Menu Close

Reversing the impending climate catastrophe

Reversing the impending climate catastrophe

Before moving on to discuss reversing the impending climate catastrophe, it is important to look at carbon emissions, which are the principal factor devastating this planet.


  • Carbon dioxide emissions
  • Carbon projections
  • Ways of reducing carbon from the atmosphere
  • An impending climate catastrophe
  • Reversing the impending climate catastrophe

Products derived from petroleum are the primary contributors to CO2 emissions caused by the use of energy.

Petroleum is expected to be responsible for 971 million metric tons of carbon equivalent in 2025. This represents 43% of the total anticipated amount. Coal is expected to produce 73 million metric tons of carbon equivalent by 2025. This accounts for 34% of total carbon dioxide emissions. Coal is the second major source of CO2 emissions.

Natural gas use is expected to be responsible for 512 million metric tons of carbon equivalent by 2025. This represents 23% of total CO2 emissions. This results in the creation of a carbon footprint.

The quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that are connected with all of the actions of a person or other organization is referred to as their “carbon footprint”.

Direct emissions, such as those that come from the burning of fossil fuels in manufacturing, heating, and transportation, are included in this category. Also included are the emissions necessary to create the power that is connected to the goods and services that are consumed.

Additionally, the idea of a carbon footprint typically includes the emissions of additional greenhouse gases. This includes methane, nitrous oxide or chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Reversing the impending climate catastrophe

The notion of an ecological footprint was developed in the early 1990s at the University of British Columbia. This is by Canadian ecologist William Rees and Swiss-born regional planner Mathis Wackernagel. The carbon footprint concept is connected to and has grown out of the earlier idea of ecological footprint.

The entire amount of land that is needed to support a population is referred to as its “ecological footprint.” It takes into account factors that have an effect on the environment. This includes the quantity of land and water required for agricultural production.

On the other hand, a carbon footprint is typically presented in the form of a weight measurement. These, such as tons of CO2 or CO2 equivalents produced each year.

For the purpose of absorbing carbon dioxide close to coal-based thermal power stations and increasing potential carbon sinks in terrestrial ecosystems of FA deposits. This caps carbon dioxide emissions through the rehabilitation of FA disposal sites, which may be an effective and environmentally friendly approach.

This would also have the added benefit of mitigating global warming and marking the beginning of ecological restoration.

Cooler measures to offset or reduce carbon emissions include repopulating forests, planting trees in neighborhoods, and preventing large-scale harvesting. However, the potential for carbon sequestration held by wetlands far surpasses that of trees.

Wetland ecosystems such as peatlands, salt marshes, and other coastal and inland wetlands only cover one percent of the Earth’s surface. They do, however, store 20% of the environmental carbon on our planet.

Restoring wetlands is a potent extra instrument that may be used to battle climate change. This is according to Brian Silliman. He is an ecologist at Duke University and a co-author of this study that was published in Science.

Read: Hurricane full-proof wind turbine is now in effect

Plants in Wetlands

Plants are responsible for drawing carbon from the air and putting it to use. That is, in the development of their roots, leaves, and flowers. That carbon won’t be released until the plants die and the terrain is completely reshaped by erosion.

The tangled mess of sediments and plant waste eventually turns into the muddy embankment. This is the ground on which other trees and plants may be found growing. Approximately half of the carbon buried in these settings comes from filtered organic debris. This is according to the results of the study.

Peatlands are among the most important carbon sinks on the planet. Peat moss, which is a fundamental component of many types of swampy wetlands, forms mats of spongy plant debris as it expands.

The older peat is buried beneath the fresher sprouts, and because the environment is low in oxygen and submerged, the degradation process is slow, thus the thick mats of carbon are preserved for millennia.

Wetlands may be a powerhouse of sequestration and storage. However, because of their small surface area, they only store a fraction of the total carbon that is sequestered in oceans and forests. These are the world’s largest sinks due to the sheer scale of these natural features.

In spite of this, the higher carbon density of a wetland implies that removing a portion of it has a greater influence on the amount of carbon in the atmosphere than removing a portion of a forest does.


According to the findings of the study, around one percent of wetland habitat is lost every year due to challenges such as farming, development, and rising sea levels.

Read: Singapore targets 2040 to remove all internal combustion engine cars

Going Beyond Simply Putting Down Roots by Planting Trees

The release of this carbon, which accounts for around five percent of the world’s annual total carbon emissions, is a consequence of the destruction of the habitats in which it was kept. Silliman stated that it was coming from the deteriorating wetlands in the area.

Despite the fact that there are restrictions in place to prevent the destruction of wetlands, “we haven’t been as forceful as we might be in restoring them.” And a part of the reason for that is that we’ve underrated their relevance in the climate problem,” said Peter Kareiva, a conservation scientist who was not involved in the study but is the president and CEO of Aquarium of the Pacific.

According to him, governments and environmental groups have programs to reforest great expanses of land, but they haven’t had programs on such a large scale to reforest marsh areas. However, the recent discovery that wetland ecosystems store far more carbon than either the seas or forests could change that.

Kareiva described the findings of the study as a “call to action” to increase the size of the project.

It is possible for local initiatives as well as global ones to be used in the process of restoring, conserving, and rebuilding wetlands. “That’s something that people can be involved with locally,” Silliman said. “That’s something that people can get involved with.”

“Policymakers who have stronger levers need to think about halting the degradation of wetlands in a significant way,” he continued. “The degradation of wetlands is a problem that has to be addressed.”

He stated that everyone is concerned about how they can reduce their carbon footprint. “All right, here it is: you’re going to plant a wetland. You receive an incredible amount of value for your money.

A Paradigm Shift in the Remediation of Wetlands

The findings of the latest study recommend a shift in strategy for organizations working to restore wetlands. According to Silliman, traditional conservation techniques center on reducing unfavorable interactions between plants and the environments in which they live.

In order to minimize rivalry, people plant across relatively limited regions and provide as much space as possible between each individual plant.

However, he argued that such a strategy was incorrect and should not be taken. Plants that are grown in isolation have very little protection from storm surges. A significant number of them are destroyed during the planting process. The cost of restoring a wetland in this manner is likewise significant.


Emerging research reveals that interactions between plants and their environs that are mutually beneficial are vital to their survival—and to optimizing their prospects as a carbon sink. This is because these interactions help to ensure that plants continue to exist.

You may like: The age of mental illness is nearly behind us following a new discovery

According to Kareiva, giving marsh grasses a greater opportunity to live by planting them in clusters provides them with an increased level of protection. When the success rate increases, the cost of restoration decreases.

As he expressed it, “If you’ve successfully built a set of patches, they occasionally just spread on their own.”  It is not necessary to put seedlings in every available space.

Share this article: Reversing the impending climate catastrophe

Leave a Reply