A 2013 analysis of wildfire sites in the Rocky Mountains found that almost one-third of areas burned since 2000 showed no regeneration “whatsoever,” with flowers and shrubs still remaining where tree seedlings were expected. “In the Rocky Mountains, estimates hold that by 2050, about 15% of the forests would not grow back if felled by fire because the climate would no longer suit them,” The Guardian writes, reeling off a devastating forecast. “In Alberta, Canada, about half of existing forests could vanish by 2100.” Meanwhile, in the southeastern United States—a region currently suffering through a megadrought—“as much as 30% of forests are at risk of converting to shrubland or another kind of ecosystem.”Similar suspicions of a looming “forest mortality tipping point” are assailing researchers studying both the Amazon and the boreal forests of northern Russia.Since 2010, The Guardian writes, nearly 50% of all trees in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains are dead, taken by either drought, insect infestation, or wildfire. And almost certain to be lost in this forest apocalypse will be majestic, magical species like the giant sequoia.Researchers studying carbon emissions are keeping a worried eye on this potential for massive “forest mortality,” as forests currently “absorb around one-quarter” of all anthropogenic emissions each year. Landscapes that have long been reliable carbon sinks could thus become carbon bombs.The Guardian adds that these projected rates of forest death help explain “why much-touted proposals toplant millions of trees to suck up carbon and ameliorate the climate crisis are encountering skepticism; they won’t work if conditions on Earth don’t allow for forests to reproduce and thrive.”While acknowledging some truth behind the idea that, in a climate changed world, “forests could find new footholds in places that were formerly too cold or otherwise unsuited to them,” The Guardian throws cold water on that faint hope: “Trees can take centuries to reach maturity, and in terms of global heating, older, large trees store much more carbon than younger, smaller ones,” That leaves just one solution, the UK newspaper writes. “The best answer to the mortality crisis is to preserve the forests we already have—by cutting carbon emissions.”
Source: World’s Lost Forest Regions May Never Regenerate – The Energy Mix
February 17, 2021: A net-zero home in Edmonton, Alberta stayed toasty warm when the polar vortex brought bitterly cold temperatures to town, enabling Darryl Zubot and his family to stay comfortable and safe—without having to turn on the furnace.In pure dollar terms, net-zero homes can be a costly venture, with homeowners looking at up to 20 years before they recoup the up-front investment, writes CBC News. But the trend toward climate-friendly, self-sufficient houses is gaining momentum—even in a region where winters are wild, and oil and gas is still perceived as the economic bread and butter. Zubot and his family recently built a net-zero home south of Edmonton, CBC says. The structure features south-facing, triple-paned windows, added insulation, extra-efficient appliances, and a heat pump—all working together to sharply reduce the home’s energy consumption. In Alberta, that means they can sell electricity to the grid when they have a surplus, then buy some back when they need it.The windows measure six by 10 feet and provide “about 30 to 35% of the home’s heat” during bright, sunny days, CBC says, helping to keep things cozy and warm during the worst of winter. Add the heat pump, and the house remained a toasty 23°C indoors this week, even as the mercury outside plunged below -30°C during the recent stint of bitter cold.“This house is a testament to how you can be completely self-sufficient in this day and age, with no reliance on oil and gas,” Zubot told CBC.Zubot plans to add solar panels this spring, after which the house will generate as much energy as it uses. “We need to do our part to reduce our oil consumption,” he said. “I know it’s not going to change overnight and we still need oil, but it’s definitely slowly transitioning.”This particular net-zero project was expensive—Zubot paid “roughly C$40,000” more than what an equivalent non-net-zero house would have cost. But “we plan to be here for a long time, and it’ll pay back in the long run,” he said. “It’s definitely not a short-term investment game, but long-term it definitely pays off.”Then again, the strict financial calculation was not the Zubot’s primary concern—nor is it for many net-zero homeowners, said Dale Rott, co-owner of Effect Home Builders in Edmonton. “They are aware of climate change and they have an ideological reason,” he told CBC. “It’s not because of cost savings on utilities and all that. We’re not hearing that yet.”
