New study shows: tropical forests are soaking up more carbon dioxide pollution that anybody realised!

Speaking of the planting season in Malawi, Africa, I have just read in the guardian (thanks to Grist for the link!) on a laborious study of the girth of 70,000 trees across Africa. The study is showing that tropical forests are soaking up more carbon dioxide pollution that anybody realised.

The guardian reports that "Simon Lewis, a climate expert at the University of Leeds, who led the study, said: "We are receiving a free subsidy from nature. Tropical forest trees are absorbing about 18% of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere each year from burning fossil fuels, substantially buffering the rate of change.""

Lewis adds that another conclusion from the study is that on average the trees are getting bigger - compared to the 1960s, each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon a year. And it adds up - over the world's tropical forests, this extra "carbon sink" effect adds up to 4.8bn tonnes of carbon dioxide removed each year - close to the total carbon dioxide emissions from the US.

Another interesting quote on the article is of David Ritter, senior forest campaigner at Greenpeace UK, who is quoted as follows: "This research reveals how these rainforests are providing a huge service to mankind by absorbing carbon dioxide from our factories, power stations and cars."

We definitely agree with him. Moreover, we know that trees have many other qualities that benefit both the environment and local communities in these areas (you can read more about it on our benefits page). In any event, since fighting global warming is at the top of the world's priorities it's important to establish again the important role of trees in this fight as does this new study.

Yours,

Raz @ Eco-Libris
www.ecolibris.net

UK book industry goes (a little bit) green

The Guardian reported yesterday that the UK books trade "has taken a step towards a greener future, setting a target of a 10% reduction in carbon footprint from 2006 levels by 2015."

According to the article, the 10% reduction target has been adopted by the industry's Environmental Action Group (EAG), a panel set up earlier this year by the Booksellers Association and the Publishers Association, where you can find high-level figures from Penguin, HarperCollins, Hachette, Random House and Faber.

This is indeed very encouraging to see that leading organizations in the UK book industry are taking action and moving in the right direction.

But isn't 10% reduction too little? not to mention the fact that the reduction will be from 2006 figures. The Kyoto Protocol for example referred to 1990 figures as the basis for CO2 reduction calculations (although, there it was only 5% reduction of 1990 figures).

Not only that, but it's also only a recommendation. Tim Godfray, the chief executive of the Booksellers Association, explained that the figure is a non-binding target they are "encouraging publishers and booksellers to adopt".

Still, I think that it is better than doing nothing and it shows that the UK book publishing industry do not ignore the environmental impacts of the industry. I truly hope to see bolder steps following this one.

Andy Tait from Greenpeace also addressed this issue on the article saying "however, the target is an encouraging start, but it's not enough...Encouraging booksellers and publishers to reduce their carbon footprint by 10% is a positive gesture, but a much more serious impact would be made if the publishing industry insisted that the pulp and paper industry that supplies them cleans up its act. Energy efficiency, clean renewable energy and an end to using paper from ancient forests could transform the industry that supplies the raw materials for our books and magazines."

I join Tait in his call to the industry and would like to add to his list also the urgent need to significantly increase the use of recycled paper.

Yours,
Raz @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: a great green gift for the holidays!

The Climb to the Top

There's something thrilling about climbing trees. As a kid I couldn't get enough of swinging from the middle branches of a mulberry trees that was growing in the yard. Actually it was growing right over the asphalt communal parking lot, which proved to be an important and dangerous distinction once the mulberry decided to retaliate and slip away from underneath my feet just as I was lowering myself down from a rather tall branch. I'll save you the long story but the end of it was that the house committee decided to cut most of the branches to save other kids from similar fate, but really it was because the bats, who really liked the ripe fruit, were wreaking havoc at night all over everyone's windshields... Poor mulberry. These days, many years later, I can still see rebellious shoots growing here and there from a rather dead looking stump, every time I visit my parents' place. And that's as exciting as it gets.

Robert Macfarlane of The Guardian has much more to offer when it comes to tree climbing. In this beautifully written review piece, he lists several classics written about tree climbing and then goes on to describe a few recent additions to tree climbing literature genre. Yes, he claims it exists, with Italo Calvino as its main trunk. He also tells about his own adventures and distinctions exploring various trees from the special perspective of someone who climbs them regularly. Recommended!

So next time I'm out about exploring the woods I think I'm going to find an easy spot and let the inner boy reawaken... or is it the inner monkey? I can never tell them apart anyway :-)

Eylon @ Eco-Libris

Eco-Libris: Plant a tree for every book you read!