Grass uses CO2 to grow, but grass that isn't cropped short will develop deeper roots (especially if the ground isn't compacted by having too many animals grazing it). Those deeper roots store a lot of CO2 underground. (There's been some interesting studies on American rangelands which have been badly degraded by overgrazing. Adding compost and having lighter grazing can greatly increase carbon sequestration in the soil)
People tend to forget that soil is an important carbon store. This is massively so in the case of bogs, where, if they are properly looked after and neither burned nor drained, spahagnum moss piles up year on year and can hold more carbon than a forest. But you already know about bogs :)
Ruminants fart methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so the sheep eat a CO2 supply and turn it into something worse.
The results are manifold: 1. Less carbon is locked up in grass and other vegetation 2. Soil is blown away when the vegetation is destroyed, leading to a loss of soil carbon. 3. The rabbits fart methane. 4. There's probably a minor rain effect as well. If they hinder forest regeneration, then rainfall will be lost too. Trees increase rainfall.
The carbon that trees store during their life should not be underestimated. They can store a lot of carbon. Currently, the ONLY practical method we have of removing carbon is to grow trees. (Carbon capture and storage is a way of reducing emissions, not getting CO2 out of the atmosphere). There are a few wild schemes out there, but none that are likely to work on a large scale or do so without creating a whole host of potential new problems.
The UK used to be almost entirely woodland. The Lake District and the Pennines were once covered in trees. We forget how much has been felled - the demands of everything from ship building, charcoal burning for glass making, pit props for mines, trench supports in WW1.
There is a movement that says we should change to timber frame houses. It picks up on your point about old trees dying and rotting. If we turn mature trees into structures that will preserve the timber, then we can keep growing more trees and lock up more carbon.
no subject
Grass uses CO2 to grow, but grass that isn't cropped short will develop deeper roots (especially if the ground isn't compacted by having too many animals grazing it). Those deeper roots store a lot of CO2 underground. (There's been some interesting studies on American rangelands which have been badly degraded by overgrazing. Adding compost and having lighter grazing can greatly increase carbon sequestration in the soil)
People tend to forget that soil is an important carbon store. This is massively so in the case of bogs, where, if they are properly looked after and neither burned nor drained, spahagnum moss piles up year on year and can hold more carbon than a forest. But you already know about bogs :)
Ruminants fart methane which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, so the sheep eat a CO2 supply and turn it into something worse.
I can see why rabbit control would help. Rabbits aren't native and badly over-graze the Australian vegtatation. See http://innohurryatall.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-rabbit-proof-fence.html for a photo of both sides of a rabbit proof fence.
The results are manifold:
1. Less carbon is locked up in grass and other vegetation
2. Soil is blown away when the vegetation is destroyed, leading to a loss of soil carbon.
3. The rabbits fart methane.
4. There's probably a minor rain effect as well. If they hinder forest regeneration, then rainfall will be lost too. Trees increase rainfall.
The carbon that trees store during their life should not be underestimated. They can store a lot of carbon.
Currently, the ONLY practical method we have of removing carbon is to grow trees. (Carbon capture and storage is a way of reducing emissions, not getting CO2 out of the atmosphere). There are a few wild schemes out there, but none that are likely to work on a large scale or do so without creating a whole host of potential new problems.
The UK used to be almost entirely woodland. The Lake District and the Pennines were once covered in trees. We forget how much has been felled - the demands of everything from ship building, charcoal burning for glass making, pit props for mines, trench supports in WW1.
There is a movement that says we should change to timber frame houses. It picks up on your point about old trees dying and rotting. If we turn mature trees into structures that will preserve the timber, then we can keep growing more trees and lock up more carbon.