Shirt Tales

1. "Unless the world goes completely carbon neutral by 2100 -- meaning carbon dioxide emissions are being removed from the atmosphere at the same rate they're being put in -- we face severe consequences. Don't look to politicians to make tough decisions needed to curb economic growth or challenge entrenched industries, he said. They rely on a political cycle that focuses on the next four years, and aren't concerned the impact their decisions will have generations from now...As long as the media continue to give
   credibility to so-called climate change deniers, there will be a mistaken belief there's a big debate within the scientific community about how serious global warming is and how much of it is caused by humans. If the public believes there's uncertainty about climate change, they won't put pressure on elected officials to do something about it. [The Conservative party’s] cap-and-trade plan for curbing emissions lets the market determine the cost of carbon offsets*. Under the Liberal's carbon tax plan at least businesses could project what the increased cost would be." (1) -- Andrew Weaver, Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a Warming World
2. "If you want to meet your best natural ally in the fight against air pollution and global warming, look at the nearest tree. Trees remove toxins, such as ozone, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, from the air. They clean the atmosphere of carbon dioxide, the most significant greenhouse gas. Trees cool the air and provide a home for wildlife. They prevent soil erosion and flash flooding, and help the ground store water. And they can reduce our need to burn fossil fuels. For example, a tree shading a building can cut the need for air-conditioning, reducing costs by as much as 56 per cent." (2)
3. Waterloo Region estimate: trees save us between $2.2 million and $2.5 million, when compared to the costs of other methods of removing air pollution; (2)
4. " A study in Charlottesville, Virginia showed that when tree cover dropped eight per cent between 1976 and 2000, the amount of runoff increased by 19 per cent. It would cost about US$6 billion to build stormwater retention ponds and other engineered systems to intercept the runoff that had previously been captured by the trees.The study also reported that the city's tree cover captured an estimated 7,200 tonnes of carbon per year and removed close to 104,300 tonnes of pollutants from the atmosphere. The dollar value placed on these services was estimated to be US$567 million." (3)===>Grand River watershed is about one-third the size of the Charlottesville study area; easy enough to do the math, just divide by three & then ask these questions: a) of your local councillor, what is the annual cost of building and then the annual maintenance of stormwater management ponds? b) the value of the land thereby consumed --the actual ponds and the road access to maintain them? c) of the GRCA, what is the annual cost of maintaining and managing the flood control systems throughout the entire Grand River watershed?
5. "The value of forested land was seen in its ability to retain snowmelt, which would gradually recharge groundwater. Forested land along waterways was also an objective of the early planting projects, as this reduced erosion. " (4) ===> rapid urban growth & settlement (euphemistically called development) has steadily downgraded surface water quality and negatively impacted on our ground water supplies that are the main source of drinking water in this region
6. In 1997, the City of Kitchener committed itself to the Cities for Climate Protection Campaign and signed that organization's international pledge to reduce CO2 emissions by 20% by 2,000AD*. That same year three University of Waterloo students Tara Doherty, Melanie Murphy and Riyaz Lalani studied City of Kitchener parks to determine their net impact on removing CO2 emissions from the local atmosphere. (5) Although this report was prepared in 1997, the information contained therein is worthwhile and could be the starting point for further studies as to whether this City's rapid growth and intensification proposals are indeed sustainable. RR has scooped up for you, gentle reader, the most relevant statistics crunched by these students:

•  Major Carbon Dioxide Sources in the City of Kitchener expressed in kg/CO2/Year: Cars @ 28,000,000.0 + Trucks @ 23,520,000.0= 51,520,000 (transportation); Electricity@ 19,216,000.0 + Natural Gas@ 3,330,319.0 =22,546,319 (energy and heating)
  
• Total 1997 CO2 annual emissions @ 74,066,319.0 kg
  
• In 1997, City of Kitchener parks sequestered (removed) 31.7% carbon from the atmosphere @ total 23,500,000 kg CO2; the students calculated @ 100 trees per acre of parkland & average age of tree is 80 years; Ave large species tree sequesters 172kg of CO2 each year; 50+ years sequesters 341.kg CO2 per year; immature trees sequester much less than mature trees ***
• The following parks removed significant amounts of CO2-- numbers in this order park size in ha/ number of trees in each park = vol of CO2 sequestered by that park: 
  a. Homer Watson Park 69.6 / 17191.2 =4,410,712
  b. Stanley Park 56.0 /13832 =3,548,849
  c. Monarch Woods 12.9 / 3,186.3 =3,283,698
  d. Idlewood Park 41.9 /10,349.3 =2,655,300
  e. Tilt's Bush 28.5 / 7,039.5 =1,806,111
  f. Steckle Woods 26.7 /6,594.9 =1,642,041
  g. Pinnacle Hill Area 16.1 / 3,976.7 =1,020,294
  h. Breithaupt Park 16.0 /3,952 1,013,957
• City of Kitchener is currently inventorying its urban forest @ 45,000 trees that are municipally owned.
  
• "Trees are one of the few assets that we have that increases in value as it ages.''--David Schmitt, environmental and urban forest project manager for the City of Kitchener.
  

Labels: climate change, forests, politics

# posted by ramblingrose @ 9:15 AM