The green, natural forest absorbs carbon dioxide from the air through photo- synthesis (光合作用). There is another way of dealing with the climate crisis. That is setting up fields of dark-colored solar panels (太阳能电池板), also known as “solar forests”, which replace power stations that use fossil fuels such as coal and gas to make electricity, thus mitigating harmful emissions (排放) of greenhouse gases.

But since they are both relatively dark, they absorb a lot of solar radiation. Some of the energy is used for photosynthesis in natural forests or to produce electricity in “solar forests”, but most returns to the atmosphere, heating it up. Then what would be the more effective land use option in terms of the climate crisis: planting a forest, or building solar panels? This issue has long been debated by decision-makers around the world. Now, we may have an answer, thanks to a new study.

First, the researchers compared the impact of a forest on the climate crisis in a dry area to that of a solar farm in a similar environment. The researchers found that the albedo effect (反射效应) of both of these “forests” was similar, but that the absorption or prevention of carbon emissions was very different. It turns out that it takes 2.5 years for the heat emitted by solar farms to be balanced by the carbon emissions that are avoided, thanks to the energy they produce. In the case of a natural forest of similar size, it would take more than 100 years of photosynthesis to balance its heating effect.

The researchers also studied how the heating-cooling relationship changed in other climates and found that in more humid environments, the heating effect of planting large numbers of trees is smaller. And the break-even point is reached within 15 to 18 years.

“In dry places, building solar forests seems far more effective in addressing the climate crisis. Meanwhile, forests absorb about a third of annual carbon emissions and play a vital role in the global rain cycle, in maintaining biodiversity and in many other environmental and social contexts. Preventing them from being cut down and planting more trees in humid areas are of great significance,” explains one of the researchers in the study.

When the explorers first set foot upon the continent of North America, the skies and lands were alive with an astonishing variety of wildlife. Native Americans had taken care of these precious natural resources wisely. Unfortunately, it took the explorers and the settlers who followed only a few decades to   decimate a large part of these resources. Millions of waterfowl (水禽) were killed at the hands of market hunters and a handful of overly ambitious sportsmen. Millions of acres of wetlands were dried to feed and house the ever-increasing populations, greatly reducing waterfowl habitat.

In 1934, with the passage of the Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act (Act), an increasingly concerned nation took firm action to stop the destruction of migratory (迁徙的) waterfowl and the wetlands so vital to their survival. Under this Act, all waterfowl hunters 16 years of age and over must annually purchase and carry a Federal Duck Stamp. The very first Federal Duck Stamp was designed by J.N. “Ding” Darling, a political cartoonist from Des Moines, lowa, who at that time was appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt as Director of the Bureau of Biological Survey. Hunters willingly pay the stamp price to ensure the survival of our natural resources.

About 98 cents of every duck stamp dollar goes directly into the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund to purchase wetlands and wildlife habitat for inclusion into the National Wildlife Refuge System — a fact that ensures this land will be protected and available for all generations to come. Since 1934 better than half a billion dollars has gone into that Fund to purchase more than 5 million acres of habitat. Little wonder the Federal Duck Stamp Program has been called one of the most successful conservation programs ever initiated.

The green, natural forest absorbs carbon dioxide from the air through photo- synthesis (光合作用). There is another way of dealing with the climate crisis. That is setting up fields of dark-colored solar panels (太阳能电池板), also known as “solar forests”, which replace power stations that use fossil fuels such as coal and gas to make electricity, thus mitigating harmful emissions (排放) of greenhouse gases.

But since they are both relatively dark, they absorb a lot of solar radiation. Some of the energy is used for photosynthesis in natural forests or to produce electricity in “solar forests”, but most returns to the atmosphere, heating it up. Then what would be the more effective land use option in terms of the climate crisis: planting a forest, or building solar panels? This issue has long been debated by decision-makers around the world. Now, we may have an answer, thanks to a new study.

First, the researchers compared the impact of a forest on the climate crisis in a dry area to that of a solar farm in a similar environment. The researchers found that the albedo effect (反射效应) of both of these “forests” was similar, but that the absorption or prevention of carbon emissions was very different. It turns out that it takes 2.5 years for the heat emitted by solar farms to be balanced by the carbon emissions that are avoided, thanks to the energy they produce. In the case of a natural forest of similar size, it would take more than 100 years of photosynthesis to balance its heating effect.

The researchers also studied how the heating-cooling relationship changed in other climates and found that in more humid environments, the heating effect of planting large numbers of trees is smaller. And the break-even point is reached within 15 to 18 years.

“In dry places, building solar forests seems far more effective in addressing the climate crisis. Meanwhile, forests absorb about a third of annual carbon emissions and play a vital role in the global rain cycle, in maintaining biodiversity and in many other environmental and social contexts. Preventing them from being cut down and planting more trees in humid areas are of great significance,” explains one of the researchers in the study.