Can the Outback Cut Australia's Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

A new study finds protecting the vast region would be equivalent to cutting the country's CO2 output by 5 percent

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Australia's vast outback stores 9.7 billion metric tons of carbon, but has the capacity to double those holdings by 2050, according to a report released yesterday.

The vast region, which covers roughly 2.5 million square miles in Australia's interior, could sequester another 1.3 billion metric tons of carbon by 2050, concludes the analysis, sponsored by the Pew Environment Group and the Nature Conservancy.

The groups argue it would be a cost-effective approach to reducing Australia's net contribution to climate change, the equivalent of reducing the country's emissions 5 percent by 2030, assuming a business-as-usual emissions scenario. Several of the recommended steps carry a cost of less than A$20 per metric ton of carbon to implement.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Although many people might assume the outback is an arid expanse without much vegetation, Patrick O'Leary of the Pew Environment Group's Australia office said that is not an accurate picture of the region. The outback includes savannas and shrublands, as well as many areas with trees or taller plants, especially in the north.

"It's an enormous standing stock of carbon," O'Leary said, that could be made larger by allowing its vegetation "to grow to its healthy potential."

A camel removal program
Doing so would require changing the way the region's lands are managed.

The new report recommends reducing the amount of land cleared, allowing vegetation to regrow in areas that have already been cleared, conducting planned grassland burns to help suppress wildfires, eradicating feral animal populations that roam the outback, and changing the way cattle grazing is managed.

"Many actions we talk about are already happening," O'Leary said of the report's recommendations.

One example is an ongoing Australian government program to reduce the number of feral camels that roam the northern and western outback. Without natural predators, the population of roughly 1 million camels -- which are not native to Australia -- grows an estimated 11 percent each year.

The camels trample sensitive ecosystems and release large amounts of methane and carbon dioxide. O'Leary estimates an individual camel's CO2 output at 1 million metric tons per year.

"We need to be careful about how we ramp up the start of these actions," he said. "We need to make sure landholders, including aboriginal landholders, are engaged. But we don't have to invent some new process" to store the carbon.

Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe