Dear readers,
In climate policy, people like to promise a lot, but often only little moves.
We report on this more often in our newsletter at this point.
The many announcements made by countries and companies can make you dizzy.
Actually, things are going really well, you might think: everyone wants to be green – and above all climate-neutral.
Many are certainly serious about it - but there are always two crucial questions: Can the goal be achieved with the announced measures?
And how was it calculated?
After that, one should also evaluate the new – very pleasing – climate goals of Finland.
Some media even praised these as the "most ambitious climate goals in the world".
Already on May 25, the Finnish parliament approved the new climate law of the government under the social democratic Prime Minister Sanna Marin - with a majority of 121 against 41 votes.
In it, the country commits to becoming climate-neutral by 2035 – earlier than any other industrialized country.
The country even wants to become CO₂ negative by 2040 – i.e. remove a net amount of CO₂ from the atmosphere.
A few developing countries have similarly ambitious goals.
The fact that the Finns are now leading the way also has something to do with the past election campaign – and the relatively young prime minister.
Sanna Marin (36) gives priority to the climate issue.
You can believe that she is serious - at least that's why many Finns chose her in 2020.
But how exactly does Finland intend to become climate-neutral so quickly?
On closer inspection, the target doesn't even look extraordinary.
Because the pure emission reductions, for example in energy supply or transport, are only 60 percent lower by 2030 than in Germany.
The federal government wants to create minus 65 percent compared to 1990 in its climate law.
Finland has it even easier when it comes to reducing emissions because it continues to rely on nuclear power and generates a lot of electricity from hydropower.
But a lot has to happen when it comes to heating, transport and also in industry - especially in dirty paper production.
Which brings us to the point: the Finnish government wants to achieve its goals of being climate-neutral, above all with the forest.
The poker with the climate sinks
Because the small country has enough of that: Three quarters of Finland's land area from Helsinki to the Arctic Circle is forested.
The population is small at 5.5 million people - there are just 16 people per square kilometer (in Germany: 230).
It makes sense to exploit this huge carbon sink: the trees draw CO₂ out of the atmosphere and can thus offset emissions in other areas.
According to the government, Finnish forests absorbed around 17 million tons of CO₂ in 2020 alone.
According to the law, the forest is “crucial for achieving CO₂ neutrality”.
Since total Finnish emissions are currently around 50 million tons, that would be a significant proportion that the Finns include in their greenhouse gas bills free of charge.
So nice, so good the theory.
But nice calculations don't make for climate protection.
A day before the climate law went through parliament, Statistics Finland published new emission figures for the past year.
For the first time, the land use sector – which includes peatlands, agriculture and forests – was a net source of emissions –
i.e.
it released more emissions into the atmosphere than it removed.
The reason for this was the forests, which absorbed less than in previous years and were therefore no longer able to compensate for emissions from agriculture, for example.
According to the report, the Finnish timber industry had cut too much wood and simply replanted too little.
The demand for wood is great - for example for paper production or for energy generation.
In the meantime, wood is even becoming more important in the construction industry - also as a climate-friendly substitute for concrete.
This shows how quickly well-intentioned climate target calculations can collapse.
Even the Finnish government itself admits this indirectly.
The climate law states that there are “strong fluctuations” in the annual CO₂ emissions recorded in the forests.
Germany also expects forest sinks to be too high
But not only Finland has the problem with the forests as a guarantor for climate neutrality.
Germany could also overestimate its sinks, experts have been warning for a few years.
In Germany, the climate law passed in August 2021 estimates at least minus 25 million tons of CO₂ equivalents, which should be saved primarily by the forest (and possibly also moors), by 2040 it should already be minus 35 million.
A comparison with German domestic air traffic, which weighs in at two million tons, shows that this is not about trivial matters.
Every ton that the forest absorbs less must theoretically be saved somewhere else in order to achieve a climate neutrality goal.
But in view of the diseased German forests, persistent droughts and bark beetle plagues, the German climate calculation could not work either, says Andreas Bolte from the Thünen Institute for Forest Ecosystems.
Even if they are replanted quickly, the little trees would need up to 20 years to become a relevant CO₂ store.
Young trees absorb much less CO₂ than older ones.
It's even more dramatic in Brazil.
The country with the world's largest rainforest likes to play gambles with its "green lungs" at UN climate conferences.
But researchers calculated last year that the green spaces in South America – most of which are on Brazilian territory – have released around 20 percent more CO₂ into the atmosphere in the last ten years than they absorbed.
According to the authors of the study, this was not only due to the destruction of the forest through deforestation or slash and burn, but also to a weakening of the forest structure, increased droughts and tree diseases.
These examples show that climate calculations with ecosystems are imprecise.
The potential CO₂ savings from deforestation, drought or forest fires are simply unpredictable.
Therefore, all climate targets that want to compensate a fairly high proportion with this ecosystem should not really be taken seriously.
Even if – as in the case of Finland – they may have the positive effect that governments opt for massive afforestation or forest protection.
As always, it's worth taking a closer look - and only then proclaiming the climate champions.
If you like, we will inform you once a week about the most important things about the climate crisis - stories, research results and the latest developments on the biggest issue of our time. You can subscribe to the newsletter here.
The topics of the week
Hurdle for renewable energy: Saxony adopts distance rule for wind turbines - Greens agree
Not on my doorstep: In Germany, the expansion of wind power repeatedly fails due to minimum distance rules.
Saxony has now decided one - with the votes of the Greens.
Will there be a showdown with the federal government?
Debate on fossil fuel infrastructure: “You can then scrap most of the terminals”
With the planned new LNG terminals for importing liquefied natural gas, hydrogen can also be landed later, the federal government promises.
Is everything climate protection compatible?
It's not that simple.
Extreme heat in India: »As if the street were on fire« During the
day she toils on a construction site in temperatures of more than 40 degrees, at night she and her family can hardly sleep because of the high humidity: Here an Indian woman reports on her everyday life during the extreme heat wave .
Consequence of overexploitation and climate change: Our planet is running out of fertile soil - and it's our fault
A disaster is taking place in the soil unnoticed: soil is being poisoned, over-fertilized or over-salted, and humanity's food supply is at stake.
Can the diversity beneath our feet still be saved?
Meteorologists expect a "perfect storm": That's why the USA and the Caribbean are threatened with a bad hurricane season
Something is brewing in the North Atlantic.
The US weather agency is forecasting a year with particularly bad storms for the seventh year in a row.
Researchers fear a destructive potential as in "Katrina".
Before the G7 summit: Leopoldina calls for immediate action by the federal government for more climate protection
The G7 are responsible for a quarter of annual CO₂ emissions.
Before the summit, the national science academies are now addressing the seven governments with an urgent appeal.
stay confident
Yours, Susanne Götze
