Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for January 21, 2006

Methane from Trees Not Responsible for Global Warming: Frank Keppler

By

A week or so ago I explained how researchers had discovered that plants are a source of methane: that a new study led by Frank Keppler of the Max Planck Institute in Germany calculates that all the world’s living vegetation (forests included) emit between 62 and 236 million tonnes of methane per year. This is apparently equivalent to between 10 and 30 per cent of annual global methane emissions.

Now the same researchers are claiming that their findings have been misinterpreted:

The most frequent misinterpretation we find in the media is that emissions of methane from plants are responsible for global warming. As those emissions from plants are a natural source, they have existed long before man’s influence started to impact upon the composition of the atmosphere. It is the anthropogenic emissions which are responsible for the well-documented increasing atmospheric concentrations of methane since pre-industrial times. Emissions from plants thus contribute to the natural greenhouse effect and not to the recent temperature increase known as ‘global warming’. Even if land use practices have altered plant methane emissions, which we did not demonstrate, this would also count as an anthropogenic source, and the plants themselves cannot be deemed responsible.

I guess this approach is consistent with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change which defines ‘climate change’ as that which is attributable directly or indirectly to human activity, click here.

So according to Keppler et al. plants are not responsible for what they emit. I guess this means that they are not responsible either for sequesting carbon dioxide. However, we do count carbon sequestration (post 1990) in national greenhouse inventories, so shouldn’t we also count methane emitted from the same plants in the inventory?

Interestingly, in the Nature paper, Keppler et al. state:

In pre-industrial times, that is, without anthropogenic emissions, the relative contribution of methane to the atmosphere by direct plant emissions may have been even larger than today. This could have far reaching implications for the interpretation of atmospheric methane levels and climate signals in the past.

Ecoterrorism: 11 Charged

By

According to an online NBC news report the FBI considers ecoterrorism the most widespread and damaging form of domestic terrorism in the US. It has been carried out against forestry activities and against biotechnology (genetically modified plants) and for animal rights. Yesterday 11 ecoterrorists were charged:

“The indictment tells a story of four-and-a-half years of arson, vandalism, violence and destruction claimed to have been executed on behalf of the Animal Liberation Front or Earth Liberation Front, extremist movements known to support acts of domestic terrorism,” Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference Friday.

“There is a clear difference between constitutionally protected advocacy … and violent criminal activity,” Mueller added.

“It is one thing to write concerned letters or to hold peaceful demonstrations,” Mueller said. “It is another thing entirely to construct and use improvised explosives to harass and intimidate victims by destroying property and to cause millions of dollars in losses by acts or threats of violence.”

… A criminal complaint filed in federal court in Eugene accused Paul, a firefighter, of setting firebombs that burned down a horse slaughterhouse in 1997. The ALF claimed responsibility for that fire, which caused an estimated $1 million in damage.

Savoie, who works in a group home for the developmentally disabled, is accused of serving as a lookout for a fire in 2001 that destroyed offices of a lumber mill. The ELF claimed responsibility for that fire.

Ecoterrorists have done more than $100 million in property damage over the past decade, officials told NBC News on Friday.

… Targets included U.S. Forest Service ranger stations, U.S. Bureau of Land Management wild horse facilities, lumber companies, meat processing companies, a ski area and the power line, the indictment said.

Interestingly the terrorists, the media and the Judge don’t appear to distinguish between terrorism for ‘the environment’ and terrorism for ‘animal rights’. To quote from a recent post at this blog: “Animal welfare, animal rights (including animal liberation) and conservation are three independent issues, which are often in conflict. Boundaries need to be placed on each to better understand their role in different context.”

What were the 11 really fighting for?