Climate Change & Florida's Future - Mitigating and Adapting

Opportunities, Challenges Abound in Land Use Planning

By Mary Kelley Hoppe

When it comes to mitigating climate change, it’s important to see the forest for the trees.

UF Professor Stephen Mulkey sees it this way: While addressing climate change won’t be a smooth or cost-free endeavor, economic opportunities abound. Reducing emissions and establishing the infrastructure for a low-carbon economy should be first and foremost on the state’s agenda, he says. Strategic land management and planning rank a close second.

Land-use mitigation emphasizes a portfolio of solutions, involving forestry, agriculture and conservation lands. Above all, says Mulkey, in a June 2007 report to the Century Commission, we need comprehensive carbon budgets tied to each of these sectors to understand the degree to which carbon sequestration – the process by which carbon dioxide (C02) is removed from the atmosphere – can make a difference.

First, some background from the Century Commission’s recent report on climate change:

• Florida ranks 6th in the US for total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; the agricultural sector is a net emitter of GHGs, while the forestry sector is a net sink.
• On average, Florida soils have the highest organic carbon content in the US. Agriculture can increase carbon sequestration in soils by low-till and no-till farming, prudent fertilizer application, crop rotation, and by removing marginal land from production.
• Forests cover 42% of the state, representing the largest landscape source of mitigation capacity via carbon stored in standing biomass, below ground and in forest products.
• Planting trees on agricultural lands can yield significant carbon sequestration. Florida’s warm climate makes afforestation a particularly viable mitigation option that could provide an advantage for participation in carbon markets.

While land use and climate change in Florida are clearly interlinked, land planning largely has ignored the connection. Still, Florida is uniquely endowed to become a leader in land-use mitigation and capitalize on the economic development opportunities it presents. Realizing this potential, however, will require policy leaders to carefully consider competing land uses and their potential impacts. It also requires a long-term perspective, says Mulkey, entailing comprehensive land-use planning that looks out 100 years or more.

...........................

Q: What is terrestrial carbon sequestration?
A: Terrestrial carbon sequestration is the process through which carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere is absorbed by trees, plants and crops through photosynthesis, and stored as carbon in biomass (tree trunks, branches, foliage and roots) and soils. The term “sinks” is also used to refer to forests, croplands, and grazing lands, and their ability to sequester carbon. Agriculture and forestry activities can also release CO2 to the atmosphere. Therefore, a carbon sink occurs when carbon sequestration is greater than carbon releases over some time period.

Q: Why are agricultural and forestry sequestration activities important?
A: Forests and soils have a large influence on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2)—the most important global warming gas emitted by human activities. Tropical deforestation is responsible for about 20% of the world’s annual CO2 emissions (IPCC, 2000). On a global scale, however, these emissions are more than offset by the uptake of atmospheric CO2 by forests and agriculture. Therefore, agricultural and forestry activities can both contribute to the accumulation of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, as well as be used to help prevent climate change, by avoiding further emissions and by sequestering additional carbon. Sequestration activities can be carried out immediately, appear to present relatively cost-effective emission reduction opportunities, and may generate environmental co-benefits. At the same time, it is important to recognize that carbon sequestered in trees and soils can be released back to the atmosphere, and that there is a finite amount of carbon that can ultimately be sequestered.

Q: Which agricultural and forestry practices sequester carbon?
A: There are three general means by which agricultural and forestry practices can reduce greenhouse gases:
(1) avoiding emissions by maintaining existing carbon storage in trees and soils;
(2) increasing carbon storage by tree planting and converting from conventional to conservation tillage practices on agricultural lands;
(3) substituting bio-based fuels and products for fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, and energy-intensive products that generate greater quantities of CO2 when used.
Source: EPA

..........................

Unsustainable Growth
The next 10 years will be pivotal. Opportunities abound for economic development associated with mitigating GHGs. But pursuing mitigation will require hard choices regarding urban expansion and alternative land uses.
Even assuming a net reduction in state immigration from recent boom years, Florida’s population is likely to increase 50% over the next 25 years and could double in 50 years. Unless that growth is managed wisely, the state will be forced to grapple with the unintended but inevitable fallout – more sprawl, gridlock on already congested roads, greater habitat fragmentation and loss of farmland and forests.

By 2020, residential development is projected to gobble up two to three million acres of aquifer recharge lands. By 2060, a recently published study by 1000 Friends of Florida indicates that an additional seven million acres of farmlands and native habitats will be converted to urban development.

This vision of the future, say growth management advocates, is unsustainable. Furthermore, says Mulkey, it ignores altogether the potentially significant and lucrative new markets and jobs a low-carbon economy could fuel.

When considered in the context of climate change, land-use planning takes on even greater urgency.

Land use and regional climate change
In the short-term, land-use decisions may have a stronger effect on regional climate than global warming or rising seas. For example, a recent survey of climate variability in California shows that about half of the warming since 1950 can be attributed to global warming statistically linked to increased Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures, while the other half is attributed to altered land use, with large urban areas exhibiting two to five times more warming than the state average. Likewise, the conversion of tropical savannah to grassland in South America, Africa and Australia has resulted in regional decreases in precipitation.

Here in Florida, the future may be looking up as the state develops an action plan on climate change. Worthy of note, says New College Professor Meg Lowman, is the state’s recognition that strategies must be both science-based and economical to be effective.

“Now more than ever, whether we’re addressing climate change, water supply or energy, Florida needs to draw upon both science and economics to map a prosperous future,” says Lowman, who was recently named a state science advisor on climate change. Lowman has devoted more than 30 years to studying tropical forests, an ecosystem that bears significant tell-tale signs of climate change.

The stakes couldn’t be higher.
A recent study by Tufts University estimates that climate change could cause $27 billion worth of harm to Florida’s tourism, electric utilities and real estate industries by 2025 if ignored.

When it comes to unpleasant impacts, warmer temperatures in already-hot Florida are only the tip of the iceberg. Rising sea levels would dampen coastal real estate values, while higher temperatures would drive up demands for electricity.

While the study accounts for damage from increased storm intensity, it does not address the effect on insurance costs, impacts to agriculture, forestry, fisheries or ecosystems.

Not surprisingly, Florida is expected to be one of the biggest losers among states in a warming world because of its extensive coastline. The state’s gross state product is expected to shrink 5% by century’s end if actions aren’t taken to curb emissions, amounting to a loss of about $345 billion.

“Fortunately, the economic opportunities to produce clean energy and foster green technologies are great, they make good business sense, and they will contribute to a safer and healthier environment,” Lowman observes.

A Time for Leadership
Lowman and others laud Florida for taking important steps to create a low-carbon economy, most notably reflected in a bold series of executive orders by Gov. Crist last summer on slashing GHGs and increasing renewable and alternative energies (see Fall ’07 issue, Florida Goes on the Offensive). In October, the state will release its first-ever action plan on climate change.

“I think it’s safe to say that the potential for different ecosystems to serve as carbon ‘sinks’ will be a future driver for conservation and land-use planning in Florida,” says Lowman.

In a recent report, 1000 Friends of Florida outlines a call to action, including key tenants they believe are essential to smart, sustainable growth:

• Expanding Florida Forever, redoubling the state’s efforts to protect land and water
• Adopting new policies on conversion of rural lands to urban uses
• Creating a 100-Year Legacy Plan
• Identifying leaders
• Galvanizing supporters.

At the end of the day, says Gene Boles, director of the Center for Building Better Communities at the University of Florida, it comes down to this: “We can’t solve the problem using the same thinking that got us here.
“We’ve got to have a new paradigm.”