Climatic Change

, Volume 58, Issue 1–2, pp 47–71 | Cite as

Can Trees Buy Time? An Assessment of the Role of Vegetation Sinks as Part of the Global Carbon Cycle

  • Miko U. F. Kirschbaum


Atmospheric CO2 concentrations can be reduced by storing carbon in vegetation. However, this lowers the concentration gradient between the atmosphere and other potential carbon reservoirs, such as the oceans, and thereby reduces the subsequent inherent rate of removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. Hence, storage of carbon in temporary reservoirs can reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the short term, but if the carbon is released again, it will increase concentrations in the long term. It must, therefore, be considered when, or, indeed whether, to store carbon in vegetation sinks.To determine an optimal strategy, the exact nature of climate-change impacts needs to be considered first. Impacts can be mediated by:

1. the direct and instantaneous effect of CO2 and its associated temperature;

2. the rate of change in CO2 and its associated temperature;

3. the cumulative effect of CO2 and its associated temperature.

Carbon stored in permanently maintained vegetation sinks can lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but this can be done most effectively if sequestration occurs close to the time when atmospheric concentrations are to be lowered. Similarly, maximal rates of change can be most effectively reduced by carbon sequestration close to the time of anticipated maximal rates of change. For reducing impacts via cumulative forcing, however, early sink activity would be more effective than delayed activity.Temporary carbon stores would only be beneficial for climate change impacts related to the cumulative impact of CO2, but it could even worsen impacts mediated via the instantaneous effect of temperature or those related to the rate of change. Hence, the planting of trees is only beneficial in reducing climate-change impacts if the most serious impacts are those related to the cumulative effect of increased temperature. If other impacts are more serious, then the planting of trees would bring greater benefits if it is delayed until closer to the time when the most severe impacts are to be expected. However, if serious land degradation would result from deforestation, or from a failure to plant trees in the near future, then trees should still be planted in order to maximise the amount of carbon stored on land.


Carbon Sequestration Cumulative Effect Carbon Cycle Carbon Store Land Degradation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brown, S., Cannell, M., Kauppi, P., and Sathaye, J.: 1996, ‘Management of Forests for Mitigation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions’, in Watson, R. T., Zinyowera, M. C., and Moss, R. H. (eds.), Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses, Contribution of Working Group II to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge a. o., pp. 773–797.Google Scholar
  2. Cannell, M. G. R., Milne, R., Hargreaves, K. J., Brown, T. A.W., Cruickshank, M. M., Bradley, R. I., Spencer, T., Hope, D., Billett, M. F., Adger, W. N., and Subak, S.: 1999, ‘National Inventories of Terrestrial Carbon Sources and Sinks: The U.K. Experience’, Clim. Change 42, 505–530.Google Scholar
  3. Chomitz, K.M.: 2000, Evaluating Carbon Offsets From Forestry And Energy Projects: How Do They Compare?, Development Research Group, The World Bank, Washington DC, U.S.A., p. 25.Google Scholar
  4. Greenpeace: 1998, Making the Clean Development Mechanism Clean and Green, Greenpeace Position Paper, Greenpeace International, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, p. 12.Google Scholar
  5. Harvey, L. D. D.: 2000, Global Warming. The Hard Science, Pearson Education Ltd., Harlow, U.K., p. 336.Google Scholar
  6. Harvey, L. D. D., Gregory, J., Hoffert, M., Jain, A., Lal, M., Leemans, R., Raper, S., Wigley, T., and de Wolde, J.: 1997, An Introduction to Simple Climate Models Used in the IPCC Second Assessment Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Technical Paper II, p. 50.Google Scholar
  7. Hasselmann, K., Sausen, R., Maier-Reimer, E., and Voss, R.: 1993, ‘On the Cold Start Problem in Transient Simulations with Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean Models’, Clim. Dyn. 9, 53–61.Google Scholar
  8. Houghton, R. A.: 1999, ‘The Annual Net Flux of Carbon to the Atmosphere from Changes in Land Use 1850–1990’, Tellus 50B, 298–313.Google Scholar
  9. Fearnside, P. M., Lashof, D. A., and Moura-Costa, P.: 2000, ‘Accounting for Time in Imitigating Global Warming through Land-Use Change and Forestry’, Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change 5, 239–270.Google Scholar
  10. Hardner, J. J., Frumhoff, P. C., and Goetze, D. C.: 2000, ‘Prospects for Mitigating Carbon, Conserving Biodiversity, and Promoting Socioeconomic Development Objectives through the Clean Development Mechanism’, Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change 5, 61–80.Google Scholar
  11. IPCC: 1992, in Houghton, J. T., Callander, B. A., and Varney, S. K. (eds.), Climate Change 1992: The Supplementary Report to the IPCC Scientific Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., p. 198.Google Scholar
  12. IPCC: 2001, Technical Summary of theWorking Group I Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  13. Joos, F., Bruno, M., Fink, R., Siegenthaler, U., Stocker, T. F., Le Quere, C., and Sarmiento, J. L.: 1996, ‘An Efficient and Accurate Representation of Complex Oceanic and Biospheric Models of Anthropogenic Carbon Uptake’, Tellus 48B, 397–417.Google Scholar
  14. Joos, F., Meyer, R., Bruno, M., and Leuenberger, M.: 1999, ‘The Variability in the Carbon Sinks as Reconstructed for the Last 1000 Years’, Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 1437–1441.Google Scholar
  15. Karjalainen, T. and Kellomäki, S.: 1996, ‘Greenhouse Gas Inventory for Land Use Change and Forestry in Finland Based on International Guidelines’, Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change 1, 51–71.Google Scholar
  16. Kattenberg, A., Giorgi, F., Grassl, H., Meehl, G. A., Mitchell, J. F. B., Stouffer, R. J., Tokioka, T., Weaver, A. J., and Wigley, T. M. L.: 1996, ‘Climate Models-Projections of Future Climate’, in Houghton, J. T., Meira Filho, L. G., Callander, B. A., Harris, N., Kattenberg, A., and Maskell, K. (eds.), Climate Change 1995. The Science of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge a. o., pp. 285–357.Google Scholar
  17. Kheshgi, H. S., Jain, A. K., and Wuebbles, D. J.: 1999, ‘Model-Based Estimation of the Global Carbon Budget and its Uncertainty from Carbon Dioxide and Carbon Isotope Records’, J. Geophys. Res. 104, 31127–31144.Google Scholar
  18. Kirschbaum, M. U. F.: 1996, ‘The Carbon Sequestration Potential of Tree Plantations in Australia’, in Eldridge, K. G., Crowe, M. P., and Old, K. M. (eds.), Environmental Management: The Role of Eucalypts and Other Fast Growing Species, CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products, Canberra, pp. 77–89.Google Scholar
  19. Kirschbaum, M. U. F.: 2000, ‘What Contribution Can Tree Plantations Make towards Meeting Australia's Commitments under the Kyoto Protocol?’, Environ. Sci. Pol. 3, 83–90.Google Scholar
  20. Kirschbaum, M. U. F., Schlamadinger, B., Cannell, M. G. R., Hamburg, S. P., Karjalainen, T., Kurz, W. A., Prisley, S., Schulze, E.-D., and Singh, T. P.: 2001, ‘A Generalised Approach of Accounting for Biospheric Carbon Stock Changes under the Kyoto Protocol’, Environ. Sci. Pol. 4, 73–85.Google Scholar
  21. Lashof, D. and Hare, B.: 1999, ‘The Role of Biotic Carbon Stocks in Stabilizing Greenhouse Gas Concentrations at Safe Levels’, Environ. Sci. Pol. 2, 101–109.Google Scholar
  22. Lecocq, F. and Chomitz, K.: 2001, Optimal Use of Carbon Sequestration in a Global Climate Change Strategy: Is there a Wooden Bridge to a Clean Energy Future? The World Bank Group, Working Paper No. 2635, p. 27.Google Scholar
  23. Marland, G. and Schlamadinger, B.: 1997, ‘Forests for Carbon Sequestration or Fossil Fuel Substitution? A Sensitivity Analysis’, Biomass Bioenergy 13, 389–397.Google Scholar
  24. Marland, G. and Schlamadinger, B.: 1999, ‘The Kyoto Protocol Could Make a Difference for the Optimal Forest-Based CO2 Mitigation Strategy: Some Results from GORCAM’, Environ. Sci. Pol. 2, 111–124.Google Scholar
  25. Meier-Reimer, E. and Hasselmann, K.: 1987, ‘Transport and Storage of CO2 in the Ocean–an Inorganic Ocean-Circulation Carbon Cycle Model’, Clim. Dyn. 2, 63–90.Google Scholar
  26. Moura Costa, P. and Wilson, C.: 2000, ‘An Equivalence Factor between CO2 Avoided Emissions and Sequestration–Description and Applications in Forestry’, Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change 5, 51–60.Google Scholar
  27. Noble, I., Apps, M., Houghton, R., Lashof, D., Makundi, W., Murdiyarso, D., Murray, B., Sombroek, W., Valentini, R., Amano, M., Fearnside, P. M., Frangi, J., Frumhoff, P., Goldberg, D., Higuchi, N., Janetos, A., Kirschbaum, M., Lasco, R., Nabuurs, G. J., Persson, R., Schlesinger, W., Shvidenko, A., Skole, D., and Smith, P.: 2000, ‘Implications of Different Definitions and Generic Issues’, in Watson, R. T., Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J., and Dokken, D. J. (eds.), Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., pp. 52–126.Google Scholar
  28. Noble, I. and Scholes, R. J.: 2001, ‘Sinks and the Kyoto Protocol’, Clim. Pol. 1, 5–25.Google Scholar
  29. UNFCCC: 1997, ‘The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change’, UNEP/WMO.Google Scholar
  30. Watterson, I. G.: 2000, ‘Interpretation of Simulated Global Warming Using a Simple Model’,J. Climate 13, 202–215.Google Scholar
  31. Wigley, T. M. L.: 1991, ‘A Simple Inverse Carbon Cycle Model’, Global Biogeochem. Cycles 5, 373–382.Google Scholar
  32. Wigley, T. M. L., Richels, R., and Edmonds, J. A.: 1996, ‘Economic and Environmental Choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations’, Nature 379, 240–243.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miko U. F. Kirschbaum
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.CSIRO Forestry and Forest ProductsKingstonAustralia
  2. 2.CRC for Greenhouse AccountingCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations