# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon than it releases as carbon dioxide. European forests are currently a net carbon sink as they take in more carbon than they emit. In climate negotiations, this temporary reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also known as negative emissions.

Forest carbon sinks are not an excuse to delay action in reducing fossil fuel emissions. This is because carbon absorbed by trees is dynamic. Forest carbon moves between the atmosphere (as carbon dioxide) and the tree (as carbon) in a continuous cycle, known as the forest carbon cycle.

Carbon stored in fossil fuel is static, remaining trapped outside the atmosphere for thousands of years. This means that forests can never cancel out or 'offset' emissions from fossil sources.

Using forest carbon sinks to justify carbon dioxide emissions from fossil sources will increase concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, making it impossible to meet the global goal of keeping international temperature rises to well below 2°C.

Despite the clear difference between fossil and forest carbon, United Nations climate negotiators often suggest that planting trees or reducing deforestation is equivalent to reducing emissions from burning fossil fuels. Until this myth is finally busted, schemes to reduce emissions from deforestation and degradation ( REDD), the Clean Development Mechanism or LULUCF have the potential to do more harm than good.

While it is quite possible to keep coal in the hole and oil in the soil, no government or company can ever ensure that carbon will remain in trees. Forest fires, insect outbreaks, decay, logging, land use changes and the decline of forest ecosystems as a result of climate change are all hard or impossible to control. This doesn't mean we shouldn't try to protect and restore forests, just that we need to do itat the same time as reducing fossil fuel emissions to zero.

For more information on any of these issues please see read our report Return of the Trees or watch Fern's video on LULUCF.

Categories: Climate, Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), Negative emissions, Restoration

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon than it releases as carbon dioxide. European forests are currently a net carbon sink as they take in more carbon than they emit. In climate negotiations, this temporary reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also known as negative...

# data[].attributes.body
Using public transportation would reduce carbon dioxide, because more people would be able to get in a public transportation than on your own car. Meaning there would be less people riding their own cars and that would be a good thing, because since there are less cars, there would be less carbon dioxide made by transportations. For example, if there are 30 people in a bus, and all of these people had cars, and if these people were all riding their own cars, then there would be 30 times more of carbon dioxide compared to those 30 people riding a single bus.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carbon sinks (green bars on the right) remove carbon from the atmosphere, whereas carbon sources (greenhouse gas emissions) (grey bars on the left) add them. Since the 1850s, there are more carbon sources than sinks and therefore the carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere is rising.[1]

A carbon sink is a natural or artificial process that "removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere".[2]: 2249  These sinks form an important part of the natural carbon cycle. An overarching term is carbon pool, which is all the places where carbon on Earth can be, i.e. the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and so forth. A carbon sink is a type of carbon pool that has the capability to take up more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases.

Globally, the two most important carbon sinks are vegetation and the ocean.[3] Soil is an important carbon storage medium. Much of the organic carbon retained in the soil of agricultural areas has been depleted due to intensive farming. Blue carbon designates carbon that is fixed via certain marine ecosystems. Coastal blue carbon includes mangroves, salt marshes and seagrasses. These make up a majority of ocean plant life and store large quantities of carbon. Deep blue carbon is located in international waters and includes carbon contained in "continental shelf waters, deep-sea waters and the sea floor beneath them".[4]

For climate change mitigation purposes, the enhancement of natural carbon sinks, mainly soils and forests, is important.[5] In the past, human practices like deforestation and industrial agriculture have depleted natural carbon sinks. This kind of land use change has been one of the causes of climate change.

In the context of climate change and in particular mitigation, a sink is defined as "Any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere".[2]: 2249

In the case of non-CO ₂ greenhouse gases, sinks need not store the gas. Instead they can break it down into substances that have a reduced effect on global warming. For example, nitrous oxide can be reduced to harmless N₂.[6][7]

Related terms are "carbon pool, reservoir, sequestration, source and uptake".[2]: 2249  The same publication defines carbon pool as "a reservoir in the Earth system where elements, such as carbon [...], reside in various chemical forms for a period of time."[2]: 2244

Both carbon pools and carbon sinks are important concepts in understanding the carbon cycle, but they refer to slightly different things. A carbon pool can be thought of as the overarching term, and carbon sink is then a particular type of carbon pool: A carbon pool is all the places where carbon can be (for example the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and fossil fuels).[2]: 2244  A carbon sink, on the other hand, is a type of carbon pool that has the capability to take up more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases.[citation needed ]

The amount of carbon dioxide varies naturally in a dynamic equilibrium with photosynthesis of land plants. The natural carbon sinks are:

Soil is a carbon store and active carbon sink.[8]

Photosynthesis by terrestrial plants with grass and trees allows them to serve as carbon sinks during growing seasons.

Absorption of carbon dioxide by the oceans via solubility and biological pumps.

Artificial carbon sinks are those that store carbon in building materials or deep underground (geologic carbon sequestration).[9][10] No major artificial systems remove carbon from the atmosphere on a large scale yet.[11]

Public awareness of the significance of CO ₂ sinks has grown since passage of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which promotes their use as a form of carbon offset.[12]

This diagram of the fast carbon cycle shows the movement of carbon between land, atmosphere, soil and oceans in billions of tons of carbon per year. Yellow numbers are natural fluxes, red are human contributions in billions of tons of carbon per year. White numbers indicate stored carbon.

Soils represent a short to long-term carbon storage medium, and contain more carbon than all terrestrial vegetation and the atmosphere combined.[13][14][15] Plant litter and other biomass including charcoal accumulates as organic matter in soils, and is degraded by chemical weathering and biological degradation. More recalcitrant organic carbon polymers such as cellulose, hemi-cellulose, lignin, aliphatic compounds, waxes and terpenoids are collectively retained as humus.[16]

Organic matter tends to accumulate in litter and soils of colder regions such as the boreal forests of North America and the Taiga of Russia. Leaf litter and humus are rapidly oxidized and poorly retained in sub-tropical and tropical climate conditions due to high temperatures and extensive leaching by rainfall. Areas where shifting cultivation or slash and burn agriculture are practiced are generally only fertile for two to three years before they are abandoned. These tropical jungles are similar to coral reefs in that they are highly efficient at conserving and circulating necessary nutrients, which explains their lushness in a nutrient desert.[17]

Grasslands contribute to soil organic matter, stored mainly in their extensive fibrous root mats. Due in part to the climatic conditions of these regions (e.g. cooler temperatures and semi-arid to arid conditions), these soils can accumulate significant quantities of organic matter. This can vary based on rainfall, the length of the winter season, and the frequency of naturally occurring lightning-induced grass-fires. While these fires release carbon dioxide, they improve the quality of the grasslands overall, in turn increasing the amount of carbon retained in the humic material. They also deposit carbon directly to the soil in the form of biochar that does not significantly degrade back to carbon dioxide.[18]

Wetlands are a natural carbon sink, however climate change can cause these biomes to turn into a carbon source. The high temperature and low water resulted from climate change causes the wetland to transform into a carbon source. [19] This can be seen in peatbogs which are a type of wetland. They undergoes slow anaerobic decomposition below the surface. This process is slow enough that in many cases the bog grows rapidly and fixes more carbon from the atmosphere than is released. Over time, the peat grows deeper. Peat bogs hold approximately one-quarter of the carbon stored in land plants and soils.[20]

Enhancing soil carbon sinks

Much organic carbon retained in many agricultural areas worldwide has been severely depleted due to intensive farming practices.[21] Since the 1850s, a large proportion of the world's grasslands have been tilled and converted to croplands, allowing the rapid oxidation of large quantities of soil organic carbon. Methods that significantly enhance carbon sequestration in soil include no-till farming, residue mulching, cover cropping, and crop rotation, all of which are more widely used in organic farming than in conventional farming.[22][23]

Proportion of carbon stock in forest carbon pools, 2020[24]

Favourable factors and carbon sink saturation in forests

Forests are generally carbon dioxide sinks when they are high in diversity, density or area. However, they can also be carbon sources if diversity, density or area decreases due to deforestation, selective logging, climate change, wildfires or diseases.[25][26][27] One study in 2020 found that 32 tracked Brazilian non-Amazon seasonal tropical forests declined from a carbon sink to a carbon source in 2013 and concludes that "policies are needed to mitigate the emission of greenhouse gases and to restore and protect tropical seasonal forests".[28][29] In 2019 forests took up a third less carbon than they did in the 1990s, due to higher temperatures, droughts and deforestation. The typical tropical forest may become a carbon source by the 2060s.[30]

An assessment of European forests found early signs of carbon sink saturation, after decades of increasing strength.[31] The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that a combination of measures aimed at increasing forest carbon stocks, andsustainable timber offtake will generate the largest carbon sequestration benefit.[32]

Life expectancy of forests varies throughout the world, influenced by tree species, site conditions and natural disturbance patterns. In some forests, carbon may be stored for centuries, while in other forests, carbon is released with frequent stand replacing fires. Forests that are harvested prior to stand replacing events allow for the retention of carbon in manufactured forest products such as lumber.[33] However, only a portion of the carbon removed from logged forests ends up as durable goods and buildings. The remainder ends up as sawmill by-products such as pulp, paper and pallets, which often end with incineration (resulting in carbon release into the atmosphere) at the end of their lifecycle. For instance, of the 1,692 megatonnes of carbon harvested from forests in Oregon and Washington from 1900 to 1992, only 23% is in long-term storage in forest products.[34]

The Food and Agriculure Organization (FAO) reported that: "The total carbon stock in forests decreased from 668 gigatonnes in 1990 to 662 gigatonnes in 2020".[24]: 11  However, another study finds that the leaf area index has increased globally since 1981, which was responsible for 12.4% of the accumulated terrestrial carbon sink from 1981 to 2016. The CO₂ fertilization effect, on the other hand, was responsible for 47% of the sink, while climate change reduced the sink by 28.6%.[35] In Canada's boreal forests as much as 80% of the total carbon is stored in the soils as dead organic matter.[36]

Carbon offset programs are planting millions of fast-growing trees per year to reforest tropical lands, for as little as $0.10 per tree. Over their typical 40-year lifetime, one million of these trees can sequester up to one million tons of carbon dioxide.[37][38]

Changes in albedo effect

Forests generally have a low albedo because the majority of the ultraviolet and visible spectrum is absorbed through photosynthesis. For this reason, the greater heat absorption by trees could offset some of the carbon benefits of afforestation (or offset the negative climate impacts of deforestation). In other words: The climate change mitigation effect of carbon sequestration by forests is partially counterbalanced in that reforestation can decrease the reflection of sunlight (albedo).[39]

In the case of evergreen forests with seasonal snow cover, albedo reduction may be significant enough for deforestation to cause a net cooling effect.[40] Trees also impact climate in extremely complicated ways through evapotranspiration. The water vapor causes cooling on the land surface, causes heating where it condenses, acts as strong greenhouse gas, and can increase albedo when it condenses into clouds.[41] Scientists generally treat evapotranspiration as a net cooling impact, and the net climate impact of albedo and evapotranspiration changes from deforestation depends greatly on local climate.[42]

Mid-to-high-latitude forests have a much lower albedo during snow seasons than flat ground, thus contributing to warming. Modeling that compares the effects of albedo differences between forests and grasslands suggests that expanding the land area of forests in temperate zones offers only a temporary mitigation benefit.[43][44][45][46]

August 2023 research, drawing from 176 flux stations globally, reveals a climate trade-off: increased carbon uptake from afforestation results in reduced albedo. Initially, this reduction may lead to moderate global warming over a span of approximately 20 years, but it is expected to transition into significant cooling thereafter.[47]

Deep ocean, tidal marshes, mangroves and seagrasses

Ways one blue carbon habitat can influence carbon processing in an adjacent blue carbon habitat [48]

Blue carbon is a concept within climate change mitigation that refers to "biologically driven carbon fluxes and storage in marine systems that are amenable to management."[49]: 2220  Most commonly, it refers to the role that tidal marshes, mangroves and seagrasses can play in carbon sequestration.[49]: 2220  These ecosystems can play an important role for climate change mitigation and ecosystem-based adaptation. However, when blue carbon ecosystems are degraded or lost they release carbon back to the atmosphere, thereby adding to greenhouse gas emissions.[49]: 2220

The methods for blue carbon management fall into the category of "ocean-based biological carbon dioxide removal (CDR) methods".[50]: 764  They are a type of biological carbon fixation.

Scientists are looking for ways to further develop the blue carbon potential of ecosystems.[51] However, the long-term effectiveness of blue carbon as a carbon dioxide removal solution is under debate.[52][51][53]

The term deep blue carbon is also in use and refers to storing carbon in the deep ocean waters.[54]

About 58% of CO₂ emissions have been absorbed by carbon sinks, including plant growth, soil uptake, and ocean uptake (2020 Global Carbon Budget).

World protected area map with total percentage of each country under protection, where countries in lighter colors have more protected land

An important mitigation measure is " preserving and enhancing carbon sinks".[55] This refers to the management of Earth's natural carbon sinks in a way that preserves or increases their capability to remove CO ₂ from the atmosphere and to store it durably. Scientists call this process also carbon sequestration. In the context of climate change mitigation, the IPCC defines a sink as "Any process, activity or mechanism which removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere".[56]: 2249  Globally, the two most important carbon sinks are vegetation and the ocean.[57]

To enhance the ability of ecosystems to sequester carbon, changes are necessary in agriculture and forestry.[58] Examples are preventing deforestation and restoring natural ecosystems by reforestation.[59]: 266  Scenarios that limit global warming to 1.5 °C typically project the large-scale use of carbon dioxide removal methods over the 21st century.[60]: 1068  [61]: 17  There are concerns about over-reliance on these technologies, and their environmental impacts.[61]: 17  [62]: 34  But ecosystem restoration and reduced conversion are among the mitigation tools that can yield the most emissions reductions before 2030.[55]: 43

Land-based mitigation options are referred to as "AFOLU mitigation options" in the 2022 IPCC report on mitigation. The abbreviation stands for "agriculture, forestry and other land use"[55]: 37  The report described the economic mitigation potential from relevant activities around forests and ecosystems as follows: "the conservation, improved management, and restoration of forests and other ecosystems (coastal wetlands, peatlands, savannas and grasslands)". A high mitigation potential is found for reducing deforestation in tropical regions. The economic potential of these activities has been estimated to be 4.2 to 7.4 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO ₂ -eq) per year.[55]: 37

To enhance carbon sequestration processes in oceans the following technologies have been proposed but none have achieved large scale application so far: Seaweed farming, ocean fertilisation, artificial upwelling, basalt storage, mineralization and deep sea sediments, adding bases to neutralize acids. The idea of direct deep-sea carbon dioxide injection has been abandoned.[63]

Mjøstårnet, one of the tallest timber buildings, at its opening 2019

Broad-base adoption of mass timber and their role in substituting steel and concrete in new mid-rise construction projects over the next few decades has the potential to turn timber buildings into carbon sinks, as they store the carbon dioxide taken up from the air by trees that are harvested and used as mass timber.[9] This could result in storing between 10 million tons of carbon per year in the lowest scenario and close to 700 million tons in the highest scenario. For this to happen, the harvested forests would need to be sustainably managed and wood from demolished timber buildings would need to be reused or preserved on land in various forms.[9]

1. ^ "Global Carbon Budget 2021" (PDF). Global Carbon Project. 4 November 2021. p. 57. Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 December 2021. The cumulative contributions to the global carbon budget from 1850. The carbon imbalance represents the gap in our current understanding of sources & sinks. ... Source: Friedlingstein et al 2021; Global Carbon Project 2021

2. ^ IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215-2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.

3. ^ "Carbon Sources and Sinks". National Geographic Society. 26 March 2020. Archived from the original on 14 December 2020.

4. ^ CHAPUIS-LARDY L, WRAGE N, CHOTTE J, BERNOUX M (2007). "Soils, a sink for N2O? A review". Global Change Biology. 13 (1): 1-17. Bibcode:2007GCBio..13....1C. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01280.x. S2CID 86551302.

5. ^ Cobo S, Negri V, Valente A, Reiner D, Hamelin L, Dowell N, Guillén-Gosálbez G (2023). "Sustainable scale-up of negative emissions technologies and practices: where to focus". Environmental Research Letters. 18 (2): 023001. Bibcode:2023ERL....18b3001C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/acacb3. hdl:20.500.11850/596686. S2CID 254915878.

6. ^ Blakemore, R.J. (2018). "Non-Flat Earth Recalibrated for Terrain and Topsoil". Soil Systems. 2 (4): 64. doi:10.3390/soilsystems2040064.

7. ^ Churkina, Galina; Organschi, Alan; Reyer, Christopher P. O.; Ruff, Andrew; Vinke, Kira; Liu, Zhu; Reck, Barbara K.; Graedel, T. E.; Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim (2020). "Buildings as a global carbon sink". Nature Sustainability. 3 (4): 269-276. Bibcode:2020NatSu...3..269C. doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0462-4. ISSN 2398-9629. S2CID 213032074.

8. ^ Swift, Roger S. (November 2001). "Sequestration of Carbon by soil". Soil Science. 166 (11): 858-71. Bibcode:2001SoilS.166..858S. doi:10.1097/00010694-200111000-00010. S2CID 96820247.

9. ^ "Coral Reefs Biome "Underwater Rainforests"".

10. ^ Chester, Bronwyn (20 April 2000). "The case of the missing sink". McGill Reporter.

11. ^ Pimentel, David; Hepperly, Paul; Hanson, James; Douds, David; Seidel, Rita (2005). "Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems". BioScience. 55 (7): 573-82. doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0573:EEAECO]2.0.CO;2.

12. ^ Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. FAO. 2020. doi:10.4060/ca8753en. ISBN 978-92-5-132581-0. S2CID 130116768.

13. ^ Spawn, Seth A.; Sullivan, Clare C.; Lark, Tyler J.; Gibbs, Holly K. (December 2020). "Harmonized global maps of above and belowground biomass carbon density in the year 2010". Scientific Data. 7 (1): 112. Bibcode:2020NatSD...7..112S. doi:10.1038/s41597-020-0444-4. PMC 7136222. PMID 32249772.

14. ^ Harvey, Fiona (4 March 2020). "Tropical forests losing their ability to absorb carbon, study finds". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077.

15. ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), "Forestry", Climate Change 2007, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 541-584, doi:10.1017/cbo9780511546013.013, ISBN 978-0-511-54601-3

16. ^ J. Chatellier (January 2010). The Role of Forest Products in the Global Carbon Cycle: From In-Use to End-of-Life (PDF). Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 July 2010.

17. ^ Chen, JM; Ciais, Philippe (18 September 2019). "Vegetation structural change since 1981 significantly enhanced the terrestrial carbon sink". Nature Communications. 10 (4259): 4259. Bibcode:2019NatCo..10.4259C. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12257-8. PMC 6751163. PMID 31534135.

18. ^ "Does harvesting in Canada's forests contribute to climate change?" (PDF). Canadian Forest Service Science-Policy Notes. Natural Resources Canada. May 2007. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 July 2013.

19. ^ Grant M. Domke; Sonja N. Oswalt; Brian F. Walters; Randall S. Morin (6 October 2020). "Tree planting has the potential to increase carbon sequestration capacity of forests in the United States" (PDF). PNAS. 117 (40): 24649-24651. Bibcode:2020PNAS..11724649D. doi:10.1073/pnas.2010840117. PMC 7547226. PMID 32958649. S2CID 221842058. Archived (PDF) from the original on 20 October 2020.

20. ^ Zhao, Kaiguang; Jackson, Robert B (2014). "Biophysical forcings of land-use changes from potential forestry activities in North America" (PDF). Ecological Monographs. 84 (2): 329-353. doi:10.1890/12-1705.1. S2CID 56059160.

21. ^ Alan K. Betts; John H. Ball (1997). "Albedo over the boreal forest". Journal of Geophysical Research. 102 (D24): 28, 901-28, 910. Bibcode:1997JGR...10228901B. doi:10.1029/96JD03876. Archived from the original on 30 September 2007.

22. ^ "Models show growing more forests in temperate regions could contribute to global warming". Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. 5 December 2005. Archived from the original on 27 May 2010.

23. ^ S. Gibbard; K. Caldeira; G. Bala; T. J. Phillips; M. Wickett (December 2005). "Climate effects of global land cover change". Geophysical Research Letters. 32 (23): L23705. Bibcode:2005GeoRL..3223705G. doi:10.1029/2005GL024550.

24. ^ Malhi, Yadvinder; Meir, Patrick; Brown, Sandra (2002). "Forests, carbon and global climate". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 360 (1797): 1567-91. Bibcode:2002RSPTA.360.1567M. doi:10.1098/rsta.2002.1020. PMID 12460485. S2CID 1864078.

25. ^ Huxham, M.; Whitlock, D.; Githaiga, M.; Dencer-Brown, A. (2018). "Carbon in the Coastal Seascape: How Interactions Between Mangrove Forests, Seagrass Meadows and Tidal Marshes Influence Carbon Storage". Current Forestry Reports. 4 (2): 101-110. doi:10.1007/s40725-018-0077-4. S2CID 135243725. Material was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Archived 2017-10-16 at the Wayback Machine.

26. ^ IPCC, 2021: Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215-2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.

27. Canadell, J.G., P.M.S. Monteiro, M.H. Costa, L. Cotrim da Cunha, P.M. Cox, A.V. Eliseev, S. Henson, M. Ishii, S. Jaccard, C. Koven, A. Lohila, P.K. Patra, S. Piao, J. Rogelj, S. Syampungani, S. Zaehle, and K. Zickfeld, 2021: ^ Chapter 5: Global Carbon and other Biogeochemical Cycles and Feedbacks. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 673-816, doi: 10.1017/9781009157896.007.

28. ^ Ricart, Aurora M.; Krause-Jensen, Dorte; Hancke, Kasper; Price, Nichole N.; Masqué, Pere; Duarte, Carlos M. (2022). "Sinking seaweed in the deep ocean for carbon neutrality is ahead of science and beyond the ethics". Environmental Research Letters. 17 (8): 081003. Bibcode:2022ERL....17h1003R. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ac82ff. hdl:10754/679874. S2CID 250973225.

29. ^ Hurd, Catriona L.; Law, Cliff S.; Bach, Lennart T.; Britton, Damon; Hovenden, Mark; Paine, Ellie R.; Raven, John A.; Tamsitt, Veronica; Boyd, Philip W. (2022). "Forensic carbon accounting: Assessing the role of seaweeds for carbon sequestration". Journal of Phycology. 58 (3): 347-363. doi:10.1111/jpy.13249. PMID 35286717. S2CID 247453370.

30. ^ Boyd, Philip W.; Bach, Lennart T.; Hurd, Catriona L.; Paine, Ellie; Raven, John A.; Tamsitt, Veronica (2022). "Potential negative effects of ocean afforestation on offshore ecosystems". Nature Ecology & Evolution. 6 (6): 675-683. doi:10.1038/s41559-022-01722-1. PMID 35449458. S2CID 248322820.

31. ^ IPCC (2022) Summary for policy makers in Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, United States

32. IPCC, 2021: ^ Annex VII: Glossary [Matthews, J.B.R., V. Möller, R. van Diemen, J.S. Fuglestvedt, V. Masson-Delmotte, C. Méndez, S. Semenov, A. Reisinger (eds.)]. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 2215-2256, doi:10.1017/9781009157896.022.

33. ^ "Carbon Sources and Sinks". National Geographic Society. 26 March 2020. Archived from the original on 14 December 2020.

34. ^ Levin, Kelly (8 August 2019). "How Effective Is Land At Removing Carbon Pollution? The IPCC Weighs In". World Resources Institute.

35. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., D. Jacob, M. Taylor, M. Bindi, S. Brown, I. Camilloni, A. Diedhiou, R. Djalante, K.L. Ebi, F. Engelbrecht, J.Guiot, Y. Hijioka, S. Mehrotra, A. Payne, S.I. Seneviratne, A. Thomas, R. Warren, and G. Zhou, 2018: ^ Chapter 3: Impacts of 1.5°C Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T.Maycock, M.Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, US, pp. 175-312. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.005.

36. ^ Bui, Mai; Adjiman, Claire S.; Bardow, André; Anthony, Edward J.; Boston, Andy; Brown, Solomon; Fennell, Paul S.; Fuss, Sabine; Galindo, Amparo; Hackett, Leigh A.; Hallett, Jason P.; Herzog, Howard J.; Jackson, George; Kemper, Jasmin; Krevor, Samuel (2018). "Carbon capture and storage (CCS): the way forward". Energy & Environmental Science. 11 (5): 1062-1176. doi:10.1039/C7EE02342A. hdl:10044/1/55714. ISSN 1754-5692.

37. ^ IPCC, 2018: Summary for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, US, pp. 3-24. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009157940.001.

38. IPCC, 2018: ^ Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)]. In Press.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A carbon sink is a natural or artificial process that "removes a greenhouse gas, an aerosol or a precursor of a greenhouse gas from the atmosphere".[2] : 2249  These sinks form an important part of the natural carbon cycle.

# data[].attributes.body
A carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbonthan it releases as carbon dioxide.

# data[].attributes.body
European forests are currently a net carbon sink as they take in more
carbon than they emit. In climate negotiations, this temporary reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is also known as negative emissions.

# data[].attributes.body
Using less paper will reduce the amount of trees we will have to cut  down trees and this can do us good in a lot of ways. First of all, when we cut down trees, the carbon stored in the trees will immediately and now we have less "machines" (trees) to help us convert carbon dioxide into oxygen. Second of all, when making paper, machinery is required and when we use machines and factories, we are going to have to produce more greenhouse gases which will lead to climate change at last.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Climate change can seem like an impossible problem to tackle. If entire countries can't figure it out, then how can individual people?

But part of the problem for larger entities trying to tackle climate change is that they're responding to the wants and needs of individual humans like each of us. And us individual humans are doing a lot of things that make solutions more difficult: we're eating a lot of meat, driving when we could walk, using heat and power inefficiently, and otherwise engaging in habits that, on a large scale, add up to a greenhouse-gas nightmare.

The good news? You can reduce your negative impact on the environment by making lifestyle changes that take aim at the biggest causes of climate change. Many of the big contributors to climate change - fossil fuel use, deforestation, waste - are tied to the small decisions each of us makes every day. That means that shifting those decisions can add up to real impact, if we all get on board.

Here are five big ways you can reduce your climate impact, with many smaller tips within for changes you can make easily - starting now.
Reduce your energy usage
The burning of fossil fuels like oil or natural gas for electricity and heat is the big driver of climate change, according to the World Resources Institute (WRI). If your home or business is heated with fossil fuels, this is one area where you can make a real impact (and save money) with some basic changes.

Keep your thermostats lower, and avoid using air conditioning as much as possible. Toronto Hydro suggests going with 21 C at home, 18 C at night, 15 C when you leave the house. Seal your windows in the winter to prevent heat loss - it's easy to do yourself with an inexpensive kit.

If you have a fireplace, keep the damper closed when not in use to prevent heat loss. Dry clothing outside when the weather allows for it. And when it comes time to replace your furnace, consider energy efficiency, which can also cut your heating costs significantly.
Use your car less often
Transportation is another major contributor to climate change: this includes driving and flying. It may be difficult to cut down on flights, but you can work to reduce your car use: bike, walk, or use public transit.

If the ability to leave your car at home more often is important to you, share that with your public officials, who make decisions about things like bike lanes and transit funding. Run errands in one trip instead of several inefficient ones. And the next time you have to buy a car, get a fuel-efficient model or even consider an electric or hybrid vehicle.

Driving.ca allows you to compare different car models by fuel efficiency, among other factors, and the government's fuel consumption guide explains the ratings you might see for different models.
Eat less meat
According to the Guardian, agriculture is a major source of global warming and causes 15 per cent of all emissions, and many experts say that eating less meat - especially less beef - would really make a difference. You can give up meat entirely, but simply eating it less often can also help.

Look for meats raised locally, or game meats, as factory farming is a big part of climate impact. If you choose seafood, look for sustainability guarantees and choose species that aren't over-fished or otherwise threatened.

Try simply making meat a smaller part of your plate and adding more vegetables, or other sources of protein like legumes. There are many great vegetarian recipes available online, and look to cuisines with a focus on veg food - like Indian - for more ideas.
Reduce waste
Recycling is great, but don't forget that reduction and reuse come first in the three Rs. As goods become less expensive, it's easy to justify buying instead of repairing, or getting new when used might suffice.

But reducing our consumption can have a real impact on climate change, not to mention landfill use (and landfills produce methane, which also contributes to climate change).

Use things until they are truly unusable, and repair instead of replacing as often as you can. Buy used goods instead of new when that makes sense. And pass things down, or donate to a local shelter or charity shop, instead of trashing them - just remember that a lot of what goes into donation bins can end up thousands of kilometres away, or in a landfill, so don't use donation as an excuse to buy more.
Use less paper
Deforestation contributes to carbon change because trees trap carbon, and of course paper is made from trees. Working to reduce your paper use is another area where you can make a difference. Consider the number of shipments you get: boxes are made from paper, after all, and that adds up.

Only print things out when necessary, and make them double sided. Encourage kids to draw on scrap paper, or use it for note taking. And recycle or compost the paper you do use, as much as possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Manageable Ways You Can Reduce Your Impact On Climate Change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change can seem like an impossible problem to tackle. If entire countries can't figure it out, then how can individual people? But part of the problem for larger entities trying to tackle climate change is that they're responding to the wants and needs of individual humans like each of us.

# data[].attributes.body
If you reducing energy usage Earth's resources can last a long time.And it will reduce pollution.
If you reducing energy usage the earth's resources will be recycled. And it will Unlimited use I think.
The plant will be more fine or good then before now.

# data[].attributes.body
Tom Zabrano is a renewable energy scientist and works on making wind power a better energy and more convenient energy like by putting small turbines on top of houses so that houses can also be hybrid.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A scientist who studies ways to get electrical energy from wind, sun, ocean currents, or other sources that do not get used up. Read an interview with Tom Zambrano. Find out about his exciting job bringing wind energy to the city

# data[].attributes.body
The sources and carbon cycle’s sinks help to regulate the amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How do we keep the right balance of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere?

Greenhouse Gases

Besides CO ₂ there are other greenhouse gases. These include water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Without any greenhouse gases, Earth would be an icy wasteland. Greenhouse gases keep our planet livable by holding onto some of Earth's heat energy so that it doesn't all escape into space. This heat trapping is known as the greenhouse effect.

Just as too little greenhouse gas makes Earth too cold, too much greenhouse gas makes Earth too warm. Over the last century, humans have burned coal, oil, and gasoline in our cars, trucks, planes, trains, power plants, and factories. Burning such fossil fuels produces CO ₂ as a waste product. Putting so much new CO ₂ into the air has made Earth warmer. If we continue on our current path, we will cause even more warming.

Finding a Balance

CO ₂ is a big part of the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle traces carbon's path from the atmosphere, into living organisms, then turning into dead organic matter, going into the oceans, and back into the atmosphere. Scientists describe the cycle in terms of sources (parts of the cycle that add carbon to the atmosphere) and sinks (parts of the cycle that remove carbon from the atmosphere).

The key to keeping everything in balance is for the sources and sinks to have the same amount of CO ₂.

The most important sinks are the ocean (which includes the seawater itself, the organisms living there, and the sediments on the sea floor) as well as plants and soil on land. The ocean stores most of the world's carbon, but forests are really important too. Forests and oceans each remove around one-fourth of the carbon we humans have added to the atmosphere.

Related NASA Missions

Keeping an Eye on Greenhouse Gases

NASA has been able to look at greenhouse gases, including CO ₂, ever since the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument was launched aboard the Aqua satellite in 2002, and the Tropospheric Emissions Spectrometer (TES) instrument was launched aboard the Aura satellite in 2004. Both instruments measure CO ₂ in only one part of the atmosphere-the part nearest Earth's surface, called the troposphere. Both instruments monitor many other things in the atmosphere as well.

For a more complete look at CO ₂ as it moves through the carbon cycle, especially near the ground, NASA needed a new tool.

That tool is the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2). It is giving us the best view ever of CO ₂ in the atmosphere all around the world. Passing rapidly from the North Pole to the South Pole, the OCO-2 satellite measures the planet's atmospheric CO ₂ every 16 days. OCO-2 will make many more measurements of the changes in CO ₂ near Earth's surface. OCO-2 will give us a clear picture of how carbon sinks and sources are being altered by human activity.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The carbon cycle keeps greenhouse gases in balance, unless something upsets it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
When it came to climate change in the great state of Nebraska, spending a whopping $250,000 - just one-quarter of a million dollars - on a study for how a flood-prone prairie state could prepare for the impact of the earth's rising temperatures was simply too big a hill to climb.

The push for a climate plan in the Cornhusker State to be completed by next year emerged from a legislative committee, but it seemed dead in the water as recently as last month. Even though Nebraska had already experienced both record flooding and drought during the 2010s, some Republican lawmakers questioned the cost. The influential Nebraska Farm Bureau said the climate-change readiness bill "is not a top issue for us."

At least until recently, it's hard to imagine that Nebraska's Republican governor, Pete Ricketts, would have signed off on the paltry $250K anyway. In first seeking the job in 2014, Ricketts declared: "I believe it is far from clear - despite what the other side is saying - it is far from clear what is going on with our climate." Just this January, Ricketts openly snubbed the novelist chosen for "2019 One Book, One Nebraska" event because of the author's activism around climate and related issues like the Keystone XL pipeline.

Then the "bomb cyclone" struck.

Michael Mann, director of the Penn State's Earth System Science Center, told Newsweek the Midwestern "bomb cyclone" - which also claimed three lives - was a kind of "perfect storm" made worse by the moisture from the overheated Gulf of Mexico, which has become something of a planetary hot tub in this era of global warming. Mann told the magazine "we expect even more extreme events of this sort if we continue to warm the planet by increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil-fuel burning and other human activities."

And that's how the Midwestern "bomb cyclone" became a day of reckoning for Republican ... ha ha, almost had you going there, didn't I? In response to the growing evidence, from Nebraska to Mozambique, of the destructive and often deadly power of storms intensified by climate change, GOP lawmakers and leaders are doubling down - not just on the cynical nothingness of climate denial but on their dream that opposing not just environmentalism but basic science will be a winning strategy at the polls in 2020.

The right's environmental McCarthyism bobbed to the surface this week in the two capitals we follow most closely here - in Washington, where pro-business Republican lawmakers launched their crusade to brand the Green New Deal not as a blueprint for saving their grandchildren's planet but as "socialism," and in Harrisburg, where the GOP legislative majority tossed the has keys on climate policy to Pennsylvania's leading proponent of doing nothing.

The Keystone State developments are especially alarming. In the Pennsylvania Legislature, ultra-conservative GOP Rep. Daryl Metcalfe - skeptical that man-made greenhouse-gas pollution is causing climate change, and calling proposals to curb that pollution a plot by "leftists" - was in January given the critical job as majority chair of the House Environmental and Energy Resources Committee. So far, Metcalfe is using his new platform to push a pro-industry agenda - waging war against a proposed fracking ban by the Delaware River Basin Commission - and also to give a platform to skeptics opposing established climate science.

On Wednesday, Metcalfe chaired an unusual hearing on climate change with only one witness - Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist (i.e., not a climatologist) and natural-gas consultant who self-publishes popular books expressing his deep skepticism about the widely accepted science of planetary warming. Metcalfe said the hearing's goal was to "debunk some of the myths that are out there in the public right now." His committee so far hasn't called actual experts on climate, like Penn State's Mann, who've warned of worsening storms, drought and other severe impacts if humans don't curb greenhouse-gas pollution.

.@BetterPathPA brought protesters to today's House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee in light of testimony from Gregory Wrightstone, a geologist and self-professed "climate contrarian." They're posing as mythical creatures, saying they're myths and climate change isn't pic.twitter.com/hlzGe9Cp6r
- The PLS Reporter (@ThePLSReporter) March 27, 2019

"Basically what we have is a major Republican chairman, Daryl Metcalfe, who believes climate change isn't real - and he's using his position as a major chairman to spread that belief system," Rep. Leanne Krueger, Delaware County Democrat and a committee member, told me. Krueger and other Democrats like Philadelphia newcomer Rep. Elizabeth Fiedler pressed Wrightstone on the fact his books have not been peer-reviewed by other scientists, and his affiliation with the fossil-fuel-funded Heartland Institute. Krueger said Democrats hope to call actual experts later in the session. Gov. Wolf also weighed in with a tweet that called Metcalfe's hearing "a waste of time."

But that's the tragedy. Earlier this year, a United Nations panel warned that the world has just 11 years, or until 2030, to bring carbon pollution under control or face the worst consequences of global warming. Pennsylvania - which by the way, produces 1 percent of the world's greenhouse-gas pollution - is about to waste two of those years with Metcalfe's buffoonery.

Can things get any worse? Of course they can. In Washington, not only do we have a climate skeptic in the White House naming fossil-fuel lobbyists to key environmental posts, but a Congress that - like Harrisburg - is locked into two more years of delaying climate action. This week in the U.S. Senate, GOP Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brought up the Green New Deal - a broad blueprint that aims for the U.S. to meet those 2030 climate goals - not so much to seriously debate it but to mock it. Ignoring the rising flood waters in the Republican-dominated American Heartland, McConnell & Co. believe that branding the GND as "socialism" will terrify Fox News viewers off their couches and into the voting booth - assuming the road to their polling place isn't washed out.

"I rise today to consider the Green New Deal with the seriousness it deserves. This, of course, is a picture of former President Donald Reagan, firing a machine gun while riding on the back of a dinosaur." - Sen. Mike Lee pic.twitter.com/K2qqcCtbAB
- Chris Cioffi (@ReporterCioffi) March 26, 2019

Indeed, Pennsylvania's Metcalfe turned out not even to be the week's biggest climate buffoon. That trophy goes to Utah Sen. (and hero of the Tea Party-era) Mike Lee, whose rejoinder to the Green New Deal was that Americans can fight climate change by falling in love and having "more babies," and then mocking environmentalists with a cartoon showing Ronald Reagan firing a machine gun while riding a velociraptor.

Lee and McConnell may have thought they were laughing at leftists and environmentalists like Green New Deal sponsor Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whose youth, non-whiteness and non-maleness makes her a kind of fever dream for reactionary Fox News Channel producers. Instead they were merely spitting in the face of the misery of Nebraska farmers like Anthony Ruzicka, who lost his farmhouse and his family's first tractor in the flood and told the Times, "There's not many farms left like this, and it's probably over for us too."

I'm old enough to remember when Republicans (and Democrats) fought for the future of farmers like Ruzicka - before the Fox News era when politics became all about destroying the planet to own the libs, while rewarding their Big Oil and Gas Donors. Or about "making babies" who'll grow into a future that will be a lot more perilous, thanks to the nihilistic cynicism of Pete Ricketts, Mike Lee, and Pennsylvania's own Daryl Metcalfe.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
As floodwaters rise, GOP lawmakers are frantically building levees of climate denial | Will Bunch

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
When it came to climate change in the great state of Nebraska, spending a whopping $250,000 - just one-quarter of a million dollars - on a study for how a flood-prone prairie state could prepare for the impact of the earth's rising temperatures was simply too big a hill to climb.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
climate change conferences in asia-pacific

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Climate Change Conferences | Climate Congress 2019 | Asia-Pacific | Thailand

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Meet Global Climate Change Professionals from USA, Europe, Asia-Pacific and Middle East in the upcoming top International Climate Conference which is going to happen at Bangkok, Thailand.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A levee, floodbank or stopbank is a natural or artificial embankment or dike, usually earthen, which parallels the course of a river.

The main purpose of an artificial levee is to prevent flooding of the adjoining countryside; however, they also confine the flow of the river resulting in higher and faster water flow.

Levees are usually built by piling earth on a cleared, level surface.

Broad at the base, they taper to a level top, where temporary embankments or sandbags can be placed.

Because flood discharge intensity increases in levees on both river banks, and because silt deposits raise the level of riverbeds, planning and auxiliary measures are vital.

Sections are often set back from the river to form a wider channel, and flood valley basins are divided by multiple levees to prevent a single breach from flooding a large area.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A levee, floodbank or stopbank is a natural or artificial embankment or dike, usually earthen, which parallels the course of a river. The main purpose of an artificial levee is to prevent flooding of the adjoining countryside; however, they also confine the flow of the river resulting in higher and faster water flow.

# data[].attributes.body
Tidal energy is powered by the tides that come from the sea. It is strong enough to power a city.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers.

Energy is everywhere. It's in the Sunlight. It's in the wind. It's in the ocean.

The ocean has heat energy from soaking up the light energy of the Sun. And, like the wind, the ocean has energy of motion in the form of waves and currents.

Another form of energy in the ocean is tidal energy. The energy for Earth's tides comes mostly from the Moon's gravity and a little from the Sun's gravity. The part of the ocean facing the Moon bulges out. The part of the ocean on exactly the opposite side of Earth bulges out too. So as Earth turns, the ocean surface seems to rise and fall. Usually, there are two high tides and two low tides each day. Learn more about tides.

With all that water moving up and down, we ought to be able to capture some of that tidal energy. And we can! We can use tidal energy to supply electricity to our homes and businesses. We can use tidal energy in some places instead of burning coal and oil that contribute to global warming.

Tidal generators (or turbines) work like wind turbines, except it is ocean currents, not wind, that turns them. The spinning turbine is connected to another device that produces electricity. The electricity then travels through wires to a city where people need it.

Now the world's biggest tidal energy generator is being placed off the coast of Invergordon, Scotland.The new tidal generator in Scotland is huge. The turbine blades are 18 meters (59 feet) across. It weighs 143 tons (286,600 pounds) and stands 22.5 meters (almost 74 feet) high. It is capable of generating enough electricity to power more than 1,000 homes.

It is important to put tidal generators near where people actually live. That's another reason Scotland and other locations around the United Kingdom are ideal for capturing clean, renewable tidal energy.

In the U.S., most of the tidal energy resources are along the coast of Alaska where populations are small. Still, tidal energy could power their small cities.

Unlike the wind, the tides are very predictable. So it's easy to decide where to put tidal turbines and figure out how much energy they will generate.

Another plus, the turbines are usually completely under water, so no one can complain about them spoiling the view!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Rooftop solar panels used to be luxury items-but that's no longer the case. Whether you want to save thousands on electric bills, lower your carbon footprint, or fully electrify your home, going solar is almost always the right decision if you own your home.

Adding solar panels is a great long-term investment. It can boost your home's value and minimize your electric bill. It's also a big purchase, so it's important to make sure it will pay off before you make a final decision.

Below, we'll explain how to decide if solar will work for your home, and how to get solar panels at the best price. It all comes down to your roof, how much you pay for electricity, and your eligibility for incentives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Getting Home Solar Panels In 2023: The Complete Buyer's Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our home solar panel cost and installation guide for 2023 will help you understand if solar panels are worth it for your home.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers.

Sunlight is a powerful thing. A tiny magnifying glass is able to focus just a little bit of the Sun's light into a hot beam. This beam is hot enough to burn a small pile of dry leaves!

Do not try this without adult supervision!

Imagine how hot it would be if an entire field's worth of sunlight were focused onto one tiny point.

You would get a superhot beam of bright light. Sounds like something out of science fiction, right?

But it is not science fiction at all. In fact, this beam of light is the key ingredient in the newest form of solar energy. This technology is named concentrating solar power, or solar thermal energy.

The basic idea is simple. The Sun's light is focused onto a small area using mirrors. The mirrors constantly follow the Sun as it moves through the sky. They do this to make sure they are receiving as much light as possible.

The beam created by all of these reflecting mirrors is used to heat a liquid to an extremely hot temperature-sometimes over 1000°F! This liquid is a chemical that is very good at trapping heat. After it is heated, the liquid is pumped through a tank of water in a pipe. These hot pipes cause the water to boil and create steam. This steam spins a turbine, which powers a generator. Sometimes, the hot liquid itself is used to power the generator.

That's how this technology gets electricity from the Sun!

Solar concentrating power is important because it produces energy without releasing harmful greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. It is also great because we are in no danger of running out of sunlight!

In fact, all of the energy that the ocean, land, and air absorb from the Sun in just 1.5 hours could power the whole Earth for an entire year!

Many countries, including the United States, are beginning to adopt concentrating solar power. The technology is only getting better. This new kind of solar energy could be very good news for our planet.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Sunlight is a powerful thing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers.

Almost all the energy to power our planet comes from the Sun. But instead of using the kind of solar energy stored up in coal and oil, why not grab it directly from the source?

Eliminate the "middle man"

In the United States, most of the electricity we use is made by burning coal or oil. Unfortunately, burning coal and oil produces carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas that adds to global warming.

Some electricity, though, is made using clean sources of energy like wind and sunlight. We need to be making a lot more electricity this way.

Many people are now putting solar electric systems on their houses. Solar panels covered with solar cells, sort of like little glass wafers, are installed on the roof. When sunlight strikes them, they turn some of it into electricity, which is fed through wires into the home's electrical circuits.

Solar panels covering even a small area on the roof can supply a good part of the electricity to run the refrigerator, lights, heating, TV, and other energy-hungry devices in the house. Making electricity from sunlight does not produce carbon dioxide and does not add to global warming. And after the solar panels are produced, paid for, and installed, the electricity is free!

In California, people are volunteering to help install solar panels on the homes of those who otherwise could not afford to buy them. The program is called Single-family Affordable Solar Homes, or SASH. The organization that sponsors the SASH program is called GRID Alternatives.

During special events, called "Solarthons," volunteers spend a day installing solar electric systems on homes. The group also works to raise money to expand GRID Alternatives' work throughout California.

So far, they have installed 540 solar electric systems, which are reducing each family's electrical bills by 75%. Over the next 30 years, these systems will prevent about 46,668 tons of greenhouse gases from being released into the atmosphere.

From light to heat to electricity

The energy stored in coal and oil started from the Sun, because coal and oil started as plants and animals.

Plants use the Sun's energy in a process called photosynthesis to create sugars to store as food. Animals eat the plants and other animals. The plants die. The animals that eat the plants die. Their remains get buried, pressed, and cooked in Earth's crust.

After millions of years, they become coal and oil. But they still store most of that original energy from the Sun.

Another way people use solar energy is in thermal power plants. Sunlight reflects off the surface of large, curved mirrors, and is reflected toward a single focus at their center.

Or many mirrors can be arranged to reflect sunlight to a focus in the center. This energy is used to heat water and make steam, which then drives a turbine.

Then electricity is made the same way as if the water were heated by coal or oil-except with no greenhouse gases!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers. Almost all the energy to power our planet comes from the Sun.

# data[].attributes.body
Solar power is energy from the sun that is converted into thermal or electrical energy. Solar energy is the cleanest and most abundant renewable energy source available, and the U.S. has some of the richest solar resources in the world.

# data[].attributes.body
A natural systems that suck up and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Trees are excellent carbon sinks

Credit: Stefan Schnitzer.

You won't find it in your kitchen or bathroom: Carbon sinks are natural systems that suck up and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

The main natural carbon sinks are plants, the ocean and soil. Plants grab carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to use in photosynthesis; some of this carbon is transferred to soil as plants die and decompose. The oceans are a major carbon storage system for carbon dioxide. Marine animals also take up the gas for photosynthesis, while some carbon dioxide simply dissolves in the seawater.

"Combined, the Earth's land and ocean sinks absorb about half of all carbon dioxide emissions from human activities," said Paul Fraser of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization.

But these sinks, critical in the effort to soak up some of our greenhouse gas emissions, may be stopping up, thanks to deforestation, and human-induced weather changes that are causing the oceanic carbon dioxide "sponge" to weaken, a new study led by Fraser and detailed in the May 18 issue of the journal Science found.

Scientists are looking for ways to help nature along by devising ways to artificially sequester, or store, carbon dioxide underground.

Follow Life's Little Mysteries on Twitter @llmysteries. We're also on Facebook & Google+.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You won't find it in your kitchen or bathroom: Carbon sinks are natural systems that suck up and store carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The main natural carbon sinks are plants, the ocean and soil. Plants grab carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to use in photosynthesis; some of this carbon is transferred to soil as plants die and decompose.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: This material is being kept online for historical purposes. Though accurate at the time of publication, it is no longer being updated. The page may contain broken links or outdated information, and parts may not function in current web browsers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn new things about how we use energy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Read the basic technology of bioenergy from industry experts.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is Biomass?

Biomass is fuel that is developed from organic materials, a renewable and sustainable source of energy used to create electricity or other forms of power.

Some examples of materials that make up biomass fuels are:

scrap lumber;

forest debris;

certain crops;

manure; and

some types of waste residues.

With a constant supply of waste - from construction and demolition activities, to wood not used in papermaking, to municipal solid waste - green energy production can continue indefinitely.

Biomass is a renewable source of fuel to produce energy because:

waste residues will always exist - in terms of scrap wood, mill residuals and forest resources; and

properly managed forests will always have more trees, and we will always have crops and the residual biological matter from those crops.

ReEnergy Holdings is an integrated waste fuel/biomass renewable energy company. Our facilities collect, process and recycle items for use as fuel, as well as green energy facilities that create power from that waste.

What is biomass power?

Biomass power is carbon neutral electricity generated from renewable organic waste that would otherwise be dumped in landfills, openly burned, or left as fodder for forest fires.

When burned, the energy in biomass is released as heat. If you have a fireplace, you already are participating in the use of biomass as the wood you burn in it is a biomass fuel.

In biomass power plants, wood waste or other waste is burned to produce steam that runs a turbine to make electricity, or that provides heat to industries and homes. Fortunately, new technologies - including pollution controls and combustion engineering - have advanced to the point that any emissions from burning biomass in industrial facilities are generally less than emissions produced when using fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil). ReEnergy has included these technologies in our facilities.

Biomass challenges

While the process to create electricity is similar whether using a biomass fuel or a fossil fuel, the equipment needed inside the plant is different. All of ReEnergy's power generation facilities have been outfitted - and new acquisitions are upgraded - to allow for the burning of biomass.

As with any electrical generation process, the facility needs a steady supply of fuel. In all cases, ReEnergy has suppliers to deliver a steady stream of biomass, and has engaged other suppliers to ensure the facilities have what they need. In addition, we create fuel for other biomass consumers - as well as other products - at our recycling facilities.

When anything is burned, it can create emissions and ash. Our facilities have state-of-the-art cleaning processes that keep emissions below state regulatory levels, and we reuse our ash.

Biomass and the US

Biomass fuels provided about 4 percent of the energy used in the United States in 2010. Of this, about 46 percent was from wood and wood-derived biomass, 43 percent was from biofuels (mainly ethanol), and about 11 percent was from municipal waste. Researchers are trying to develop ways to burn more biomass and fewer fossil fuels. Using biomass for energy cuts back on waste and greenhouse gas emissions.

Biomass offers other significant environmental and consumer benefits, including improving forest health, protecting air quality, and offering the most dependable renewable energy source.

You can read about how we turn biomass and other residuals into energy here.

Sources: http://biomasspowerassociation.com, http://energy.gov/, http://instituteforenergyresearch.org

A map of biomass facilities can be found here http://biomasspowerassociation.com/docs/biomass_map.pdf

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Biomass is fuel that is developed from organic materials, a renewable and sustainable source of energy used to create electricity or other forms of power. Some examples of materials that make up biomass fuels are: scrap lumber; forest debris; certain crops; manure; and some types of waste residues.