The article analyzed is relaying the recommendations of a study that looked at the climate change effects of protecting lands from deforestation.
First to look at is the headline, “Protected Forest Areas May Be Critical Strategy for Slowing Climate Change.” The headline is cumbersome due to its length, a more appealing line headline might have been, “Living Forests Kill Climate Change.” While that line is catching, shorter, and contains more entertainment value it is very committal and doesn’t accurately portray the real content of the article, so we are left with a large headline that stresses a “Critical Strategy.” Later in this analysis I will explain why the hook of this headline “Critical Strategy” is also a bit of a misrepresentation of the article, and they may as well have used my headline to convey the meaning they inevitably convey.
The first paragraph relays information from a “NEW” study that “states that forest protection offers one of the most effective, practical, and immediate strategies to combat climate change.” The quote above is the exact point, theme, and argument being reported in this article. Authors of the study chime in through subsequent paragraphs stating the benefits of their recommendations. The important context covered throughout the article is the statistical figures for the amount of carbon stored in those protected forests, and that is in direct contrast to what isn’t explained at all. What they don’t explain at all in the article, I am left assuming isn’t important context, and what they aren’t explaining is how carbon is stored in those forests. At the end of the article there is a recap as to why protecting forest areas is a fiscally practical way to slow climate change, and they compare it to more expensive alternatives without enumerating a costly alternative.
The article isn’t given more prominence on the website than any other article. There is a map of the Amazon river basin that accompanies the article and it includes bar graph like representations of the amount of carbon stored in certain areas versus the amount of potential carbon emissions that would be released if deforestation occurred in that area. As a note the amount of potential carbon emission drastically lower than the amount of carbon stored in the forest locations.
The article seems to be devoid of commentary from the reporter. The feeling of the piece is that of expert research and the establishment of fact in the study’s recommendations through the use of statistics and lack of counter point or alternative view engagement. Without any additional sources besides those who authored the study, and seemingly no input from the reporter there is a clear information bias as the information reported is only considered by those who authored the information.
The article ends with bullet points highlighting specific recommendations made by the study. There is little to think on within the context of the study, the information presented in the form of statistics, and the recommendation made. Mature trees store a lot of carbon, cutting down forests and processing its contents releases a lot of carbon back into the atmosphere, protecting forests through the indigenous population, monitoring and creation of more protected areas are valid recommendations, everything falls in line through the context of the article.
I did a quick search on how carbon sequestration works in forests and was immediately aware why it was left out of the article. As trees grow they use carbon as a building block in their growth, thus carbon is stored in forests. That makes perfects senesce, however tress more rapidly store carbon as they grow rapidly. That is a however statement because trees grow rapidly when they are new and not already mature like the trees the study is recommending protection of. That phenomenal statistics of how much carbon is stored in the forests there are directly related to the fact that the trees have been growing for a very long time. Also, carbon emissions due to logging go way down when they deforest areas that store more carbon, and the map graphic tells that story as well. Larger trees store more carbon and have more material that can be used in industry. As long as that material isn’t burned the carbon will remain sequestered in whatever form those trees now take, be it paper, or lumber. Smaller forests store less carbon and contain less mass per tree, and each tree yields fewer products and requires full processing of less desirable parts like bark. The increased processing strain requires more parts of the tree to be disposed of, i.e. incinerated, releasing more carbon.
With this in mind a recommendation based purely on how carbon sequestration works in forests would be to cut down forests storing the most amount of carbon and planting new trees in their place to absorb more carbon more efficiently then the trees that preceded it. However, that kind of large scale forest management would be the costly alternative the study was alluding to. So, if the funds are readily available to protect the forests rather then manage them then yes that does seem more practical and immediate, but it is less effective.
I could offer a solution, they could recommend a mandate for the logging companies to deforest and replant specific areas, and place the burden solely on them as to how to make the venture financial viable. A follow up study could be done to see which approach is more cost effective vs. beneficial for the battle with climate change; legislation for the protection of forests and money to monitor logging companies, or legislation of logging company responsibilities and money to monitor the logging companies. In either case the governments of forested countries may pass laws that deal with logging and climate change, so why not pass laws that offer the best “Critical Strategy” to combat climate change rather than the ones that will only slow climate change down?
http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2010/03/100316083719.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink#Forests
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter9.pdf
Ruddell, Steven; et al. (September 2007). "The Role for Sustainably Managed Forests in Climate Change Mitigation". Journal of Forestry 105 (6): 314–319.
