In the latest issue of Psychological Science in the Public Interest, an interdisciplinary team of researchers reports on how social norms — “patterns of behaviors or values that depend on expectations about what others do and/or think should be done” — can be harnessed to bring about collective climate action and policy change. They emphasize that although social norm interventions can be powerful drivers of social change, they can also reinforce unsustainable behaviors and attitudes and require deep contextual knowledge to be used effectively.

“Demand-side changes can be integral components of broader climate policy by creating public acceptance for new measures and accelerating or strengthening their impacts,” said Sara M. Constantino, an assistant professor at Northeastern University and lead author on the paper. “However, the efficacy and ethics of interventions aimed at shifting social norms depend critically on the details of the behaviors or attitudes in question, a host of structural and cultural factors, psychological processes, and myriad design and implementation decisions.”

In this paper, Constantino and her colleagues review the literature on how social-norm change occurs, how the tendency to conform or coordinate with others can drive rapid social change, and the circumstances under which this is likely to happen. They base their conclusions on the review and synthesis of a large body of literature on social-norm influence, measurement, and change from the perspectives of psychology, anthropology, sociology, and economics, published between 1951 and 2021.

Harnessing the power of social norms for climate action can take two interrelated forms, the authors explain. Social-norm interventions attempt to increase the adoption of sustainable social norms within social networks by providing information about what people in a group do or believe should be done. They can reshape individuals’ and communities’ behaviors by correcting social misperceptions (e.g., people believe there is limited support for climate action when in fact there is large support) and/or by rendering visible the prevalence of certain private behaviors (e.g., water and energy conservation, recycling, voting).

However, many prevailing behaviors are unsustainable. In such cases, social-tipping interventions aim to create change that disrupts these unsustainable norms. Interventions (e.g., subsidies) can be used to incentivize change in a subset of a population. Once enough individuals adopt sustainable nonnormative behaviors and beliefs, this can lead to broader social change, “tipping” societies toward a new social norm even in the absence of sustained interventions.

Structural, social, and other factors will shape the success of social-norm interventions, and Constantino and colleagues suggest taking a number of steps before designing and implementing them. These include identifying key properties of the target behavior and population, measuring existing social norms and expectations, and considering an intervention’s potential adverse consequences, such as perceived threats to people’s sense of agency and autonomy or a phenomenon known as “moral licensing,” where taking action on an issue can lead people to feel they have done enough, crowding out other actions.

Finally, the authors highlight the importance of piloting any intervention with local stakeholders — that is, conducting small trials, evaluating the results, and then conducting more trials — before adopting it. “An intervention should be scaled up only after it has been piloted in the context of interest and deemed successful,” they write.

“Social-norm and social-tipping interventions can drive rapid social change under certain conditions,” said Constantino. “However, they are not a replacement for other forms of climate action, and designing an effective and responsible intervention will depend on many factors.”

In an accompanying commentary, Stephan Lewandowsky (University of Bristol; University of Western Australia) and Sander van der Linden (University of Cambridge) propose that the challenge of turning scientific consensus on climate action into social consensus is more likely to be overcome if practitioners consider “the adversarial, misinformation-rich environments in which normative information is communicated, the role of pervasive misperceptions about norms and the behavior of other people, the possibility that community norms can unravel quickly following key political events, and the fact that there are important differences in how susceptible people are to social influence.”

However, it is usually very time-​consuming and costly for farmers to collect and dispose of conventional polyethylene (PE) film after use. In addition, it isn’t possible to re-​collect all of the thin PE films, as they tear easily. This means PE-​pieces remain on and in the soil and accumulate there, because PE doesn’t degrade.

Biodegradable mulch film is a promising alternative, because — in contrast to PE film — it ideally does not to leave behind any polymer components in the soil environment. The biodegradable polymers it contains are deliberately designed so that microorganisms can use them to generate energy and build cell biomass. The biodegradable polymers have intended chemical “breaking points” in their backbone structure. Naturally occurring microorganisms, such as those in soil, can release enzymes into their environment that attack these points in the polymers and break them down. The small degradation products released are then taken up by the microbes and ultimately respired to form the final product, CO₂.

That’s why proving CO₂ formation from polymer carbon is crucial for biodegradation. Also because in addition to truly biodegradable plastics, there are falsely labelled ones based on PE containing specific additives. These films break down only into very small microplastics that are no longer visible to the naked eye. And because these aren’t degraded by microorganisms, they accumulate in the environment.

New approach captures all aspects of biodegradation

Until now based on existing methods, it hasn’t been possible to follow the process of polymer biodegradation in its entirety. But over the past few years, the Environmental Chemistry Group at ETH Zurich has developed a new approach to track and measure whether and to what degree a polymer biodegrades in a soil. Their findings have just been published in NatureCommunications.

These results could change the way polymer biodegradation is studied in the future. The project also involved researchers from ETH’s Earth Sciences department and Eawag, in addition to employees from the chemical company BASF.

This new approach is based on using polymers labelled with stable carbon isotopes (¹³C). This labelling allows the researchers to selectively track the polymer’s ¹³C during biodegradation in the soil, so they can unmistakably demonstrate that biodegradation is indeed occurring. Until now, plastic biodegradability had been tested only with non-​isotopically labelled polymers. A polymer (or a plastic material consisting of one or more polymers) is certified as biodegradable if the fraction of added polymer carbon converted into CO₂ exceeds a predefined level over a specific incubation period. The standard for biodegradable mulch film, for example, requires two-​year soil incubations in which at least 90 percent of the mulch film carbon is “mineralised” into CO₂.

These test methods are well established as a suitable means for detecting polymer mineralisation. However, they do not capture the full extent of the biodegradation, as they measure only CO₂ formation. Consequently, researchers using today’s standard methods have been unable to detect the amount of polymer carbon remaining in the soil at the end of an incubation period. In addition, it was unclear whether this remaining carbon was present still in the form of the added polymer or whether microorganisms had already incorporated it into their biomass.

Closed carbon mass balances

The approach developed by the ETH researchers and their colleagues eliminates these ambiguities. In their tests, they used ¹³C-​labelled polybutylene succinate, or PBS — a commercially important biodegradable polyester that is also used in mulch films.

The researchers were now able to selectively track the ¹³C in the PBS during biodegradation: in addition to determining mineralisation to ¹³CO₂, the authors demonstrated complete mass balances for the PBS carbon by quantifying the residual amount of PBS-​derived ¹³C that remained in the soil after incubation.

“It was gratifying for us to see closed carbon mass balances over the 425 days of soil incubation. This showed that we can accurately determine where the polymer carbon ends up — about two-​thirds in CO₂ and one-​third in soil — over these very long incubation periods,” explains the study’s lead author, Taylor Nelson, who earned his doctorate in the Environmental Chemistry Group.

The researchers also wanted to know in which form the carbon added as PBS remained in the soil. How much was incorporated into the microbial biomass and how much was still present as residual PBS?

To answer this question, the authors extracted and quantified the residual PBS from the soil at the end of the incubations. They were able to show that while most of the carbon was still present as PBS, a significant amount — 7 percent — of the added PBS carbon had been incorporated into the microbial biomass.

The ability to determine exactly how much polymer remains and how much polymer carbon has been incorporated into biomass is essential for future studies and for the development of new biodegradable polymers. “We can now systematically test for soil conditions and polymer properties that allow for complete biodegradation of the polymers to CO₂ and to microbial biomass — and we can assess factors that may slow down polymer biodegradation over time,” explains Michael Sander, Professor in the ETH Environmental Chemistry Group.

This work is already underway: using the new approach, the group is currently investigating the biodegradation of further polymers in various agricultural soils, including in the field. “In this way, we want to ensure that biodegradable polymers live up to their name and don’t remain in the environment,” says Kristopher McNeill, Professor of Environmental Chemistry at ETH Zurich and head of an eponymous research subgroup.

“Replacing conventional polymers with biodegradable ones can help reduce plastic pollution, especially for applications in which polymers are used directly in the environment such that there’s a high likelihood that the polymers will remain there after use,” Sander points out.

In August 2020, the southern area of Japan and the northwestern Pacific Ocean experienced unprecedentedly high SSTs, according to the Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA). A recent study published in January 2021 revealed that the record-high northwestern Pacific SST observed in August 2020 could not be expected to occur without human-induced climate changes. Since then, the JMA again announced that the record high SSTs were observed near Japan in July and October 2021 and from June to August 2022, but it remains unclear to what extent climate change has altered the occurrence likelihood of these regional extreme warming events.

“Impacts of global warming is not uniform, rather show regional and seasonal differences,” said a co-author Hideo Shiogama, the head of the Earth System Risk Assessment Section at Earth System Division, NIES. “A comprehensive analysis on regional SSTs for a long period may provide a quantitative understanding of how much ocean condition near Japan has been and will be affected by global warming. This better informs policymakers to plan climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies.”

The paper published in Geophysical Research Letters today figures out the contribution of global warming to discrete monthly extreme ocean warming events in Japan’s marginal seas, which could occur less than once per 20 years in the preindustrial era. A climate research group at NIES focused on ten monitoring areas operationally used by the JMA, including the Japan Sea, East China Sea, Okinawa Islands, east of Taiwan, and the Pacific coasts of Japan. The scientists confirmed that observed SST changes from 1982 to 2021 were well reproduced by 24 climate models participating in the sixth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6), except for the region east of Hokkaido. Then, the extreme ocean warming events were identified in nine monitoring areas to reveal the contribution of climate change therein.

Extreme ocean warming and climate change

“In the present climate, every extreme ocean warming event is linked to global warming,” said corresponding lead author Michiya Hayashi, a research associate at NIES. The scientists estimated the occurrence frequencies of each event in the present and preindustrial climate conditions from January 1982 through July 2022 based on the CMIP6 climate models. “We found that the occurrence probability of almost all the extreme ocean warming events has already at least doubled since the 2000s than the preindustrial era. It is increased more than tenfold in sizeable cases since the mid-2010s, especially in southern Japan.”

For instance, in July 2022, anomalously high SSTs observed in five monitoring areas, including the Japan Sea (Areas 1, 3), East China Sea (Areas 5, 8), and south of Okinawa near Taiwan (Area 10), are identified as the extreme ocean warming events. The updated results based on the preliminary data retrieved from the NEAR-GOOS RRTDB website on 15 September 2022 (not included in the published paper) show that, in August 2022, the events are also identified in six monitoring areas at the south of 35°N: the East China Sea (Areas 5, 8), south and east of Okinawa (Areas 10, 9), southeastern Kanto (Area 7), and seas off Shikoku and Tokai (Area 6). “We estimate that, in all of these identified events in July and August 2022, the occurrence frequencies are increased at least doubled due to climate change, and more than tenfold for those in the south of 35°N except for the north of East China Sea,” stated Hayashi.

“Climate change impacts on extreme ocean warming events in northern Japan began to emerge relatively late compared to southern Japan,” noted Shiogama. The increased global aerosol emissions until the 1980s tend to cool the Earth’s surface, which is more substantial in the North Pacific especially near northern Japan via atmospheric large-scale circulation changes. In addition, the year-to-year natural variability of SST is large in northern Japan so the global warming signal was less detectable than in southern Japan. Since in the last decades global aerosol emissions have been reduced, the cooling effect becomes less dominant to human-induced greenhouse gas warming. “Our study indicates,” continued Shiogama, “that the contribution of climate change to SST extremes has been already discernible beyond natural variability even in northern Japan under the present climate condition.”

What about the ocean conditions expected in the future? The researchers further compared the probabilities of exceeding the monthly record high SSTs around Japan at different global warming levels from 0°C to 2°C using the 24 CMIP6 climate model outputs from 1901 to 2100. “Once global warming reaches 2°C, all of nine monitoring areas are expected to experience SSTs warmer than the past highest levels at least every two years,” said Tomoo Ogura, a co-author and the head of the Climate Modeling and Analysis Section at Earth System Division, NIES. He added, “Limiting global warming below 1.5°C is necessary not to have the record warm conditions in Japan’s marginal seas as the new normal climate.”

The quantitative analysis of SSTs around Japan implies that climate change has already become the major factor for most of the record high SSTs in recent years. “In the future, dynamics of each extreme warming event need to be examined by taking the long-term climate change and year-to-year natural variability into account,” noted Hayashi. “Nevertheless, we expect that our statistical results based on the latest climate models will help to implement adaptation and mitigation measures for climate change.”

President Joe Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA) in August, a major climate bill that the House and Senate passed that will have significant implications for clean energy use in the United States. The bill seeks to boost energy security, decrease energy prices, and slow climate change.

The IRA will invest $369 billion in climate and clean energy solutions. While much of the money is intended to support investments in clean energy, EV charging, and sustainability investments in underserved communities, for example, incentives are also available to individuals or households for installing energy-saving appliances, going solar, getting heat pumps, or buying an electric vehicle. If you are a renter, notify your landlord about opportunities to save on energy-efficient appliances, solar systems, and heat pumps.

What Is The Climate Bill?

The Inflation Reduction Act aims to decrease U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by decarbonizing the economy to reach about 40% below 2005 emissions levels by 2030. In the process, the U.S. will ideally create domestic manufacturing jobs and dramatically reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. Specifically, the IRA strives to empower disadvantaged communities to take advantage of government incentives that will lower energy costs, allowing all Americans to benefit from the transition to clean energy. To date, going solar and buying a new EV have been options for middle and upper-income Americans.

Some of the funding from the climate bill will be available as clean energy tax credits or refunds for purchasing EVs and energy-saving home upgrades like installing heat pumps. Likewise, there are grants for specific purposes, for supporting reduced diesel emissions, clean heavy-duty vehicles, and air pollution in schools.

How to Take Advantage of Incentives in the Climate Bill

Let’s explore some of the opportunities that the bill creates. We recommend speaking with a tax expert to ensure you qualify for the EV or solar tax credits.

Changes to Tax Credits for New EVs

The IRA amends the clean vehicle tax credit for electric vehicles, adding some provisions that make the credits more complicated. The good news is that the $7,500 EV tax credit will remain in effect through 2032, albeit with some changes.

After the IRA, more plug-in hybrids are eligible for the full $7,500 tax credit. However, the climate legislation will soon require the vehicles to be assembled in North America, limiting which automakers and models qualify. This is intended to encourage carmakers to move production onshore. The Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center released a list of clean vehicles that will likely meet the new criteria. But be careful because the country where electric vehicles are assembled can vary even within the same model. A VIN decoder will help you verify where the automaker built the vehicle.

Previously, there was a limit on automakers that had met a given sales cap, which included Tesla and General Motors, effectively limiting the number of subsidized cars sold each year. The IRA’s goal is a comprehensive transition, so effective January 1, 2023, the cap is eliminated. Next year, American-made Chevy Bolt, Cadillac Lyric, GMC Hummer, and Tesla Model 3, S, X, and Y will qualify for a $7,500 tax credit starting January 1, 2023. The new restrictions on where major vehicle components originate may be a challenge for General Motors and Tesla, which build cars globally.

In addition, to qualify for the EV tax credit rules, the price of new SUVs and pickups cannot exceed $80,000 and $55,000, respectively. So, some Lucid, Rivian, Porsche, GMC Hummer, Ford F-150 Lightning, and Tesla models, among others, will not be eligible for the tax credit. Also, there are new limits on personal income to qualify for the tax credit: $150,000 for individuals and $300,000 for couples.

Used EVs Will Soon Be Eligible for Tax Credits, Too

Pre-owned vehicles make up the lion’s share of automotive sales in the U.S., and currently, used EVs are not eligible for the federal tax credit. Many will soon qualify for tax credits of up to $4,000 or 30% of the vehicle cost, whichever is less.

But, there are some stipulations, such as that the vehicle must be purchased through a licensed dealer for $25,000 or less and have been in service for at least two years. The used EV tax credit will take effect in 2024 and has an income cap for eligibility of $75,000 or less for single filers and $150,000 for joint filers.

Increasing the Residential Solar Tax Credit to 30%

Before the bill passed, the federal solar tax credit was going to taper down to 22% in 2023. However, the climate bill raises it back to a 30% tax credit through 2032, starting with solar energy systems installed in 2022. The taper-down will begin again in 2033, falling to 26% and then 22% in 2034.

Incentives for Home Energy Efficiency

There are also rebates for energy-saving appliances, including air conditioners, induction stoves, and dryers, and these programs are operated by states, not issued at a federal level. The value of the rebates varies depending on how your income compares to the median state income. If you earn up to 80% of the state median income, you can get up to 100% back in rebates. These programs will become available as your state gets them up and running.

Also, there will be a new $2,000 tax credit available for installing a heat pump. In addition to the tax credit, those who meet state income caps can qualify for up to $8,000 through their state rebate program.

The climate bill creates new opportunities for households to reduce their energy consumption. If you are a renter, tell your landlord about the incentives and let them know if you have suggestions for energy-saving improvements that qualify, like heat pumps or efficient appliances. In addition to lower utility bills, these improvements can reduce your fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

The IRA opens a broad range of new options for making changes to your carbon impact. This article can help you identify where to start saving money but do check carefully and consult a professional to make sure you qualify for tax credits.

Climate model simulations, on the other hand, suggest continuous warming since the start of the Holocene. In 2014, researchers named this major mismatch between models and past climate observations the “Holocene Temperature Conundrum.”

In this new study, scientists used the largest available database of past temperature reconstructions extending back 12,000 years to carefully investigate the geographic pattern of temperature change during the Holocene. Olivier Cartapanis and colleagues find that, contrary to previously thought, there is no globally synchronous warm period during the Holocene. Instead, the warmest temperatures are found at different times not only in different regions but also between the ocean and on land. This questions how meaningful comparisons of the global mean temperature between reconstructions and models actually are.

According to the lead author Olivier Cartapanis, “the results challenge the paradigm of a Holocene Thermal Maximum occurring at the same time worldwide.” And, while the warmest temperature was reached between 4,000 and 8,000 years ago in western Europe and northern America, the surface ocean temperature cooled since about 10,000 years ago at mid-high latitudes and remained stable in the tropics. The regional variability in the timing of maximum temperature suggests that high latitude insolation and ice extent played major roles in driving climate changes throughout the Holocene.

Lukas Jonkers, co-author of the study and researcher at the MARUM — Center for Marine Environmental Sciences in Bremen, Germany, says “Because ecosystems and people do not experience the mean temperature of the Earth, but are affected by regional and local changes in climate, models need to get the spatial and temporal patterns of climate change right in order to guide policy makers.” Thus, the new work by Cartapanis and colleagues presents a clear target for climate models as the ability of climate model to reproduce Holocene climate variations in space and time, will increase confidence in their regional projections of future climate change.

Story Source:

Materials provided by MARUM – Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

The research, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, indicates population declines were a lot larger than previously thought.

According to the study, the main island of Tonga had a population decline of between 70-86 per cent once Europeans made contact.

Researchers from the ANU School of Culture, History & Language, PhD candidate Phillip Parton and ARC Future Fellow Professor Geoffrey Clark, found there were between 100,000-120,000 people in Tonga prior to European contact.

“I and my co-author used aerial laser scanning data to map residences on the main island of Tonga and then used archaeological data I collected as part of my PhD to estimate the population,” Mr Parton said.

“This improved understanding of the past has allowed us to show a significant population decline from 50,000-60,000 to 10,000 during a 50-year period on the main island of Tongatapu in the Kingdom of Tonga.

“Because this number is so much larger than anything anyone had previously considered, I used shipping and missionary data to check my estimates and found they were plausible.

“Obviously, this shows a big reassessment of the impact of globalisation in the 19th century.

“As in many parts of the world, the population of Pacific islands suffered severe declines after contact when Europeans introduced new pathogens.”

The research has been published in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

Pacific island nations suffered severe depopulation from introduced diseases as a consequence of contact with European vessels, a new study from The Australian National University (ANU) shows.

The research, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, indicates population declines were a lot larger than previously thought.

According to the study, the main island of Tonga had a population decline of between 70-86 per cent once Europeans made contact.

Researchers from the ANU School of Culture, History & Language, PhD candidate Phillip Parton and ARC Future Fellow Professor Geoffrey Clark, found there were b

The research, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, indicates population declines were a lot larger than previously thought.

According to the study, the main island of Tonga had a population decline of between 70-86 per cent once Europeans made contact.

Researchers from the ANU School of Culture, History & Language, PhD candidate Phillip Parton and ARC Future Fellow Professor Geoffrey Clark, found there were between 100,000-120,000 people in Tonga prior to European contact.

“I and my co-author used aerial laser scanning data to map residences on the main island of Tonga and then used archaeological data I collected as part of my PhD to estimate the population,” Mr Parton said.

“This improved understanding of the past has allowed us to show a significant population decline from 50,000-60,000 to 10,000 during a 50-year period on the main island of Tongatapu in the Kingdom of Tonga.

“Because this number is so much larger than anything anyone had previously considered, I used shipping and missionary data to check my estimates and found they were plausible.

“Obviously, this shows a big reassessment of the impact of globalisation in the 19th century.

“As in many parts of the world, the population of Pacific islands suffered severe declines after contact when Europeans introduced new pathogens.”

The research has been published in the Journal of Archaeological Science.

Pacific island nations suffered severe depopulation from introduced diseases as a consequence of contact with European vessels, a new study from The Australian National University (ANU) shows.

The research, published in the Journal of Archaeological Science, indicates population declines were a lot larger than previously thought.

According to the study, the main island of Tonga had a population decline of between 70-86 per cent once Europeans made contact.

Researchers from the ANU School of Culture, History & Language, PhD candidate Phillip Parton and ARC Future Fellow Professor Geoffrey Clark, found there were between 100,000-120,000 people in Tonga prior to European contact.

“I and my co-author used aerial laser scanning data to map residences on the main island of Tonga and then used archaeological data I collected as part of my PhD to estimate the population,” Mr Parton said.

“This improved understanding of the past has allowed us to show a significant population decline from 50,000-60,000 to 10,000 during a 50-year period on the main island of Tongatapu in the Kingdom of Tonga.

“Because this number is so much larger than anything anyone had previously considered, I used shipping and missionary data to check my estimates and found they were plausible.

“Obviously, this shows a big reassessment of the impact of globalisation in the 19th century.

“As in many parts of the world, the population of Pacific islands suffered severe declines after contact when Europeans introduced new pathogens.”

Vegetation and soils are the main carbon sinks on land, as they currently absorb almost a third of carbon dioxide emissions caused by humans and thereby substantially help to slow down global warming. Alongside energy production and industry, land use contributes substantially to global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. However, forests and woodlands do not sequester carbon as reliably as previously assumed: Their function as a carbon sink is subject to large annual fluctuations and they are susceptible to various environmental influences even without direct human activity. This was revealed by the results of a new modeling approach developed by a team under LMU geographer Prof. Julia Pongratz.

According to these results, not only direct human activities such as deforestation or re-/afforestation determine the effectiveness of the forest as a carbon sink. Natural environmental factors such as forest fires and extreme weather events, and indirect anthropogenic influences such as increasing atmospheric CO₂ concentration additionally influence the amount of carbon that can be sequestered by trees and other woody vegetation.

To better understand these dynamics, Selma Bultan, a member of Pongratz’s team and lead author of the study, has developed a methodology that enables scientists to distinguish the direct effects of human land use on global CO₂ fluxes from those of natural environmental factors on the basis of satellite and other Earth observation data. “We integrate Earth observation data into a model that simulates CO₂ fluxes from land use. Colleagues from NASA provided us with new global vegetation data covering the last twenty years,” explains Selma Bultan. The development of this new modeling approach was possible thanks to the extensive spatial and temporal coverage of the data.

Human and environmental influences on the carbon cycle can be distinguished

“Our study tackles the challenge of separating direct human influences through land use from indirect side effects and natural processes,” explains Pongratz. “This differentiation is important, because isolating the direct anthropogenic effects shows the true progress achieved by climate protection measures. The environmental effects, by contrast, indicate how reliably the biosphere on land absorbs and stores CO₂ from the atmosphere. If we constantly feed the model used in this study with new data, it can help scientists monitor the success of climate protection measures — especially the implementation of international agreements to reduce CO₂ emissions from land-use change, such as deforestation. This facilitates an objective evaluation of the degree to which countries are meeting their climate targets.”

The study also addresses the question of how climate change affects the ability of vegetation to store carbon. “Our results show that the CO₂ sink in forests and woodlands is subject to stronger annual fluctuations and responds more sensitively to extreme events like droughts than previously assumed,” continues Bultan. “Thanks to these findings, we can better estimate the potential contribution of land use to climate protection — for instance, through the use of technologies to actively remove CO₂ from the atmosphere.” Both LMU scientists also contribute to the Global Carbon Project (GCP), an international joint effort of researchers, studying the dynamics of global CO₂ fluxes, synthesized in an annual report. According to the latest report, land use currently causes around nine percent of all anthropogenic CO₂ emissions. How humans deal with ecosystems on land is therefore also critically important for meeting the climate targets of the Paris Agreement.

Researchers can now draw on an extensive database of remote sensing images from satellites for integration into process-based models to foster our understanding of the global carbon cycle and to monitor how climate change evolves and how successful climate protection measures to mitigate it are. “Time is on our side: The satellite era now covers a sufficiently long time period to let us track the consequences of political developments on deforestation or observe the influence of increasing drought events on vegetation,” says Raphael Ganzenmüller, another LMU geographer who was involved in the study. “The more data we have — for instance on grassland vegetation and on organic carbon in the soil — the more precisely we can estimate natural and anthropogenic CO₂ fluxes, fostering our understanding of the whole terrestrial carbon cycle,” says Selma Bultan. An increased temporal resolution of the data could also enable scientists to analyse the influence of short-term extreme events such as individual droughts within a single year. “Our study reveals the potential of integrating observation data into models for more robust estimates of global CO₂ fluxes — this demonstrates the ever-increasing possibilities opened up by satellite-based Earth observation.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Earth911 is honoring the 52 years of Earth Day with 52 Actions for the Earth. Each week through Earth Day 2023, we will share an action you can take to invest in the Earth and make your own life more sustainable. Sometimes an action for the Earth is best broken down into steps. Before you plant a tree, you need to make a plan. This week, you can invest in the Earth by planting the tree you planned last month.

Action: Plant a Tree

Impact of Trees

The 10 largest CO2-emitting companies in the United States would need to plant more than 2 billion trees each year to offset their emissions. Your personal carbon footprint is much smaller, but it’s still probably a lot more than planting one tree – or even a grove of trees – could offset. But every little bit helps, and trees offer many more benefits than just carbon sequestration.

The list of benefits offered by trees is impressive. Trees are aesthetically pleasing in themselves; they also block unpleasant views and provide privacy; they improve mental and physical health; they filter pollutants out of stormwater and air; they provide shade to humans and habitat to wildlife; serve as windbreaks; and even improve home values.

Successful Planting

But trees can only provide all these benefits if they survive after planting. That’s why it’s important to plan ahead. Do some research on the tree species that are appropriate to your climate and to the specific site available. Proper planting techniques can make the difference between a dead tree and one that lives to absorb a ton of carbon. Bareroot trees are often more successful because they allow you to separate or trim circling roots before planting. Many people plant trees in holes that are too deep and too narrow; the trunk flare of a newly planted tree should be above the soil. Staking is often more harmful than helpful. But if the site is particularly windy, make sure not to stake too tightly – the tree should move in the wind – and remove the stakes after one year. Mulching with wood chips or compost will help maintain moisture and improve soil, but don’t let mulch build up against the trunk.

When you plant trees in a disturbed environment like a suburban yard or an urban planting strip, long-term care is necessary. Even native trees require watering for the first few years, but if you’ve selected an appropriate species for your site, it probably needs less pruning than you think.

Support Tree Planting

Not everyone has a suitable location for planting a new tree. Maintaining existing trees is important, too – a single mature tree in bloom can support an entire beehive. You can also support tree planting initiatives in the places where trees are most needed. Although it lacks the immediate satisfaction of a hands-on action for the Earth, supporting tree-planting initiatives like the Canopy Project can have a bigger environmental and social impact than planting your own tree.