The scientific world was shaken recently with a report published in Nature, lead-authored by Joeri Rogelj of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, which suggested that that we have already crossed an important global sustainability threshold. The report argues that, “the window for limiting warming to below 1.5 degrees Celsius with high probability and without temporarily exceeding that level already seems to have closed.” Under conventional thinking, it is undoubtedly closed, however we can still achieve our sustainability goals through negative-emissions technologies. The report makes the case, as have others, that emissions reduction strategies alone are ineffective. In other words, if we don’t start aggressively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, we are in deep trouble.
Readers of this newsletter, and followers of Reforest The Tropics in general are already well aware of this reality. We have been showing the math for years. There is simply too much CO2 already present in the atmosphere. We have reminded supporters that the residency rate of atmospheric CO2 is hundreds of years and we have drawn the inescapable conclusion that if we do not pull it out of the atmosphere in large quantities, then all our emissions reductions efforts are futile. We have shared the knowledge that even if we were to reduce our emissions to zero, today, the planet would still experience significant climate change due to the longevity of existing, excessive CO2. Of course, the only reliable, efficient, and safe means of accomplishing large-scale carbon extraction is through massive reforestation efforts in tropical zones. Our friends at the Woods Hole Research Center have consistently reinforced this message. In their latest newsletter, President and Executive Director, Dr. Philip Duffy argues that “it’s too late to control climate change solely by reducing future emissions of greenhouse gases—there’s too much CO2 in the atmosphere already for that to be sufficient.” Dr. Duffy continues that the “time-honored process of photosynthesis” is key to removing excessive atmospheric CO2.
Given this knowledge, it may seem strange that more focus is not given to the tropical reforestation solution. Skeptics of the reforestation approach tend to point to two challenges. First, it is argued that large-scale reforestation may adversely affect our ability to feed the planet, as agricultural land is transitioned to forest. Under conventional reforestation models, this argument has some small validity. The RTT model, however captures and stores CO2 much more efficiently than traditional models. Not only is our rate of capture 3-5 times greater than common models found throughout the literature, but our ceiling is much higher as well. Most forests (including old growth primary rainforests) tend to max out at 250-400 metric tons CO2 per hectare (with limited exceptions). RTT forests reach 500 metric tons within 25 years and some of our older research plots have reached over 2000 metric tons in a single hectare! The implications are clear. We need much less land dedicated to carbon sequestration if we are using the RTT model. Also, skeptics contend that forests are risky due to land-use changes. Again, this is a valid criticism if we look at typical reforestation efforts. The RTT model distinguishes itself in its ability to provide competitive income for a farmer. Our goal is to create a forest that can compete with cattle farming as a viable land-use option. Data from RTT forests shows that a farmer can earn a decent living through forestry and has no economic reason to ever cut the forest down. This income can last for generations, as RTT forests are designed to be productive indefinitely
It is time that the promise of the RTT model be shared with the world. We need your help. Please join us in our efforts to nudge business leaders and policymakers from their slumber in respect to the potential of tropical reforestation in general and the immense power of the RTT model specifically.