The Lifeboat News
[ Message Archive | The Lifeboat News ]

    Re: The myths of forestry as a counter to global warming. Archived Message

    Posted by dereklane on July 8, 2019, 7:12 am, in reply to "The myths of forestry as a counter to global warming. "

    "Plantation forestry, ulimtately, does absolutely nothing to help with climate change, for two reasons. First the disturbance of the ground in planting and harvesting , along with the energy burned to do this, is actually contributing to CO2 emissions, "
    "
    This largely depends where the planting is happening. Where it has happened (Australia/New Zealand etc) you're correct; forest was levelled to make way for commercial forestry at least in Queensland. That obviously created a net loss in terms of carbon sequestration, and environmental niches/ ecosystems. In the uk it would be a different story; forests that were are not already. Take the animals off it (for a time) and the forests would return on their own. Plant in those places (obviously natives species better, but trees versus none, any still win) and it just happens quicker, no drain on the ecosystem. Same in large chunks of Ireland, but you need to know the land to know its story.


    "and secondly most of this harvested timber will in a fairly short time, return to to the atmosphere"

    Every living thing returns to the atmosphere. This is not the issue, it's about the balance of how fast that occurs. Growing trees which you then burn to keep warm works if the replacement of trees is only slightly higher than the destruction of them, in a managed and otherwise env sensitive manner. Forest management is more relevant here than species type or final goals. Your house may be made mostly of wood and your furniture. Humans need and use wood for survival and that's fine. I'd rather see commercial hardwood forestry because plantations of radiata and Sitka presage short term uses; paper industries, pallet wood, etc. But then again, Sitka plantations here provide homes for surprisingly more species than most might believe, just not as much or as vibrant ecosystems as would be provided by non homogenous forest.

    I guess the point is not to throw out baby and bath water. I'd campaign against felling with monster machines, and against clear felling in commercial forests, happily. Monoculture forestry can be converted to mixed indigenous by older methods of felling and replanting, and it can happen fast if the will exists. What we choose to do with the timber that is grown is not a given till it's too late either, so suggesting that it goes back into the atmosphere too fast to be useful is only a failing of our supply/demand capitalist culture, ourselves included in that. If all that existed was indigenous forest right now we would be doing the same with it.

    . In addition, the planting of exotic species in the wrong habitats, as in Ireland, NZ and the USA, can actually worsen global warming and fire risks. "

    Everyone always blames the eucalypt Californian plantings of course aren't helped by the massive volume of eucalyptus but also its plantations of nut trees and so forth which require vast water supplies. That water doesn't magic it's way from nowhere, and I would suggest the region is drier massively as a result of the reservoirs, just as se Queensland is, the plains of northern Victoria are (as a result of water mismanagement of the Murray) and so forth. The trees aren't the problem so
    Much as everything else they have done to #### up their landscape.

    I agree with some of what you wrote here but focus on monoculture non native forest at the root of the issue seems lopsided; everything else went wrong first, how we manage resources is more important than the resources we have to manage if we wish to fix the problems we have caused.

    As an example, grass (plains) is an excellent carbon trap (not just the grass but the soil beneath, associated organic matter, microbes, micellium) etc. When it's healthy It locks down more carbon than it releases, despite being grazed, and yet it grows and then the tops die off and rot, or are chewed, digested and released immediately to the atmosphere each year.

    There is not just the one method for commercial forestry, nor are all methods bad for the environment. While we insist on cheap wood/paper etc, it will be like everything else a throwaway industry. Sitka spruce has its place, so does radiata (probably.. I like to work with spruce, radiata is very knotty and sappy where it is not). I would love to see only native forestry, but as discussed further down the page it creates its own problems. We need to wean ourselves off the idea we can buy any type of timber we desire first, and if not that, I'd rather see mixed commercial exotic plantations and a ban on imports of timber than just native woodland.

    Forestry itself isn't an ugly word but our modern methods make it so. Fight for selective felling if you want a positive change. More expensive (and dangerous) but totally doable and way more sensible as an approach to commercial forestry.

    Message Thread: