Cloudy, with a chance of climate change:
U.N. panel releases grim report

by Alexandra Bower

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently reported on the risks of climate change for the first time in seven years, and the outlook isn’t pretty.

The IPCC states that the world is “ill-prepared” for the effects of a changing climate, which are only expected to worsen. From rising sea levels because of melting ice caps and more extreme storms and weather patterns to changes in Arctic and forest systems and strange species migration, there will be increased threats to public health and food supply. Carbon stored in forests is vulnerable to loss to the atmosphere because of climate change, deforestation and environmental degradation. Tree mortality and wildfire occurrences will increase around the world because of increased temperatures and drought, posing a risk to biodiversity and timber production.

And for the first time reported, our global security is also now at risk. Civil wars and conflict between nations and refugees will worsen because of added threats and amplified “drivers of these conflicts such as poverty and economic shock.” Reduced energy and water resources, mass hunger, increasing mass migrations, and extreme weather will make it harder for nations to control their citizens, creating destabilized situations. In 2007, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon cited climate change as a cause for strife in the Darfur region of Sudan. While the recent IPCC report downplays climate change as a role in that conflict, it mentions a common concern: Global warming escalates the threat of fighting in comparable situations.

At this point, adaption methods can only do so much. While easing the pressure of climate change, it faces limits without strident declines of greenhouse gases emissions. And because trees obviously move slower than animal friends, the adaptation cycle is longer and trees are greatly affected by a warming climate.

UN IPCC climate change and trees

This chart from the IPCC report shows the maximum speed at which a variety of plant and animal species can move in kilometers per decade. Credit: U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

This being said, the 2015 Paris climate talks are of even more importance than before. The Paris negotiations were to be the next step in negotiations after the talks in Copenhagen in 2009. A new, binding, and inclusive emissions-reducing deal to replace the Kyoto Protocol is supposed to be formed and these most recent IPCC warnings are to play a key role in the discussions. However, the partisanship in Congress has made the Obama administration’s $1 billion climate resilience fund for fiscal year 2015 a long shot, and the upcoming Paris climate talks hopeless. Congress is reluctant to support emission-reduction legislation and tends to halt any decisions made by the Obama administration. Some members of Congress are determined to undercut the EPA’s regulatory system for greenhouse gas emissions and bar the U.S. Department of Agriculture from funding the President’s proposed climate change plan.

This all despite the U.S. Department of Defense recently declaring climate change a “threat multiplier” in its recent quadrennial strategic review. The Pentagon report says warming will cause an assortment of problems, aggravating “issues of poor governance, resource inequality and social unrest,”  but could also provide new opportunities for exploiting resources and trade routes because of a melting Arctic and rising sea levels. Dwindling resources, including wood products, are cited as reasons for the IPCC to associate global and local conflict and climate change.

While some environmentalists see the link between conflict and climate change as clear, others are tentative to declare causation. They say the link is weaker than the IPCC report makes it out to be, and some state that poverty causes security problems and policies to fight climate change will only increase poverty because of high cost of climate resilience.

It is clear, however, that the nations of the world need to come together to fight climate change because of the various and extensive effects on our daily lives. Forest ecosytems and other habitats, food supplies, weather patterns, and sea levels will all be negatively affected. So we hope to see cooperation in the 2015 Paris climate negotiations, and some consensus among our leaders in Congress to ensure climate change resilience is at the forefront of their agendas. (more…)


Take a Break, Enjoy a Tree

by Susan Laszewski

Let a tree brighten your day today! Here’s some inspiration to you get you started.

Photo: Kelly Sikkema

Give me of your bark, O Birch Tree!
Of your yellow bark, O Birch Tree!
Growing by the rushing river,
Tall and stately in the valley.

-Henry Wadsworth Longfellow


Celebrating the UN’s International Day of Forests

by John-Miguel Dalbey

Today is the second annual United Nations International Day of Forests. First observed as an international day on March 21, 2013, this day continues the celebration of forests begun with two previous days:  the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s World Forestry Day, founded in 1971, and Forest Day, convened by the Center for International Forestry Research from 2007-2012.

Forests, such as this rainforest in Honduras, have the highest levels of biodiversity of any terrestrial habitat.

Forests, such as this rainforest in Honduras, have the highest levels of biodiversity of any terrestrial habitat. Credit: Paul Bolstad, University of Minnesota.

According to the UN, today is a day to celebrate all trees and the importance of forests, while bringing together those with an interest in preserving forests and combating climate change. Forests and global climate are very closely intertwined, and preserving forest ecosystems is one of the best means of mitigating climate change. Forests act as carbon sinks, absorbing high amounts of atmospheric carbon — nearly 18 percent of global emissions.

The importance of forests doesn’t stop there. The UN points out that “forests cover one third of the Earth’s land mass, performing vital functions around the world” and that “around 1.6 billion people — including more than 2,000 indigenous cultures — depend on forests for their livelihood.” But forests affect more than just human lives. They provide crucial ecosystem services, such as balancing atmospheric levels of humidity, oxygen and carbon dioxide — services that all of Earth’s inhabitants rely on. Forests, and specifically tropical rainforests, have the highest levels of biodiversity of any terrestrial habitat, containing about 80 percent of land-based species.

Despite all we know about the importance of forests, more than 32 million acres of forest are still lost annually because of fire, logging, farming and desertification, among other causes.

That’s why American Forests coordinates several international forest restoration projects through our Global ReLeaf program each year. In 2013, we had projects in Panama, Honduras, Indonesia, India and Mexico. Stay tuned for the announcement of 2014’s Global ReLeaf projects, which include multiple international efforts, in a few weeks. Celebrate forests with us by helping protect them.


Fewer Beetles May Not Mean Fewer Concerns

by Susan Laszewski
These brown trees in Rocky Mountain National Park are casualties of the mountain pine beetle epidemic

These brown trees in Rocky Mountain National Park are casualties of the mountain pine beetle epidemic. Credit: F Delventhal/Flickr

Once the numbers came in from the U.S. Forest Service’s annual aerial survey last month, people started to feel hopeful: The mountain pine beetle was declining in Colorado, Wyoming and South Dakota. In fact, the beetle infected fewer acres in Colorado in 2013 than in any year since 1998.

Through our Endangered Western Forests initiative, American Forests has been working to stem the tide of the mountain pine beetle. This native beetle has been causing as much damage in the past few decades as a runaway invasive. Cold Rocky Mountain winters that would normally help control their population have been getting warmer, allowing these pests to live longer, reproduce more and climb into higher elevations.

With the help of volunteers we’ve attached pheromone patches to healthy whitebark pine trees in the high-elevations of the Greater Yellowstone Area to repel these beetles. In 2013, we attached more than 400 patches to healthy trees in the Greater Yellowstone Area and we’ve got 10,000 more to go. (Email us to learn how you can get involved.)

We’re not the only ones working to protect our forests from these critters. Our partners, the Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee and the Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation, along with many other organizations, researchers and caring members like you, have all been working nonstop to try to save these trees. So to see that these beetles are indeed in decline may seem like a reason to rejoice.

Not so fast. Restoration efforts aren’t the only cause of the beetles’ decline. Their own population boom is also coming back to bite them. There aren’t enough numbers of lodgepole, limber or ponderosa pines left to them to infest. In short, “they’ve kind of eaten themselves out of house and home,” Aaron Voos of the U.S. Forest Service tells Wyoming Public Media.

Here at American Forests, this news indicates that it’s more important than ever to protect the whitebark pine. With fewer of their normal fare left, the whitebark may become even more susceptible to these tiny menaces. And while any large-scale infestation can have widespread environmental consequences, the whitebark pine is a foundation species whose loss would have tremendous cascading effects in the ecosystem. For one thing, this high-elevation pine plays an important role in snowpack retention in the Rockies. Fewer whitebarks means earlier snowmelt and increased potential of flooding. Not the mention the consequences to fresh water supply for Rocky Mountain communities or to the skiing industry and its economic impact in the region.

We want to see the mountain pine beetle infestation slow. But that in itself is not necessarily an indicator of improved health in the ecosystem. We need to protect foundation species like the whitebark pine from this infestation, now more than ever.


Researchers develop plant-based
water filtration system

by Christopher Horn

One billion people across the world don’t have access to clean drinking water, and waterborne disease kills millions of people, notably children, each year.

A researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is developing a potentially game-changing water filtration system from an unlikely source: trees.

Dr. Rohit Karnik, a mechanical engineering professor at MIT, is using sapwood from coniferous trees — mainly pine — to remove fatal pathogens from water. Sapwood, scientifically known as xylem, is the outer layer of plant tissue that carries water upward from a tree’s roots towards its canopy.

Credit: thisisexcellent/Flickr.

Current water-treatment techniques are rather inefficient for small towns and villages, ranging from chlorine treatment that is better used for large-scale decontamination to boiling water, which requires the use of fuel. Additionally, some procedures don’t completely remove pathogens, limiting their overall effectiveness.

The plant-based alternative that Dr. Karnik and his team are developing can remove 99.9 percent of bacteria from water by simulating a tree’s natural pressure-driven filtration process. A piece of sapwood roughly 3 cm3 can filter several liters of water per day, which can provide clean water for one person. Sapwood from conifers is also an inexpensive, biodegradable and accessible resource, making it a viable alternative to other eco-friendly filtration techniques such as ceramic filters or bio-sand systems.

One drawback to xylem filtration is the need for a constant water source, something that Karnik says could be resolved with more research. Further experimentation could also identify sources of xylem from plants other than conifers, as many regions plagued by water quality issues cannot support coniferous trees.


Trees and Weatherization

by John-Miguel Dalbey

The end of winter doesn’t officially come until March 21, and as Winter Storm Wiley proved in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic, cold temperatures and heavy snowfall can still trigger tree-related problems and fixes. This winter’s major snow events, high winds and cold temperatures have many people turning their attention to “weatherizing” their homes from the elements.

Windbreak trees at Methwold Common. Rows of trees, usually poplars, are common features on the Fens. They act as windbreaks, a type of "greening."

Windbreak trees at Methwold Common.Rows of trees, usually poplars, are common features on the Fens. They act as windbreaks, Windbreak trees at Methwold Common. Rows of trees, usually poplars, are common features on the Fens. They act as windbreaks, a type of “greening.” Credit Bob Jones/Wikimedia

Given rising heating costs, increasing home efficiency is both the cheapest and most sustainable means of doing so. An eco-friendly, low-cost way to weatherize your property is to plant a windbreak of trees around your home or, as mentioned in a previous blog post, employ a green roof of growing plants.

The different forms of insulating one’s home with plants are, fittingly, collectively referred to as “greening,” and can include efforts to reduce one’s ecological footprint, such as using rain gardens to reduce water runoff during storms or planting native species to reduce the amount of maintenance needed.

Planting trees that provide shade in summer and break cold winter winds equalizes year-round temperatures within homes, which reduces heating and cooling costs. In turn, when energy consumption goes down, less fuel is burned and carbon emissions are reduced.

American Forests has worked in certain areas to replant tree windbreaks that help reduce weather extremes. While all tree planting efforts have beneficial effects on global climate, planting tree windbreaks is a great way to create a positive feedback loop combating climate change.


It’s Back! Big Tree Madness 2014

by Susan Laszewski

Big Tree Madness Game 1It’s back, bigger and madder than ever! Big Tree Madness 2014 kicks off today, giving visitors to American Forests’ Facebook page the chance to vote for which national champion tree should be this year’s Ultimate Big Tree.

Today’s match-up, the first of the Sweet Sixteen, is between Connecticut’s “Unbelievable” Umbrella Magnolia and Virginia’s Willow “WOW!” Oak. Both trees come with an abundance of history:

The umbrella magnolia, known as the “Saltonstall Magnolia,” is the largest in a grove that was planted by the Yale School of Forestry before 1950, possibly in the 1920s or 1930s, as part of their experimentation with different species. Today, the area is protected as part of a reservoir watershed, and has grown into a forest.

The willow oak has traded national champion status back and forth another willow oak in Chesapeake. Both trees were measured in 2013, and this tree was found to be larger. It’s located within walking distance of the historic Eastville Courthouse, home of the oldest continuous court records in the nation. And as the tree is not currently endangered by building projects or highway changes, we hope it will continue to accrue history for many more years.

So, which of these incredible trees should go on to the Elite Eight for a chance to go all the way and become this year’s Ultimate Big Tree? It’s up to you. Visit our Facebook page to vote. Voting closes on the match at 10:00 a.m. on March 18th. But the fun doesn’t end then. Tune in for Game 2 to cast your vote between national champions from Utah and Arizona.

Get the full scoop on Big Tree Madness rules and guidelines at www.americanforests.org/bigtreemadness.


Keeping Wildlife and People SAFE

by Alexandra Bower
An elk takes shelter from the blistering heat in the shade at Yellowstone National Park

An elk takes shelter from the blistering heat in the shade at Yellowstone National Park. Credit: shandysnaps/Flickr

With over 7 billion people living on this earth, it’s little wonder we would have a negative effect on our environment. Climate change is one of these negative effects that we have exacerbated by emitting high levels of carbon into the atmosphere daily, through deforestation and by altering our land-uses. In recent years, the damaging consequences of climate change have become increasingly apparent and unavoidable. Climate change has played a  part in extreme weather by triggering rising sea levels and overheating the ocean temperatures, making our communities vulnerable to the powerful storms that inevitably hit our coasts. This impact of climate change has been costly: Hurricane Katrina was one of the deadliest and priciest storms to date, taking almost 2,000 lives and causing over $100 billion in damages, and Hurricane Sandy caused similar damage along the Northeast. Climate change doesn’t just contribute to storms — droughts in other regions caused ravaging wildfires to destroy national forests and resources, homes and lives.

So, what can you do to help? Well, in response to these disasters, Senators Whitehouse and Baucus introduced the Safeguarding America’s Future and Environment, or the SAFE Act (S. 1202) in 2013 to respond to “ongoing and expected impacts of extreme weather and climate change by protecting, restoring and conserving the natural resources of the United States.” On February 25, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Oversight Subcommittee met to discuss ways to protect and preserve the nation’s lands and wildlife from climate change and hear testimonies of representatives from conservation nonprofit and activist organizations, government agencies, the White House and various scientific institutions.

Noah Matson, vice president for climate adaption at Defenders of Wildlife, testified, specifically highlighting the impacts of climate change on species, including changes in ocean circulation patterns, longer droughts and disruptions to the timing and patterns of seasonal cycles and migrations. He was adamant about resources needing to be reallocated for fish and wildlife protection, vigorous policy needing to be undertaken for mitigation and adaption efforts and the need for proper funding for the most important and sensitive regions and programs affected by a changing climate. He supported the SAFE Act because of its policies that prevent us from being “blindsided” by climate change in the future.

Christopher Brown, President of the Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association also testified, stating that the SAFE Act provides a “new set of eyes on the problem and another tool in the tool box” and could be the transition to ecosystem based management for fish and wildlife.

The SAFE Act protects our environment, resources and lives from the threat of storms intensifying due to the ongoing threat of climate change, while maximizing government efficiency and reducing excessive spending.

American Forests supports Whitehouse and Baucus’s efforts to pass the SAFE Act, and in the process, combat climate change and its effects on our citizens, communities and forests.  Please send a letter to your senators urging them to support the SAFE Act, too.


Badger Culls Deemed Ineffective

by John-Miguel Dalbey

In a recent analysis issued by Britain’s Independent Expert Panel, badger culls recently conducted in the Gloucestershire and Somerset regions were deemed ineffective and inhumane. Badgers had been deemed possible carriers of bovine tuberculosis, and the culls were conducted in order to prevent the disease’s spread to local cattle. Farming groups hired contracted hunters to conduct the shootings. The IEP analysts found that between six and 18 percent of the badgers killed took longer than five minutes to die, and therefore the culls were deemed inhumane, failing the IEP standard of no more than five percent of badgers dying over so long a period.

An adult badger in its den.

An adult badger in its den.

Furthermore, the number of badgers killed was not enough to meet the cull’s target goal of eradicating 70 percent of the badger population; only 58 percent of Somerset’s badgers, and 30 percent of the Gloucestershire badger populations were culled according to calculations provided by those conducting the cull. However, the IEP’s calculations suggest an even lower amount. A series of similar trial culls conducted in the 1990’s showed that if less than 70% of the population was culled, the spread of bovine tuberculosis could worsen as wounded or distressed animals would flee the area, spreading the disease even further.

Originally, the IEP was formed under the British Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs — similar to the U.S. Department of Agriculture — in order to aid Gloucestershire and Somerset in evaluating the effectiveness, humaneness and safety of trial environmental programs. As the trial badger culls were deemed ineffective, as well as cost prohibitive at more than $12 million, a broader nationwide cull will not be put into effect. Should a more closely monitored program be implemented in the future, the panel suggested that the hired hunters be more closely observed, to avoid such variation in effectiveness.


Lemurs and Ecotourism

by John-Miguel Dalbey

A lemur and her twin babies

A lemur and her twin babies. Credit: sannse/Wikimedia Commons

Lemurs are one of the most endangered groups of primates — even vertebrates — in the world, with over 90 percent of lemur subspecies listed as endangered or critically endangered by the IUCN. There are 101 species of lemur, found only in Madagascar, further divided into 15 genera and five families. The species are especially threatened by habitat loss from illegal logging and the illegal bushmeat trade, which have both been increasing after a political coup in 2009 left the current government with inadequate resources or power to devote to forest conservation. There may even be, as of yet, an undiscovered species hidden in Madagascar’s forests.

Recently, a team of conservationist researchers, in a proposal published in Science magazine, suggested that the best chance of saving critically endangered lemurs is through ecotourism and increased conservation efforts. The research team outlined a roughly $7.6 million plan to set up ecotourism and conservation efforts such as tour guide training and organizational oversight of forested areas. The team of researchers go on to state that the funds brought in by ecotourism in Madagascar’s unique forests will aid rural communities that would otherwise turn to illegal logging to earn money, noting similarly successful programs observing mountain gorillas in Rwanda and Uganda. However, the researchers pointed out that an increase in tourism in the area might have ecological consequences as well. In 2008, only eight tourists came to the area, while in 2011 there were 208, a number which will only rise given a concrete program.  Ultimately, the researchers noted that the only thing standing between them and implementing their conservation plan is a lack of funding.

American Forests has worked in many high biodiversity areas, with several projects in Kenya, as well as a series of reforestation efforts in Texas, with the potential for ecotourism. We support community based efforts, such as the Madagascar proposal, which aid both forest and biodiversity preservation.