# data[].attributes.body
Just to add to the keyword 'Action' :)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Forests are having their moment. Because trees can vacuum carbon from the atmosphere and lock it away in wood and soil, governments and businesses are embracing efforts to fight climate change using trees.

Nations have pledged to plant or restore forests over a combined area larger than India. One corporate-backed initiative has secured pledges to conserve or restore 855 million trees by 2030. Even President Donald Trump, an ardent climate change skeptic, endorsed a trillion-tree planting initiative at the World Economic Forum in January; a companion bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in February.

Scientists agree that new trees and forests can, in theory, cool the planet. But many have warned that the enthusiasm and money flowing to forest-based climate solutions threaten to outpace the science.

Two papers published this week seek to put such efforts on a firmer footing. One study quantifies how much carbon might be absorbed globally by allowing forests cleared for farming or other purposes to regrow. The other calculates how much carbon could be sequestered by forests in the United States if they were fully "stocked" with newly planted trees. Each strategy has promise, the studies suggest, but also faces perils.

To get a worldwide perspective on the potential of second-growth forests, an international team led by ecologist Susan Cook-Patton of the Nature Conservancy (TNC) assembled data from more than 13,000 previously deforested sites where researchers had measured regrowth rates of young trees. The team then trained a machine-learning algorithm on those data and dozens of variables, such as climate and soil type, to predict and map how fast trees could grow on other cleared sites where it didn't have data.

In 2017, a TNC-led team had calculated that some 678 million hectares, an area nearly the size of Australia, could support second-growth forests. (The total excludes land where trees might not be desirable, such as farmland and ecologically valuable grasslands.) New forests growing throughout that area could soak up one-quarter of the world's fossil fuel emissions over the next 30 years, Cook-Patton and colleagues report today in Nature. That absorption rate is 32% higher than a previous estimate, based on coarser data, produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But the total carbon drawdown is 11% lower than the 2017 estimate.

Can the forest regenerate naturally, or can we do something to help?

Susan Cook-Patton, the Nature Conservancy

The study highlights "what nature can do all on its own," Cook-Patton says. Although reforesting the full area of opportunity is unrealistic, she says, reforestation planners can use her team's results to estimate how much carbon sequestration to expect.

The study represents "a lightning step forward" in precision compared with earlier studies, says geographer Matthew Fagan of the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, who was not involved in the work.

But, Fagan adds, "Natural regrowth is not going to save the planet." Young forests are easier to cut down or burn than old ones, Fagan cautions, making them frequent targets for farmers and ranchers. Second-growth forests in the Amazon typically last only 5 to 8 years, according to studies, though trees on slopes or near streams often survive longer. Even in Costa Rica, renowned as a reforestation champion that has doubled its forest cover in recent decades, half of regrowing forests fall within 20 years.

In many places, grazing cattle or growing crops is simply more profitable than allowing trees to come back, notes Pedro Brancalion, a forest expert at the University of São Paulo in Piracicaba, Brazil. Policies that promote reforestation and better markets for both carbon and forest products are needed, he says, to give trees a boost. Right now, "Nobody will abandon cattle ranching or agriculture for growing carbon."

Robin Chazdon, a University of Connecticut, Storrs, ecologist and study co-author, urges conservationists to help farmers grow both trees and crops or cattle-a concept, she notes, that has a long history of success. "If you look at the history of Indigenous peoples, you will find many, many examples of how they managed and modified the forest for their own uses," she says. "It doesn't have to be completely left alone."

Some advocates promote expanding tree planting in existing forests. To boost that concept, a team of researchers at the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) quantified how many additional trees U.S. forests could hold. Drawing on a federal inventory, they found that more than 16% of forests in the continental United States are "understocked"-holding fewer than 35% of the trees they could support. Fully stocking these 33 million hectares of forest would ultimately enable U.S. forests to sequester about 18% of national carbon emissions each year, up from 15% today, the team reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. But for that to happen, the United States would have to "massively" expand its annual tree-planting efforts, from about 1 billion to 16 billion trees, says lead author Grant Domke, a USFS research forester in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Planting trees might make sense in some places, Cook-Patton says. But she cautions that adding trees in fire-prone areas could increase fire risk. And although tree planting often gets the hype, cheaper natural regeneration usually results in a more diverse mix of species and provides more carbon bang for the buck. "For any given site," she says, "we should always ask ourselves first: 'Can the forest regenerate naturally, or can we do something to help?'"

doi:10.1126/science.abe9221

Gabriel Popkin is a journalist based in Mount Rainier, Maryland.

More from News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plant trees or let forests regrow? New studies probe two ways to fight climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Forests are having their moment. Because trees can vacuum carbon from the atmosphere and lock it away in wood and soil, governments and businesses are embracing efforts to fight climate change using trees. Nations have pledged to plant or restore forests over a combined area larger than India.

# data[].attributes.body
Reforestation
Ecosystem
Reduced Material Consumption

# data[].attributes.body
Be heard!

# data[].attributes.body
The Reality!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Find out where to recycle your unwanted electricals:
Use the Recycling Locator Is your toaster toast? Has your kettle run out of steam?
Got any old electricals lying around at home?

From kettles to cameras, from battery-operated toys to toasters, from power drills to mobile phones, you can recycle the lot!

It's easy - just take them with you next time you visit your local recycling centre. Enter your postcode above to find yours - and what you can recycle there.

To find out more about recycling unwanted electrical items, click here:
Find out more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Use the Recycling Locator Is your toaster toast? Has your kettle run out of steam? Got any old electricals lying around at home? From kettles to cameras, from battery-operated toys to toasters, from power drills to mobile phones, you can recycle the lot!

# data[].attributes.body
The Ipad Pro 12.9 was made in 2019, it was created using machines. The machines create the mother boards and other component which can take seconds to complete. After the workers install the LED touch screen display it needs to be tested on a gyroscope. Workers who create the Ipads rotate their jobs everyday and make up to £14 a day. (Video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QDRaBqdKOE
The Ipad is made of recycled materials like glass and aluminium, even the packaging of the Ipad is recycled with materials like cardboard. Apple had put out a face sheet stating the environmental costs of the Ipad and displaying how some of the components and recycle and lack of toxic materials such as mercury. Obviously the Ipad does come with environmental costs as there are some components that need to be invested on and a remarkable about of energy that needs to be produced.
The evolution of the Ipad is unnecessary, yes they may be better than the older model, but even if some components are recycled it still doesn’t make up for the other components that cost the environment and can cause harm. Apple stated with their carbon footprint that they are continuing to make progress with reducing their contribution to climate change and that they will be making efficient products with “renewable or recycled materials with renewable energy.”

# data[].attributes.body
Take reasonability!

# data[].attributes.body
How to act!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two years on from Greta Thunberg's first solo school strike for the climate, she says the world has wasted the time by failing to take the necessary action on the crisis.

Thunberg's strike inspired a global movement, and on Thursday she and other leading school strikers will meet Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, which holds the rotating presidency of the European council. They will demand a halt to all fossil fuel investments and subsidies and the establishment of annual, binding carbon budgets based on the best science.

"Looking back [over two years], a lot has happened. Many millions have taken to the streets ... and on 28 November 2019, the European parliament declared a climate and environmental emergency," Thunberg said in an article for the Guardian with fellow strikers Luisa Neubauer, Anuna de Wever and Adélaïde Charlier.

"But over these last two years, the world has also emitted over 80bn tonnes of CO ₂. We have seen continuous natural disasters taking place across the globe. Many lives and livelihoods have been lost, and this is only the very beginning."

They said leaders were speaking of an "existential crisis", yet "when it comes to action, we are still in a state of denial. The gap between what we need to do and what's actually being done is widening by the minute. Effectively, we have lost another two crucial years to political inaction."

Thunberg and her colleagues said fighting the climate emergency must involve rich nations stopping some of their polluting activities. "However, it's a fact which most people refuse to accept. Just the thought of being in a crisis that we cannot buy, build or invest our way out of seems to create some kind of collective mental short-circuit. This mix of ignorance, denial and unawareness is the very heart of the problem," they said.

The trillions of dollars being spent by governments in response to the coronavirus pandemic are seen as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put the world on course to halt global heating, with economists, scientists and health experts all saying the benefits would outweigh the costs.

However, G20 governments' rescue packages are giving significantly more support to fossil fuels than to low-carbon energy. Germany's recovery plan includes €40bn for climate measures such as electric vehicles, public transport and energy efficiency, and has been praised by green groups. But elsewhere, too little is being done, Thunberg and colleagues said.

"Even a child can see that the policies of today are incompatible with the current best available science," they said.

Scientists calculate that global carbon emissions must be cut by half by the end of this decade if humanity is to have a reasonable chance of keeping temperature rises to below 1.5C, the limit set in the Paris climate deal. Drops in emissions during coronavirus lockdowns are only a small blip in a long-term rising trend and will have a "negligible" effect on the climate crisis, researchers say.

"We understand the world is complicated and that what we are asking for may not be easy or seem unrealistic," said the school strikers. "But it is much more unrealistic to believe that our societies would be able to survive the global heating we're heading for. We are inevitably going to have to fundamentally change, one way or another. The question is: will the changes be on our terms, or on nature's terms?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Another two years lost to climate inaction, says Greta Thunberg

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two years on from Greta Thunberg's first solo school strike for the climate, she says the world has wasted the time by failing to take the necessary action on the crisis. Thunberg's strike inspired a global movement, and on Thursday she and other leading school strikers will meet Angela Merkel, the chancellor of Germany, which holds the rotating presidency of the European council.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
According to the world's leading scientists, we have 12 years to cut emissions in half to prevent catastrophic climate change impacts later this century. To reach this ambitious goal, we need to act together with all of us doing our part.

At WWF, we take our carbon footprint seriously. Like individuals, WWF's greenhouse gas emissions come primarily from three sources: how we power our offices, how we travel to work and for work, and the food we consume for work functions and how much of it we waste. We are taking steps to address each and looking to do more.

© WWF-US / Keith Arnold

On powering our offices

We have retrofitted our building to become more energy efficient, switched to 100% renewable electricity, and altered our working hours to reduce energy demand. Together with other steps this has allowed our headquarters to be one of a select few LEED Platinum certified retrofitted buildings in Washington, DC.

© Flo Maderebner

On transportation

We are offering remote meeting options, increased transportation benefits for employees, flexible telework, electric vehicle charging stations at our offices, while offsetting all employee air travel.

© Germund Sellgren / WWF-Sweden

On fighting waste, including food waste

We have developed a comprehensive recycling program (including for hard-to-recycle items) and a composting program to limit landfill emissions from food waste. In the next year, we will be exploring more steps to fight food waste.

3 Actions You Can Take to Fight Climate Change

1. Pledge to Do More. Just like WWF, your impact on climate change primarily comes from: what you eat, how you power your homes and mobile devices, and how you travel from place to place. The average US citizen emits 20 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year due primarily to these activities. (This is ten times the emissions from the average person in India, for example.) Can you commit to cutting your carbon footprint as we do the same?

You can commit to reducing your carbon footprint by taking a hard look at the electricity you use, how you get from place to place, and the footprint of your food.

Sign the pledge nowh

2. Encourage Businesses to Join the Movement. Companies are the world's largest energy users. With that comes enormous opportunity-and responsibility. Energy for electricity production and industrial uses is the cause of nearly half of the world's global greenhouse gas emissions. And well over two-thirds of that delivered electricity is for commercial and industrial users. So, shifting the behavior of companies is fundamental to the clean energy transition and to reducing emissions on the scale needed to fight global climate change.

Companies who are serious about climate change should:

1. Set science-based target for their full carbon footprint;

2. Commit to powering their operations with renewable energy; and

3. Tackle emissions from their supply chains by working with their suppliers.

No matter where a company is in their journey to reduce emissions, an essential step is to ensure that they reaffirm their support for the historic Paris Agreement. By joining the We Are Still In coalition, companies can do their part to guarantee that America remains a trusted global partner in the fight against climate change.

Know a company we should reach out to join the We Are Still In coalition? With over 3,500 signatories, We Are Still In is the largest US coalition ever assembled in support of climate action.Email us and we'll touch base with them to develop a plan and see how they can positively contribute to fighting climate change and join the We Are Still In movement.

Email us nowh

3. Tell Congress: We Need a 100% Clean Energy Economy. Our climate is changing around us faster than predicted, but it's not too late to change course. To limit warming to 1.5° C, we must take swift action-including building a more comprehensive climate policy.

A newly introduced bill in Congress would set the United States' economy on a path to 100 percent clean energy by 2050.Ask your Member of Congress to cosponsor the 100% Clean Economy Act of 2019.

Contact Congress nowh

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three Actions to Fight Climate Change | World Wildlife Fund

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore World Wildlife Fund Online to learn more about endangered species like tigers, rhinos, whales, and pandas, the places where they live, threats to their survival, and how WWF is helping to save them.

# data[].attributes.body
The evidence!