Isn't development, which won't occur quickly.

It's global warming, and fortunately, this year an extended cold spell should kill off some of the spruce tree boring beetles that have been so common in British Columbia and other places in recent years.

BTW, none of the other research I've seen says it stores as much carbon per unit area as even temperate forests, let alone "twice as much as tropical forests". I'm guessing this is because peat bogs aren't usually considered part of the forest.
The peat bogs, unfortunately, are much more threatened than the rest of the forest, because of the amount of peat mined for horticulture.

Don't all those trees cause warming?  Hehehey.

Nice clean snow will reflect sunlight.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

The recent post, "Opinions Without Borders," suggests that there may be significant political will in Canada to effect the preservation of the Boreal Forest.  Let us hope so!  But whether US citizens can do much to help, is not obvious.

Banana Republican is wrong to minimize the damage to the forest caused by the various extracton industries.  And BioD is right to urge a reform in house-building fashions in the US.

But BR is right to add that the forest is threatened also by certain pressures associated with global warming, including growing populations of tree-killing insects.

And I would add to the message from Steve Kallick and company which David Roberts has here forwarded to us, that not only is the Boreal Forest precious on account of its carbon-storage properties, but also it is the permanent or seasonal home of countless North American animals.  (Kallick & co. do indeed mention "ecosystem" a couple of times, but without elaborating.)  We in the US share many migratory birds, in particular, with northern Canada.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

>Don't all those trees cause warming?  Hehehey.

>Nice clean snow will reflect sunlight.

And it was cold yesterday, so global warming is a myth. Nobody says trees cause global warming. The point is pulling up grass and replacing it with trees contributes marginally to global warming - at least outside of the tropics. More than marginally only if was done on a huge geoengineering scale.

And as a poster said, much of the carbon in Boreal forests is in the soil.

"much of the carbon in Boreal forests is in the soil"

Log all those trees!  Leave the bog.  It'll reflect sunlight in winter.  

The study claimed trees in areas that have snow on the ground produce a net yearly heat gain due to absorption of sunlight.  Overcoming the cooling effect of trees in summer due to transpiration.

So anyone who believes that study ought to be in favor of removing the trees over these northern bogs.  Get the chainsaws! We'll cure global warming.

All he studied was a computer model that he made up with his own flawed assumptions.  The only places his analysis would indicate tree planting could be counterproductive is on land where there is snow for 6 months of the year or more.  No carbon offset orgs are planting trees in those regions.

So again, what was the point of this so-called study?  It only does one thing.  Encourages logging.

"The point is pulling up grass and replacing it with trees contributes marginally to global warming - at least outside of the tropics."

Ever planted a tree?  I generally make a cut with the spud and insert the tree.  No grass is ripped up.  Huh, the study said trees were only a warming influence where there was snow on the ground?  How can grass reflect sunlight?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

I am a forest research scientist studying the effects of forest management on carbon storage. Harvesting in Ontario does not contribute to climate change, despite what has been stated recently by some environmental groups. In fact, sustainable forest management in the boreal forests of Ontario reduces greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, for reasons as follows. First, boreal forests are regularly subject to disturbance by fire. Fire suppression reduces the amount of area burned. The area available for harvest is based on the reduction in area burned. So area burned (which releases large amounts of CO2) is replaced with area harvested. Second, harvested forests regenerate and the new forests sequester carbon just as effectively as forests that regenerate after a forest fire. And finally, unlike forests that burns, trees from forests that are harvested are converted into wood products that will store carbon for long periods of time either when they are in use or when they are in landfills.

I am a forest ecosystem researcher working south of you in New York, and I agree with you, and brought up essentially the same points as you did. For some reason, people on Grist don't necessarily understand or believe that line of reason. I think it is because the majority of people here have a certain set of beliefs that do not accept certain logic, if it goes against their belief.

Anyways, my question to you is whether you guys consider soil C fluxes with burning versus cutting and also consider albedo effects with radiation fluxes as they couple with C fluxes in cut/burned/intact forests. Basically, I find that study out of BC on albedo effects on regional/global scale pretty fishy, that is, I don't think they looked at the whole picture.

A great deal of carbon sequestration by trees takes place in the soil. When you harvest trees, you cause large scale soil erosion - so harvesting trees release carbon in the soil, which then takes years to replace. In addition carbon from soil erosion, especially of peat and other high carbon soil can end up subject anaerobic composting, producing methane, which is a stronger warming gas than carbon dioxide. In addition harvesting a tree takes energy, milling a tree into lumber takes energy, processing waste tree waste into paper of manufactured board takes energy. Even when the source of that energy is waste from these processes, that releases some of the carbon that had been fixed in those trees back to the carbon cycle. So between soil and processing, a high percent of the carbon sequestered in trees in released on harvest. The portion made into paper doesn't take that long to end up into the carbon cycle again either. Paper fiber can only be recycle so many times before it ends up becoming unrecycleable waste. Given that the lifespan of most newspapers are days, or at most weeks, that it means it does not take long for timber waste used to make newspapers to end up in the atmosphere.

Yes, new trees can replace the old ones over time. But even when done right that takes one heck of a long time. If you are releasing one third of the carbon by a tree (both in the tree itself, and in the soil) over the course of centuries than it can easily take a century to replace it.  And that "done right" is highly problematic.

Now there is one issue, the issue you raise of fire. Yes if a tree is going to burn, better to harvest it.  Also if it is going to rot. So, are you saying that there are acres that are all going  to burn or rot, and we should clear cut them? Or are you saying there are acres that have some trees and brush in them that are especially vulnerable, and we should thin just those trees and that brush to protect the rest? If so, what percentage of trees are suggesting thinning? Half the trees, plus most of the brush? Ten percent of the trees plus most of the brush? In short, what amount of thinning do you think is needed in someplace like the boreal forest?

So where possible you want to leave trees where they are to preserve both the c

biod, I'm not fully following your line of reasoning: you're saying that the reason that the current certifications are unsustainable is because of a need for new sources of lumber? Such as the pressure from the timber industry, which is in turn seeing big bucks from the development industry, which is in turn seeing a pressure from the quality of life/bigger homes increase, and population increase? The certifications then maybe should be for sustainable wood use for individuals, not lands: the forest certifications are meant to protect the soils, genetic potential and social interactions, not landscape as YOU know it.

Gar,
I would like to see more region-specific citations on the amount of soil eroded or degraded by harvesting operations, the importance of foresters in these operations, and presence of incentives (financial, social, or political) for the harvesting to be properly conducted. I have a ton of information that points to a lack of implementation of silvicultural practices leading to degradation on private lands rather than poor management due to foresters (not timber pimps). Of course, there are state and federal stands that are mismanaged, but that is a) governmental ineptitude and complacency, b) monetary, umm, 'incentives' to overseeing agencies from large logging operations, c) sometimes plain mistakes or environmental disturbances, such as blowdowns or ice storms.

Furthermore, thinning in the boreal forest will prevent fire, but the next step, in a fire dominated system, is to regenerate even-aged stands created by previous fires. For that, a clearcut would usually be necessary, probably in some cases a ground fire treatment afterward may be preferable, but impractical.

...does not imply sustainable timber use, you're absolutely right. Nor does it imply that these lands will be managed continuously, that is, it does not mean that the company/private owner/government will not pull out of the contract twenty years down the road.

However, with certifications, a forest management plan is created, with preferences for future options based on the region, type of stand, forest, etc. At the same time, after the management plan is created, a certification program auditor checks for compliance with current practices. This ensures at least current accountability, and if the landowner wants to pursue forestry as a source of income, they will likely remain in the program as it is rather expensive to get into it. Also, the land tracts that get certified are usually very large in size, with many stands ready to be cut throughout the entire rotation age (whatever it is). Overall, this ensures sustainability on the land being certified at least within the framework of business as usual. Of course, if a giant asteroid crashes into earth, or there is a gigantic volcano explosion in the area, there might be other caveats, but that's not the point.

What you are talking about is unsustainable wood use, from a perspective of someone who wants to maintain old-growth forests. Well, from a carbon management program, it would be better to maintain these forests at the top of their productivity, most likely at about 30 year rotation age with selection logging in the boreal forest, although I am not sure how often that is employed due to fire hazards with selection system creating a fuel ladder. With clearcuts, on the landscape scale, the rotation age would increase, but as scale increases, it becomes more of a research issue to figure out what is the appropriate rotation age for highest productivity. Old growth productivity and diversity actually decrease compared with maturing stands, by the way...

Oh and landscape: collection of ecosystems encompassing multiple stands. Stand: a contiguous land area with similar species assemblage, history and may or may not be bounded by external boundaries. Ecosystem: well, this is kind of a tough one, depends on scale, but most ecologists would place it at about stand level.

P.S.: the main problem with certifications is that there is little financial incentive to enter into the programs, i.e. not enough people buy the wood.

I guess absolving our sins is much more important. I don't blame you guys, I'm too smart for everyone, not just y'all. Sigh.