Dave’s space

One of the more interesting terms you quickly run across is “global hectare”. Various groups, with various methodologies, are presenting analysis based on the notion of a global hectare (GH). This theory assumes one quarter of the biosphere is “productive” and then declares the average productivy of these 11.4 billion hectares as a “global hectare.”  Any given real hectare has more or less productivity that the benchmark GH, perhaps a great deal more. A given national “footprint” is expressed in terms of GH. For example, the UK footprint is 5.35 global hectares per person, while Bulgaria’s footprint is only 1.84 GH. This provides a clear indication that for most individuals in North America and Europe, we need either to consume a great deal  less (and thus reduce our average production of CO²) or to be involved in recycling CO² back into storable carbon. Estimates for individuals in the first world are that it would take at least 3 planets and perhaps as many as 5 if the world’s whole population consumed and traveled at our rates.

Thinking locally, how much carbon does our 105 acres sequester now? How much could it sequester if we changed our methods or our mix of plants? And could we both increase productivity and reduce emissions?

Vines, of course, do not come with meters attached. Nor do trees. The results of various studies on agriculture and sequestering of carbon show an enormous range. Many seem to believe that  non-mature forests are much better in the role of “carbon sink” than grasslands, orchards and vineyards. Others prefer deep-rooted grasslands.

The trick in much of the analysis is that you need to consider what’s in the ground as well as what is above above ground. Perhaps the lowly yellow broom, with its quick growth and deep tap roots is better for the planet than we think.

Of the many things we hope to enjoy doing in 2007, key is gaining some accuracy about our role as supporters of sustainable farming. For vineyards like ours, global warming, at the moment, is quite positive; we can ripen varieties that earlier trials showed to be very difficult. Some predictions show that the entire pacific coast area of Vancouver Island, Washington and Oregon will be able to support cool climate vineyards within 50 years. However, the costs of that “benefit” for us would be enormous for other regions, so we really would prefer for the whole planet to remain more stable.

Pragmatically, we assume that maintaining diversity, logging on a hundred year cycle, recycling as much as possible and working hard to move off the grid is going to keep us at the very least neutral and hopefully positive in terms of carbon sequestration and reduction of carbon emissions. But is that accurate?

With the two farms, we now have approximately 25 acres of vines and their cover crops, 40 acres of fairly mature third-growth forest, about 35 acres of pasture,  more than 3 acres of ponds, creeks and silt catchments (in the winter), and almost 3 acres of roads, barns, houses, parking and sheds. The basic question is do we contribute more CO² through producing 2,000 cases of wine then we absorb through growing everything we grow?

Seems like a quite simple question. But once you start reading the studies, it becomes less and less clear that you can be totally accurate. A little knowledge is usful; more knowledge is perplexing.