<p>It seems that there is indeed a strong &quot;climate-case&quot; in favour of wetlands: Below follows a bullet-list of several facts and arguments, which among other things undermine the premises of my question (to a certain degree):</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Currently, 3% of the land surface is covered by peat lands. But it is estimated that up to 1/3 of all terrestrial carbon is stored in those peat lands, giving a big edge in carbon sequestration/m<sup>2</sup> over any other type of vegetation. Although these peat lands convert some of their intake of CO<sub>2</sub> in the more potent greenhouse gas CH<sub>4</sub>, it is clear that the remedy is certainly not to 'drain the swamp' in a short time-window in a way where all the carbon is injected in the atmosphere. Since the latter is exactly the threat posed to many wetlands nowadays, there is clear and in some cases perhaps decisive motivation and urgency for the conservation and protection of existing wetlands.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Organic methanogenesis appears strongly temperature-dependent: <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425718300178" rel="nofollow noreferrer">satellite data</a> show the tropical regions as the main global sources. <a href="https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/22/3/207/559904" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Laboratory experiments roughly confirm that picture</a>, although many questions remain unanswered and methanogenesis seems to depend on a wide range of variables. In any case, in temperate and boreal regions the wetland-contribution in CH<sub>4</sub>-emission often pales in comparison to agricultural and industrial sources (in Flanders, agriculture contributes 20-fold the CH<sub>4</sub> contribution from rivers and wetlands). Hence, in densely-populated temperate and boreal regions, the CH<sub>4</sub>-emission-argument may be moot since there are more opportune alternative options for climate-change mitigation, with less collateral consequences (wetlands provide biodiversity, hydrological stability etc).</p>
</li>
<li><p>The argument that wetlands saturate and stop net intake of carbon may be partly false and largely irrelevant: A mature peatland may reach a depth varying from 2 to 20 meters, while <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a peatland's annual growth is typically of order 1 mm/ year</a>. With some audacity, I propose to infer that a peatland then needs a time of order 10m/(10<sup>-3</sup> m/year)= 10000 years to grow to maturity. During that time, it did absorb carbon to grow. Since 10000 years dwarfs the time-scale in which humanity is to overcome and adapt to climate change, the saturation-argument against reinstating or re-valuation of peatlands is irrelevant. The saturation-argument might be weakened even more if one includes in the calculation the depth of the <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coal/#:%7E:text=Under%20the%20right%20conditions%2C%20peat,(1%20foot)%20of%20coal!" rel="nofollow noreferrer">coal-seam which is often found below a mature peatland</a>.</p>
</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-23T01:09:41.953Z
2021-04-23T10:31:02.030Z
2021-04-23T10:31:02.030Z
5th decile
<p>In the region where I live, there is a trend that conservation organizations are advocating the conservation and re-valuation of wetlands.</p>
<p>Aside from boosting biodiversity and providing other ecological services, the conservationists argue that wetlands capture a lot of carbon.</p>
<p>I know however that wetlands are notorious for steady state methane emission [<a href="https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/climate-change-projected-set-substantial-rise-methane-emissions-wetlands" rel="nofollow noreferrer">1</a>][<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetland_methane_emissions" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2</a>], so it sounds dubious whether a single-time carbon-capture or carbon-release can compensate a significant steady-state emission of a potent greenhouse gas.</p>
<p>Are there cost-benefit-analyses out there regarding the effect of wetlands on climate? What is your take?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-04-19T15:32:03.303Z
Many wetlands are drained, so even if it did benefit in stopping climate change, there would be few.
Tardy
<climate-change><co2><methane>
Are wetlands effective against climate change?
5th decile
# Are wetlands effective against climate change?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-04-18)

In the region where I live, there is a trend that conservation organizations are advocating the conservation and re-valuation of wetlands.

Aside from boosting biodiversity and providing other ecological services, the conservationists argue that wetlands capture a lot of carbon.

I know however that wetlands are notorious for steady state methane emission [[1](https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/news/climate-change-projected-set-substantial-rise-methane-emissions-wetlands)][[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetland_methane_emissions)], so it sounds dubious whether a single-time carbon-capture or carbon-release can compensate a significant steady-state emission of a potent greenhouse gas.

Are there cost-benefit-analyses out there regarding the effect of wetlands on climate? What is your take?

**Tags:** climate-change, co2, methane

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Many wetlands are drained, so even if it did benefit in stopping climate change, there would be few.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2021-04-23. Score: 0

It seems that there is indeed a strong "climate-case" in favour of wetlands: Below follows a bullet-list of several facts and arguments, which among other things undermine the premises of my question (to a certain degree):

* Currently, 3% of the land surface is covered by peat lands. But it is estimated that up to 1/3 of all terrestrial carbon is stored in those peat lands, giving a big edge in carbon sequestration/m2 over any other type of vegetation. Although these peat lands convert some of their intake of CO2 in the more potent greenhouse gas CH4, it is clear that the remedy is certainly not to 'drain the swamp' in a short time-window in a way where all the carbon is injected in the atmosphere. Since the latter is exactly the threat posed to many wetlands nowadays, there is clear and in some cases perhaps decisive motivation and urgency for the conservation and protection of existing wetlands.
* Organic methanogenesis appears strongly temperature-dependent: [satellite data](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034425718300178) show the tropical regions as the main global sources. [Laboratory experiments roughly confirm that picture](https://academic.oup.com/femsec/article/22/3/207/559904), although many questions remain unanswered and methanogenesis seems to depend on a wide range of variables. In any case, in temperate and boreal regions the wetland-contribution in CH4-emission often pales in comparison to agricultural and industrial sources (in Flanders, agriculture contributes 20-fold the CH4 contribution from rivers and wetlands). Hence, in densely-populated temperate and boreal regions, the CH4-emission-argument may be moot since there are more opportune alternative options for climate-change mitigation, with less collateral consequences (wetlands provide biodiversity, hydrological stability etc).
* The argument that wetlands saturate and stop net intake of carbon may be partly false and largely irrelevant: A mature peatland may reach a depth varying from 2 to 20 meters, while [a peatland's annual growth is typically of order 1 mm/ year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat). With some audacity, I propose to infer that a peatland then needs a time of order 10m/(10-3 m/year)= 10000 years to grow to maturity. During that time, it did absorb carbon to grow. Since 10000 years dwarfs the time-scale in which humanity is to overcome and adapt to climate change, the saturation-argument against reinstating or re-valuation of peatlands is irrelevant. The saturation-argument might be weakened even more if one includes in the calculation the depth of the [coal-seam which is often found below a mature peatland](https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coal/#:%7E:text=Under%20the%20right%20conditions%2C%20peat,(1%20foot)%20of%20coal!).


---

