Vaughan from the University of East Anglia argues in favor of these bioenergy plantations. Vaughan states that in order \u201cto limit warming, humanity\u2026needs negative emissions technologies (NETs) that\u2026would remove more CO2 <\/sub>from the atmosphere than humans emit\u201d (Rosen 734). These technologies, Vaughan states, \u201cwould [also] buy time for society to rein in carbon emissions\u201d (Rosen 734). Rosen highlights one specific negative emissions technology, where the idea \u201cis to cultivate fast-growing grasses and trees to suck CO2 <\/sub>out of the atmosphere and then burn them\u2026to generate energy\u201d (Rosen 734). However, instead of \u201cbeing released back into the atmosphere, the\u2026carbon would be captured and pumped underground\u201d (Rosen 734). This sustainable negative emissions technology holds promise\u2014if successful, these fast-growing plants could sequester enough carbon to reverse the effects of carbon emissions.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, however, this specific negative emissions technology would require an abundance of resources that humanity may be unable to offer. For example, in order to remove \u201chalf of [the carbon that] humans have emitted since the\u2026Industrial Revolution,\u201d the bioenergy crops would need an area \u201cat least as large as India and possibly as big as Australia\u201d (Rosen 735). Furthermore, \u201ccutting down trees to make [this] new farmland\u2026[would] release far more carbon into the atmosphere than bioenergy crops can sequester\u201d (Rosen 737). Additionally, in order to \u201csequester 3.7 billion tons of CO2<\/sub>,\u201d crops would \u201cuse almost as much water as is in Lake Michigan,\u201d and \u201cmany scenarios require that much carbon or more to be removed each year\u201d (Rosen 736). Water is already \u201ca scarce commodity in [places like] Montana, [where] irrigated crops are\u2026the biggest consumer of [water]\u201d (Rosen 736). Although these sustainable negative emissions technologies have potential, the sheer amount of resources required to execute these technologies makes them unrealistic, as creating these crops would release irreversible amounts of carbon in the atmosphere, and maintaining the crops would use up large amounts of fresh water. This type of sustainable investment alone is thus not an effective route in mitigating climate change, as humanity is unable to provide the resources to successfully grow these crops.<\/p>\n Another sustainability effort that could possibly combat climate change is more obscure: creating policies on livestock rearing. In his study \u201cClimate Change Mitigation Through Livestock System Transitions,<\/em>\u201d researcher Petr Havl\u00edk found that approximately \u201c30% of the global land area is used for livestock rearing, and expansion of the sector is a major driver of land-use change\u201d (Havl\u00edk). For example, \u201cbetween 1980 and 2000, 83% of agricultural land expansion in the tropics occurred at the expense of forests, and livestock were a major contributor\u201d (Havl\u00edk). However, not only do these livestock contribute significantly to deforestation, but they also contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. Havl\u00edk states that \u201clivestock contribute\u202680% of all agricultural non-CO2<\/sub> emissions, [making] them responsible for\u202612% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions\u201d (Havl\u00edk). With livestock contributing to both deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions, the solution seems simple: governments should create policies to curb the detrimental effects of livestock rearing. However, the livestock industry is essential to many governments, in addition to many peoples\u2019 diets, making any kind of policy difficult to execute. On the individual level, \u201clivestock are the source of 33% of the protein in human diets,\u201d meaning that many people would have to find alternate sources of protein in their daily life if governments were to create livestock policies (Havl\u00edk). Furthermore, livestock \u201cprovide many\u2026services such as traction, manure, risk management, and regular income\u201d (Havl\u00edk). Because of the essentiality of the livestock industry, any sort of policy change would require the global cooperation of individuals as well as governments\u2013\u2013a difficult task to achieve. Therefore, curbing livestock rearing is an unlikely solution to mitigating climate change, as these policies would require the cooperation of many on a global scale.<\/p>\n Alternatively, in order to combat climate change, some legislators have introduced policies to reduce man-made carbon emissions. For example, in the article \u201cThe 80% Solution: Radical Carbon Emissions Cuts for California,\u201d Jane Long states that \u201cin 2005, the governor of California issued an executive order requiring the state to reduce its CO2 emissions to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050\u201d (Long). This order consists of four steps, which include \u201c[decreasing] the demand for fuel, [increasing] the demand for electricity, [and using] low-carbon biofuels\u201d (Long). Long also discusses possible measures that could make technology much more efficient, such as \u201c[demolishing] or [retrofitting]\u2026current buildings to much higher efficiency standards, [creating] new buildings\u2026to much higher efficiency standards, [and developing] automobiles\u2026to average over 70 miles per gallon\u201d (Long). Through this government policy, legislators hope to reduce the amount of carbon emissions that humans produce. If these steps to reduce man-made atmospheric carbon are successful, legislative policies could possibly result in cleaner forms of fuel, thus mitigating the effects of climate change.<\/p>\n However, according to current expectations, there is neither enough time nor enough resources readily available to complete this California policy\u2019s emission reduction goal by 2050. Jane Long addresses this problem in her study, stating that California \u201cis expected to be able to produce or import enough biofuels to meet only about half of its requirement for fuel\u201d (Long). Unfortunately, if this expectation is accurate, \u201cthe remaining [fuel] demand would\u2026be met with fossil fuel, which would generate emissions that would total about twice the state target\u201d for 2050 (Long). Furthermore, this plan to reduce man-made carbon emissions would \u201crequire substantial infrastructure [that is] likely to be expensive,\u201d in addition to the development of \u201ca biofuel with no net emissions\u201d (Long). With neither enough biofuel to fulfill the state\u2019s fuel requirement nor a biofuel with zero net emissions, the chance that this California policy will mitigate climate change is unlikely. Additionally, without enough funding, updating current buildings and creating new buildings to be energy-efficient will be extremely difficult. Therefore, unless states can produce sufficient amounts of funds and clean fuel, policies reducing man-made carbon emissions are ineffective in reversing the effects of climate change.<\/p>\n Thus, these reforestation and sustainability efforts\u2014as separate entities\u2014are not effective enough to mitigate climate change; however, when scientists combine the effects of these investments, the outcome yields promising results. In his TED Talk, How to Green the World\u2019s Deserts and Reverse Climate Change<\/em>, Biologist Allan Savory discusses one potential combination of sustainability and reforestation efforts. Savory states that the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere is due, in part, to the fact that \u201ctwo-thirds of the land on Earth is beginning to desertify\u201d\u2014the process of fertile land turning into desert (Savory). People often attribute this desertification of grasslands to overgrazing, and thus usually \u201ctake livestock off of this arid land\u201d to allow the area to regrow (Savory). Taking cattle off of this arid land, however, does not result in reforestation\u2014rather, this removal of livestock further promotes desertification. Savory points out that \u201clarge herds [of animals] dung and urinate all over their food, and they\u2026keep moving, [preventing] the overgrazing of plants, while the periodic trembling [allows] for the covering of soil\u201d (Savory). When humans remove livestock from arid land, there is no cover of urine and dung on the soil. This bare soil cannot hold water, and \u201callows for [immediate evaporation and] runoff\u2014the cancer of desertification\u201d (Savory). Therefore, Savory proposes a combination of sustainable behavior and reforestation efforts to create a seemingly unusual solution: to increase the level of cattle and grazing in order to promote the reforestation of these arid regions.<\/p>\n Although increasing grazing levels seems counterintuitive, Savory argues that this method could reverse the effects of climate change. By \u201cincreasing the cattle and grazing by 400%\u201d and making sure that these large herds keep moving, these animals would cover the arid \u201csoil [in] dung and urine,\u201d allowing the soil to \u201cabsorb the rain\u201d (Savory). Through this cover of excrement, the arid land would be able to retain rainwater. Furthermore, this retention of rainwater would allow previously desertified land to become fertile. With these large areas of arid land transforming into fertile land, there would be new areas for the growth of plants that would \u201cstore carbon,\u201d reducing atmospheric carbon levels (Savory). Scientists have tested this method in Patagonia, Argentina, where the planned grazing of \u201c25,000 sheep\u201d resulted in a large amount of excrement covering arid soil, which allowed the soil to hold rainwater once more, bringing \u201cback 50% of [the] land\u201d (Savory). Furthermore, when herds do not feed upon these grasslands, the plants sometimes \u201cshift to oxidation\u201d rather than decaying biologically, which results in \u201cwoody vegetation and bare soil\u201d (Savory). People usually burn off these oxidized plants; however, this burning \u201cstill leaves the soil bare and releases carbon\u201d into the atmosphere\u2014giving off more \u201cdamaging pollutants than 6,000 cars\u2026 [for every] hectare\u201d burned, and people burn \u201calmost 1,000,000,000 hectares\u2026every single year\u201d in Africa (Savory). Therefore, despite being inefficient separately, this combination of sustainable efforts and reforestation methods could potentially sequester enough carbon from the atmosphere to mitigate climate change. This combination would furthermore reduce an abundance of man-made carbon emissions, as people would no longer have to burn thousands of hectares of oxidized plants. Savory states that through this method of livestock increase and planned grazing, humans can \u201ctake enough carbon from the atmosphere and store it in the soil to return climate change back to pre-industrial levels\u201d (Savory). This livestock increase would thus act as a negative emissions technology, similar to the bioenergy crops that \u201cThe Carbon Harvest\u201d discusses. Thus, by combining these two pre-existing methods of climate change mitigation, scientists could effectively reverse the effects of global warming and save the planet.<\/p>\n Furthermore, employing these strategies together would not demand the resources and global cooperation that these strategies require individually. For example, Julia Rosen previously states that in order to sequester enough carbon to mitigate climate change, these crop areas would require as much water as is in Lake Michigan. According to Savory, however, planned grazing creates fertile land that would not require immense amounts of water, as the excrement of the livestock would allow the soil to hold rainwater. Additionally, the movement of livestock would ensure that the entire area has a cover of excrement, efficiently securing rainwater within the soil. Rosen also introduces the notion that these crops would require an area of land \u201cthe [size] of Australia,\u201d and many also question whether global cooperation will be necessary to make increased livestock policies possible (Rosen 735). These crops, however, would only use land that is currently desert, ensuring that no human relocation would occur. Additionally, Australia is currently mostly desert, meaning that if scientists carried out Savory\u2019s study in Australia, the country could be reforested completely over time, thus fulfilling the land requirement Rosen proposes. By keeping the practice within one country, the demand for global cooperation also disappears, as Australia has enough area to sequester enough carbon to mitigate climate change for the planet. Australia has also supported reforestation policies in the past, reinforcing the possibility of practicing Savory\u2019s study within the country. In his paper, Reforestation Incentives in the UK and Australia: A Comparative Evaluation<\/em>, Dr. Steve Harrison states that in 1982, the Australian Prime Minister \u201cannounced the establishment of the National Tree Program,\u201d which aimed to \u201cincrease tree cover, [promote]\u2026action\u2026.to conserve plants and regenerate trees, [and develop] public awareness of the value of trees\u201d (Harrison 10). Thus, based on its past interest in reforestation attempts, Australia would likely implement Savory\u2019s study in its deserts, eliminating the need for global cooperation. Therefore, a combination of reforestation attempts and sustainable investments requires fewer resources and less global cooperation than that of an individual strategy.<\/p>\n Thus, reforestation efforts and sustainable investments, when separate, are not effective enough to reverse climate change; however, when scientists combine the two, the outcome is promising and powerful. Although numerous reforestation studies demonstrate an effective sequestration of carbon, these reforestation areas are shrinking fairly rapidly. Similarly, sustainable investments such as bioenergy crops or livestock policies seem like they could effectively combat climate change; however, these investments require an abundance of resources or global cooperation, respectively, making them ineffective. Additionally, the use of governmental policies to directly reduce man-made carbon emissions holds promise, but the lack of biofuel resources makes this method unsuccessful in mitigating global warming. When scientists like Allan Savory utilize these methods together, however, the results hold promise in combating desertification, and thus, climate change as a whole. This combination of methods also requires fewer resources and less global cooperation than any strategy requires individually. With scientists such as Savory experimenting with and combining pre-existing methods of climate change mitigation, there may be a possibility of reversing the effects of global warming, and furthermore, saving the planet for humanity.<\/p>\n Cunningham, Shaun C. \u201cReforestation with Native Mixed\u2010Species Plantings in a Temperate Continental Climate Effectively Sequesters and Stabilizes Carbon within Decades.\u201dGlobal Change Biology, <\/em>vol.21, no. 4, 18 Sept. 2014, onlinelibrary-wiley.com.ezproxy.bu.edu\/doi\/full\/10.1111\/gcb.12746.<\/p>\n Harrison, Steve. Reforestation Incentives in the UK and Australia: A Comparative Evaluation<\/em>. 25 June 1998, citeseerx.ist.psu.edu\/viewdoc\/download? doi=10.1.1.482.1380&rep=rep1&type =pdf.<\/p>\n Havl\u00edk, Petr, et al. \u201cClimate Change Mitigation Through Livestock System Transition.\u201d\u00a0Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America<\/em>, National Academy of Sciences, 11 Mar. 2014, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/pmc\/articles\/PMC3956143\/.<\/p>\n Hobbs, Trevor J. \u201cModels of Reforestation Productivity and Carbon Sequestration for Land Use and Climate Change Adaptation Planning in South Australia.\u201d 1 Oct. 2016, www-sciencedirect-com.ezproxy.bu.edu\/science\/article\/pii\/S0301479716304157?via%3Dihub.<\/p>\n Long, Jane C. \u201cThe 80% Solution: Radical Carbon Emission Cuts for California.\u201d Proquest.com<\/em>, 13 Apr. 2012, search-proquest-com.ezproxy.bu.edu\/docview\/1136516588?accountid=9676.<\/p>\n McKibben, Bill. \u201cGlobal Warming’s Terrifying New Math.\u201d Rolling Stone<\/em>, Rolling Stone, 19 July 2012, www.rollingstone.com\/politics\/news\/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719?print=true.<\/p>\n Rosen, Julia. \u201cThe Carbon Harvest.\u201d Science Magazine<\/em>, 16 Feb. 2016, pp. 733\u2013737.<\/p>\n \u201cHow to Green the World’s Deserts and Reverse Climate Change<\/em> | Allan Savory.\u201d Performance by Allan Savory, YouTube<\/em>, TED Talks, 4 Mar. 2013, www.youtube.com\/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Gregory Bond Read the instructor’s introduction Read the writer’s comments and bio Download this essay Imagine this scenario: a \u201ctropical storm\u2026[dumps] more than 20 inches of rain on Florida\u201d (McKibben). At the same time, \u201cthe largest fire in New Mexico history [burns] on, and the most destructive fire in Colorado\u2019s annals [claims] 346 homes in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4801,"featured_media":0,"parent":12881,"menu_order":6,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12899"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4801"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12899"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12899\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13212,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12899\/revisions\/13212"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/12881"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bu.edu\/writingprogram\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nRead the writer’s comments and bio<\/a>
\nDownload this essay<\/a><\/p>\nWorks Cited<\/h2>\n