About Forests, Lumber, and Carbon..Fascinating!

  • Advertise with us

« back to Coffee Lounge forum

Forum topic by poopiekat posted 12-21-2009 07:44 PM 1088 views 0 times favorited 7 replies Add to Favorites Watch
View poopiekat's profile


4349 posts in 3698 days

12-21-2009 07:44 PM

This is a very interesting story, concerning Copenhagen, and explains why the summit should be on the minds of every woodworker:
“THE Copenhagen climate-change summit meeting is behind us, and did not achieve what was hoped for. There was no lack of good intentions, but they generated conflicts rather than solutions, and the product was a weak agreement to disagree in the future. Forests were part of the discussion, and several things were understood: carbon dioxide is a potentially world-altering lethal pollutant, fossil fuels are the problem, biofuels are part of the solution. But exactly how to pare down the use of fossil fuels and switch to energy sources derived from plant material? That is the problem.

Contrary to what you might hear from energy companies and environmentally conscious celebrities, offsets don’t magically make carbon emissions disappear. Worse, relying on them to stem global warming may devastate our vital forest ecosystems.
On the industrial scale, carbon trading works like this: Limits (caps) are set on carbon emissions so that the true costs of our energy use are not just passed on to our descendants or people in some distant country. As an incentive to help the planet, savings of carbon emissions that one achieves below the designated cap can then be traded, as offsets, to another polluter who can then go over his cap by an equal amount. While carbon credits can be generated by switching to cleaner technology or nonpolluting sources in energy production, they can also be gained by unrelated steps, like planting trees, that are said to deter global warming.
Thus, if I burn coal in my business, I can plant pines in Chile and earn an offset, which will then allow me to burn even more coal. On a smaller scale, Al Gore purchases carbon offsets that he says make up for the emissions from the jets he uses in spreading his message of conservation. All this may seem logical, and energy companies would have you believe it works in the real world. But it is actually terrible for the planet, which is governed by the dictates of physics and biology.
Part of the problem is the public misunderstanding of how forests and carbon relate. Trees are often called a “carbon sink” — implying that they will sop up carbon from the atmosphere for all eternity. This is not true: the carbon they take up when they are alive is released after they die, whether from natural causes or by the hand of man. The only true solution to achieving global “carbon balance” is to leave the fossil carbon where it is — underground.
Beyond that, planting more trees is decidedly not the same thing as saving our forests. Instead, planting trees invariably means using them as a sustainable crop, which leads not only to a continuous cycle of carbon releases, but also to the increased destruction of our natural environment.
A few environmental groups in Copenhagen were considered unwelcome guests for loudly pointing out that the carbon-trading proposals bandied about at the meetings subsidize forest destruction and will lead to large-scale destruction of ecosystems and unprecedented “land grabs.” (Disclosure: my wife is a researcher for one of those groups.) But such claims are correct. More than anything, carbon offsets will allow rich countries to burn ever more fossil fuels under the “clean development mechanism” of the Kyoto Protocol, the system that sets the values, in terms of tons of carbon equivalent, of emission-reduction efforts.
In fact, most of the problems with the system can be traced back to the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted in 1997. After much political wrangling, the Kyoto delegates decided that there would be no carbon-reduction credits for saving existing forests. Since planting new trees does get one credits, Kyoto actually created a rationale for clear-cutting old growth.
This is horrifying. The world’s forests are a key to our survival, and that of millions of other species. Not only are they critical to providing us with building material, paper, food, recreation and oxygen, they also ground us spiritually and connect us to our primal past. Never before in earth’s history have our forests been under such attack. And the global-warming folks at Copenhagen seem oblivious, buying into the corporate view of forests as an exploitable resource.
A forest is an ecosystem. It is not something planted. A forest grows on its own. There are many kinds of forests that will grow practically anywhere, each under its own special local conditions. When a tree falls, the race is on immediately to replace it. In the forests I study, there so many seeds and seedlings that if a square foot of ground space opens up, more than a hundred trees of many different species compete to grow there.
So if you want to plant a specific species of tree for lumber or for offsets, you’ll have to apply an (petroleum-based) herbicide repeatedly over its lifespan. If you hope to make a profit, you will plant a tree genetically engineered to grow quickly and resist disease. This is the path to domestication of a plant that needs to be ever coddled with fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides and fungicides. And not coincidentally, there will then be a market for its seeds, and all the chemicals needed to coddle the crop.
In the end, what was originally intended as a mechanism for slowing global warming has created huge economic pressure for ecocide. And there will be no objections from easily duped bleeding- heart “environmentalists,” who absolutely love tree planting because it sounds so “green.”
To preserve something it first has to be valued, and the most effective means of valuing it is to have a practical use for it. If the discussions in Copenhagen were any indication, mankind sees little value in forests, but much in tree plantations. (On the other hand, I admit that those of us who really do care about forests have not exactly been helpful. We have not encouraged selective harvesting from naturally occurring stands, which may be necessary.)
It is easy to scream bloody murder against tree planting as a means for biomass energy and industrial fiber production, but there then has to be an alternative (aside from the obvious one of energy conservation). We need either vastly fewer people or vastly more forests, along with a new definition of earth-friendly reforestation.
These new stands of growth — if managed as true forest rather than as a single-species, single-aged crops — would contain a mixture of mature and transitional-growth trees. Any tree cut down would immediately generate a race of others to replace it at that spot, and the winner will emerge from a natural selection of seeds and seedlings most suited to grow there. No, this isn’t the fastest way to build up carbon credits. But it is the only real way to preserve the planet, and ourselves. ”
Bernd Heinrich, emeritus professor at the University of Vermont, is the author of the forthcoming “Nesting Season.”

From the NY Times Op-Ed page.

-- Einstein: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." I'm Poopiekat!!

7 replies so far

View RetiredCoastie's profile


999 posts in 3146 days

#1 posted 12-21-2009 08:44 PM

The Global warming scare is a bunch of BS. The climate has warmed and cooled long before man and machine expelled it’s first ounce of CO2 into the atmosphere. I’m all for alternative fuels so we can reduce our dependence on oil form other countries but I think we are looking in the wrong areas. We could produce all of our stationary energy from wind farms, solar and nuclear power sources but politics is involved and I doubt very seriously any thing of consequence will happen until we get the politicians and pet project people (Al Gore for instance) who make millions from peoples fears out of the process!

-- Proud Supporter of Homes For Our Troops

View Julian's profile


880 posts in 3489 days

#2 posted 12-21-2009 10:51 PM

I’m with you RetiredCoastie. When I was growing up the big scare was another ice age, and the red scare. I swear the media just has to hype on something and make it OUR fault. Whatever the scientists say will work to fix the problems of today will most likely end up a problem for tomorrow. Just look at the ecological problems that are just now being noticed around all the worlds dams and man made waterways that are supposed to give us “clean” energy. OOPS!!!

-- Julian, Park Forest, IL

View Moron's profile


5032 posts in 3857 days

#3 posted 12-21-2009 11:03 PM

I plant about 50 trees per year. More then I use.

Who heats with wood ?

Its so cold outside, snowy, windy. &*%$# me…....................I’m looking forward to planting orange trees soon.

-- "Good artists borrow, great artists steal”…..Picasso

View poopiekat's profile


4349 posts in 3698 days

#4 posted 12-21-2009 11:28 PM

Hey, guys…I’m sure that, as woodworkers we are probably all pretty much on the same side of this issue. I found this article to be quite engaging, and gives me some useful tidbits to bring to those boring end-of-year cocktail parties, and, more seriously, to incorporate Professor Heinrich’s views into my own interpretation of this global “controversy”. Sometimes, the cure is worse than the disease! Ditto, Roman on the orange trees! I got room in my Manitoba backyard for planting a few!

-- Einstein: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." I'm Poopiekat!!

View GFYS's profile


711 posts in 3434 days

#5 posted 12-22-2009 01:11 AM

wealth redistribution

View poopiekat's profile


4349 posts in 3698 days

#6 posted 12-22-2009 02:26 AM

Right, mics54!
Everyone dreams of new schemes to take from productive cultures, to perpetuate a global welfare-state.
This time, an impending global disaster is the medium for the message. fortunately, there was not enough offered to those thuggish despots. There are already draconian laws affecting us all ecologically speaking. One example that comes to my mind is the elderly man who cut some trees on the property his family owned for generations. They were cut to recapture the ocean view beyond, as suggested by his listing real estate agent. He was fined $500 per tree, upwards of 40 trees cut, due to a shoreline regulation. Had that land been mowed over the years, it would have been no problem. Jeez!

-- Einstein: "The intuitive mind is a sacred gift, and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift." I'm Poopiekat!!

View JasonIndy's profile


187 posts in 3399 days

#7 posted 12-22-2009 05:04 AM

My father and I have both given money to the Nature Conservancy in the past. They’re nice because they use over 90% of their donations to simply buy land out in the middle of nowhere and leave it alone. THAT is true conservation.

Poopiekat, thanks for writing this. I’m glad I’m not the only one that draws a clear distinction between “going green to fight global warming” and “conserving the environment.”

My concern is they’re going to start clear-cutting hardwood forests and planting pine trees because they grow faster and, since they tend to grow in a straight line, are cheaper to mill.

Have your say...

You must be signed in to reply.

DISCLAIMER: Any posts on LJ are posted by individuals acting in their own right and do not necessarily reflect the views of LJ. LJ will not be held liable for the actions of any user.

Latest Projects | Latest Blog Entries | Latest Forum Topics