Government policies across the world generally favour locking-up forests for carbon sequestration. But a new study by the NSW Government’s Department of Primary Industries suggests: Total greenhouse gas emissions abatement and carbon storage from a multiple use production forest exceed the carbon storage benefit of a conservation forest.
The report stresses that to quantify the climate change impacts of forestry, the entire forestry system should be considered: the carbon dynamics of the forest, the life cycle of forest products; the substitution benefit of biomass and wood products, the risk of leakage resulting from deforestation and forest degradation in other countries.
The study compares the overall greenhouse gas balance for two coastal harvested versus two conservation forests. The accounting method used shows that most of the savings for the harvested forests is in the area of “product substitution”; the idea being that substitution of wood through the use of cement, steel and aluminium creates emissions.
If you are interested in the crooked business of carbon accounting, or looking to justify the harvesting of forests for more fashionable reasons than economics, the report is worth a read:
Harvested forests provide the greatest ongoing greenhouse gas benefits. By Fabiano Ximenes et al. NSW Government, June 2012.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/434643/Harvested-forests-provide-the-greatest-ongoing-greenhouse-gas-benefits.pdf
Well now I'm in a quandry. A dozen years ago when I was "accepting the science" I began to see discrepancies with the management of trees as I felt it should be to manage CO2. So I looked harder and the whole thing fell apart. If the principals in this had been accepted then I might still be a warmist.
Now of course the whole premis is undone. (Re Larry @ 5.46PM).
The question is "Is anybody reading these revelations"? and "do we promot them and support the bigger lie?"
Doug
It's that "Dr John Tibby from the University of Adelaide’s Discipline of Geography, Environment and Population." again Neville.
Willis Eschenbach looks at a new study (using models, what else) about future temp changes around lake Eyre. Unbelievable BS from Uni of wankerdom.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/29/climate-alarmists-target-the-arabunna-people-with-no-evidence/#more-66429
If one wanted to sequester CO2, we have a rather simple way of doing that. First you mine some coal and burn it. Then you cut down some trees, turn them into paper and use it for some economic purpose such as a telephone directory. When that paper is no longer useful, you pulp it into a slurry pump it into the coal mine and squeeze the water out of it using technology much like "rammed earth". Pound for pound, paper has more carbon than coal. Simply put the carbon back where it came from in the first place. Also, packing these mines solid with highly compressed paper pulp could reduce problems later that come from caving in of old mine shafts.
And who knows, maybe after several thousand years that paper could be dug out and burned again.
One of the most common misconceptions is that recycling paper somehow benefits the environment. It doesn't. Trees for paper, at least in the US, are farmed like corn. If you reduce demand for virgin pulp by recycling, it results in fewer trees being planted and the land sold off for other uses such as residential or commercial development. Recycling paper decreases the number of trees in the environment, it does not "save" any.
Satellite maps of the distribution of CO2 across the earth's surface show that the highest concentrations are over the tropical forests, and not over large urban and industrial areas, as might be expected. Should we be worried? No, because it's trees that have reduced the CO2 in the atmosphere to its present low level. Nothing else has the capacity to do this; not grass, not algae, not plankton, nothing else. Certainly not animals; fauna contain little carbon compared with flora, and most flora very little compared with trees.
Grassland plants contain a few grams per square metre of carbon; dense forests can contain up to a tonne or more per square metre. Trees matter; little else does, in the grand scheme of things. A visitor from a distant galaxy would conclude (from Earth orbit) that the population here was tall and brown with little green bits attached, rather boring, and not worth the trouble of attempting to engage in conversation.
Thank God for trees; the little green men will leave us alone.
Gee mate and then you go and read on in the report and you find in section 4 the following which kind of indicates you haven't read the report nor do you understand it;
'The full life cycle of carbon in forests and wood products is considered. The simulation was run over a period of 200 years. The two management scenarios take into account:
•
carbon sequestration in standing trees in the forest;
•
carbon storage in harvest residues (above and below-ground);
•
long-term carbon storage in wood products;
•
GHG emissions due to the establishment and management of forests, harvesting, log transport, manufacture, transport to customer and disposal of products;
•
emissions avoidance associated with of the use of wood products in place of more greenhouse-intensive alternatives. A 100% substitution for non-wood materials was assumed;
•
fossil-fuel substitution benefits of using a proportion of harvest residues for bioenergy generation;
•
GHG emissions due to the forest management, harvesting, log transport, manufacture, transport to customer and disposal of products.'
You also said, '5, 10, 20 years later even sawn native hardwood is another piece of disposable crap turning into methane in a landfill' 3.3.1 of the report says, 'DPI research (e.g., Ximenes et al 2008a), and a recently published study in the USA (Wang et al 2011), has demonstrated that harvested wood products in landfill represent a long term carbon store, with minimal or no decomposition taking place'. Again read the report and do try and keep up the comprehension!
Oh and don't forget to add the losses from bushfires in your calculations.
I agree with Spangled about silviculture. I also agree with the multiple use philosophy of the U.S. Forest Service, regarding their lands that are not managed for wilderness values.
That said, I have mixed feelings about the political thrust of “Save the Carbon, Harvest the Forest?” On the one hand, this blog post casts reasonable doubt on the carbon accounting scam.
On the other hand, that comes at the expense of partially legitimizing the bigger lie about the Flying CO2 Monster. My feeling about evidence-based environmental politics is that we should place more emphasize on our strongest points.
Repeal the Carbon Tax? Yes. Save the dugongs? Absolutely. Pander to Warmist fundamentalists in order to make a point about forest management? That's a two-edged sword.
Apparently at the last Sydney City Council meeting they spent hours discussing the carbon footprint of inner city people's pets!!!
I've walked through clear-fells of young eucalypts in Galicia, seen whole hillsides shaved in one go. In oak country in France and Italy, where I've walked, silviculture involves relentless hunting, truffling and using enormous amounts of scrap wood as firewood. The land is far more resilient than we are ever allowed to say. But that's Europe, and this is Oz. We don't have their traditions, and its foolish to play at being European when you're not. But here we're starting to confuse paralysis and abandon with conservation, and there's an assumption that the bush will look after itself. That would surprise all those who came before us in our great forests, especially the kouris.
This is not an argument for excess. I live in koala country. I'm grateful for the export dollars from the two million koala pelts exported in just one year in the twenties. Maybe we really did need the money then, and maybe the money was spent well. But now we have to spend and fuss like crazy to preserve the species. The red cedar is now a relic, there's no hope of growing it in plantations. You just cannot get away from the need to CONSERVE. I'm in tallowood, turpentine and even brush-box country. Taking these species too young or in too great quantity is just like the frenzied cash-and-mineral grab we're seeing on prime food-production land (under tree-hugger governments, of course.)
Look, we have a head start. Around 2007 there was an actual "climate change" our Green Betters don't want to discuss. I'd talk about PDO, but I don't believe in explaining vast things as simplistic levers and mechanisms based on scraps of recently acquired knowledge. But the bush is growing, big time. This "carbon boom" has coincided with reduced or absent forestry activity.
We've seen how many billions government can fritter on non-productive or counter-productive green fetishism. Surely all our forests can have a few on-site guardians and workers, intensive and realistic fire and vermin maintenance programs, and modest exploitation. You can't run it at a profit, but heritage is a legit role of government. "User pays" and "market forces" are wonderful principles which make lousy dogma, especially when half-digested by Big Lever leftists.
Lastly, there is nothing natural about hot burns. When the dry westerlies again come whistling across the Divide some Spring - or even Summer, God help us - are we just going to have massive conflagrations again - while bureaucrats are running about checking how much "durrdy carrrbon p'luttion" you toaster is responsible for emitting?
Of course, you need real wealth to have real conservation. You need pluralism and freedom for wealth. So, first job is to get rid of the collectivists, dogmatists and impoverishers.