Gov't Buries Fact that Logging Blows Our Emissions Target
Forest emissions push CO2 77 per cent higher than BC's official numbers say. We need a plan.
Pine beetle helped turn our forests into carbon dioxide producers.
-
Selling Doomsday Debits
In BC's wasteful forest biz, carbon credits don't grow on trees.
-
Sharing the Forests
In new timber deals, what are First Nations really getting? Third in a series.
-
How We Sawed off Our Forest Industry
Bad policies fuelled the collapse of timber jobs. Rural BC took the big hit. Second of four.
World leaders wrapped up their summit in New York, prompting optimistic talk in some high places that the crucial climate change conference in Copenhagen in December might succeed. That's far from certain, of course, but one positive trend is that many countries with large tracts of forests are ramping up proposals about how to reduce emissions from forest loss and degradation. There is even a name for this: REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation). The government of Brazil, for example, has pledged to reduce deforestation of the Amazon rainforest by more than 70 per cent by 2018.
Yet B.C. has set no target to reduce massive emissions from our forest land base. Just before B.C. Day, while forest fires across the province were spewing out huge amounts of carbon dioxide, the government released British Columbia's Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report. The report gives a break-down of CO2 emissions by sector -- with a major source tucked away in the "memo" section and not counted at all.
According to the report, total greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia in 2007 were 67 megatonnes. These mainly originate from the use of fossil fuels (80 per cent) as well as waste (six per cent), agriculture (four per cent) and deforestation (five per cent). So far, all correct. But it's the innocuous-sounding item "emissions from forest land remaining forest land" that hides the real bomb: a whopping 51 megatonnes of CO2. This figure appears only as a "memo item" in the report and is not counted as part of B.C.'s total emissions. B.C.'s carbon emissions would be 77 per cent higher if emissions from forests were included.
Mountain Pine Beetle changed the equation
B.C.'s goal to reduce CO2 emissions by 33 per cent in 2020 compared to 2007 ignores emissions from forest land. New data shows an alarming trend; both B.C.'s and Canada's forests are becoming a source of carbon dioxide rather than a sink because they are releasing more carbon than they sequester annually. The federal government conveniently decided not to include emissions released from forests in the national greenhouse gas inventory. The provincial government followed the same approach. Obviously, this doesn't make emissions from forests go away.
The 2007 data on the emissions and sequestration of our forests in the new provincial report breaks down as follows:
- 73 megatonnes of CO2 from harvesting
- 8 megatonnes of CO2 from slash burning
- 5 megatonnes of CO2 from wildfires
- 34 megatonnes sequestered by BC's forests
The 34 megatonnes of CO2 sequestered by our forests buffer, to a certain extent, the overall forest-related emissions (from logging, wildfires and slash burning). However, the emissions from decay of dead organic matter have increased dramatically since 2002 due to the Mountain Pine Beetle outbreak. They are the main reason why B.C.'s forests are no longer a sink for carbon but have become a source.
The proper management of forest affected by the Mountain Pine Beetle is of high priority if we are to mitigate further loss of carbon storage in the affected areas. At the same time, ongoing emissions from these forests will be somewhat beyond our control for a period of time. Large-scale salvage clearcutting -- for example for bio-energy -- is not a sustainable solution because it will negatively impact natural regeneration and environmental services in many areas. Not all the trees in the affected areas are dead. Healthy trees are growing in the understorey, and even dead trees reduce erosion and flooding and continue to store carbon for a period of time while young trees grow back. Since climate change will bring about more extreme weather events, we have to maintain ecological functions of our forests like flood control and avoid disrupting these further through more clear cuts.
Logging and slash burning are by far the most significant forest activities that can be managed to reduce emissions in the short term. Hence, three priority areas to reduce emissions from forests should be:
Increase the area of old forest off-limits to logging. Emissions from harvesting are much higher when logging occurs in old growth forests compared to younger forests. This is particularly true for coastal forests with little natural disturbance and massive carbon storage accumulated over thousands of years. Shifting harvesting from old to second growth will immediately reduce GHG emissions from logging. It will also help species that depend on old growth forest, particularly where old forest is in deficit.
Improve logging practices. Heavy logging with massive loss of canopy cover warms the soil surface and increases the rate of decomposition and release of carbon. Improved management practices like selective logging, longer rotation and increased retention contribute to maintaining and enhancing carbon storage. Improved forest management can also contribute to better habitat protection for species that require natural, undisturbed stands of trees.
Reduce wood waste and slash burning. A 2009 study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that millions of cubic metres of usable logs are left behind at logging sites. If fully released to the atmosphere, these logs would increase B.C.'s average annual greenhouse gas emissions by 5 per cent (more than 3 million tonnes). Regulation and incentives, combined with better reporting and oversight through government audits, would not only reduce waste and emissions but also create new jobs.
Wood products can be a climate friendly alternative to materials like concrete and steel. They store up to 20 per cent of the carbon removed from the forest after harvesting, some of them long-term. Forestry in the era of climate change has the potential to be a key part of a low-carbon economy providing new jobs, but we have to take a close look where it is done, how it is done, and how much gets logged and left behind.
B.C. must set targets and create a plan to reduce emissions from logging in the same way it did with emissions from fossil fuels. In order to avoid catastrophic climate change, it is mandatory that B.C.'s forests become carbon neutral as soon as possible. The province should reduce annual CO2 emissions from forest land (86 megatonnes in 2007) by at least 60 per cent (equivalent to the net emissions of 2007) by 2020. The remaining emissions would then be in the same range as current sequestration (34 megatonnes). The plan should also include action to increase sequestration of our forests, but it is addressing logging that promises immediate results. As with most things in life, there is no cast iron guarantee. But this would be a respectable start. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
rockbysea
23-09-2009
Another usless article from and elite founded NGO
This article is based on the faulty premise that CO2 is a pollution and climate driver when "more than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734
But our globalists controlled media continues to promote this UN propaganda like it was scientific fact.
Jens Wieting, do your soul a favor and stop trying to deceive the public by spouting this manmade global warming propaganda for one of the global elite founded private NGOs (Sierra Club B.C.
) and get yourself a real honest job like most Canadians.
People are nolonger sucking their thumbs and believing eveything they hear and read in the controlled media.
And by the way, make sure you get your flu shots: a little mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum and squalene in your brain may cause you to start writing about things that are based on facts.
alive
23-09-2009
cost effective
rockbysea, I will try to remember your words when they start to slashburn several acres right next to my home.
Some developer cleared a large tract of land , with the hope of creating another subdivision.
Obviously he considered it not cost-effective to shred the brush and trees to usefull mulch, so now we have dozens of warehouse sized piles ready to burn as soon as he sees fit.
Wood fire smoke does havoc with my lungs, but like who cares, right?
rangergord
23-09-2009
logging and climate change
While there are definite problems with the validity of the CO2 causing climate change dogma as a forester I think the forest management recommendations made here make good sense for many other reasons. The big problem now is with enormous government deficits and a dead forest industry with poor market conditions for as far as the eye can see. Where is the money going to come from to pay for proper forest management?
Karen D.
24-09-2009
Simple solution
It has been determined that the mountain pine beetle epidemic is becoming less of a threat due to the lack of healthy trees for the beetle to infest. As much of the CO2 emmissions are caused by the decay of the destroyed trees this would seem to be a non-issue as nature is correcting the situation.
I don't believe that it is the responsibility of the government to clean up the excessive waste left from logging. Until the Liberal government relaxed the rules, it was up to the holder of the TFL (tree farm licence) to make use of as much wood as possible and replant, if necessary, to accelerate reforestation. If our esteemed government would re-institute these practices we would be well on our way to help reduce excessive CO2 emmissions through logging.
Rubber stamp
24-09-2009
@Rangergord
The BC Liberals record on silvaculture is abyismal,as for logging and forestry to come back strong in BC your dreaming.
Until we have a change in government forestry in BC is a dead industry.
Here are a few facts you might be interested in, raw log exports are up 1600% since Campbell has been the government.
The softwood lumber hassle with the USA that was sort of resolved 18 months ago......
The USA was holding billions of dollars in tariffs that was returned to forest companies in Canada......The BC share of that money was about 1 billion dollars, the big three forest companies in BC spent a huge chunk of that money on upgrading mills,sounds good right? Wrong, the big three spent 700 million upgrading their mills in the USA, virtually no money was spent on BC mills, that`s right, the big three upgraded American based mills,and those mills are primed and ready to receive BC raw logs.....
It was a complete hose job for BC workers.
Lastly in watching estimate debates on the ministry of forests the government is putting the big effort to promote BC wood to China, not lumber,raw logs,exports of raw logs to Chine is up 300% over the last few years, and these logs aren`t being boomed by barge to China, the logs are being put in shipping containers that are going back to China,enough raw logs are going to China to keep the equivelant of 5 mills going full time, it is expected that the increase in raw logs to China will be equivelant of 8 to 10 mills within two years.....
Like everything Campbell does is a disaster,Campbell doesn`t understand :Value Added:
We are nothing but a raw log whore, great for American owned forestry companies and Chinese mills but real bad news for BC workers.
Cheers-Eyes Wide Open
OilbertaRedTory
28-09-2009
Sooty thinking: Lies as black as coal
Always the same old, same old wrong sources :
Perhaps he has an evil coal-based twin:
http://www.desmogblog.com/richard-s-courtney
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Depot
And still the man-made increase in GHGs continues as we burn fossil carbon:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6777
wilbert robichaud
28-09-2009
desmutblog
Tsk! tsk!Always the same old, same old smear sources :Desmut Funded by James Hogan (James Hoggan & Associates) and John Lefebvre (Former President of Netseller Group)So who is James Hoggan? He's a public relations man, based in Vancouver. His firm, James Hoggan and Associates, is positioned as a feel-good local operation with clients in all the "right" public and private sectors. He also sits on the board of the David Suzuki Foundation.One of his side efforts is a blog operated out of Hoggan and Associates. Funded by retired Internet bubble king John Lefebvre, the blog has one full-time and three part-time staff. They spend their time tracking down and maliciously attacking all who have doubts about climate change and painting them as corporate pawns.
There has been no mention on the blog, of James Hoggan's client list. They include or have included the National Hydrogen Association, Fuel Cells Canada, hydrogen producer QuestAir, Naikun Wind Energy and Ballard Fuel Cells. Mr. Hoggan, in other words, benefits from regulatory policy based on climate change science.
Here's a totally unqualified small-town PR guy making disparaging comments about scientists he says are unqualified while he lectures the rest of us on the science.
and now we have ...PoorSourcewatch..Funded by The Center for Media and Democracy."You don't need any special credentials to participate -- we shun credentialism along with other propaganda techniques." While stating that it seeks to maintain fairness in the profiles and articles appearing on its website, SourceWatch does acknowledge that "ignoring systemic bias and claiming objectivity is itself one of many well-known propaganda techniques."
The perspectives are mostly leftist; the entries rely heavily on leftist and far-leftist sources.The Center for Media & Democracy (CMD) is a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization. CMD isn’t really a center it would be more accurate to call it a partnership, since it is essentially a two-person operation.
Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber operate, as do most self-anointed progressive watchdogs, from the presumption that any communication issued from a corporate headquarters must be viewed with a jaundiced eye. In their own quarterly PR Watch newsletter, they recently referred to corporate PR as a propaganda industry, misleading citizens and manipulating minds in the service of special interests. Ironically, Rampton and Stauber have elected to dip into the deep pockets of multi-million-dollar foundations with special interest agendas of their own.The website ActivistCash, which provides "information about the funding source[s] of radical anti-consumer organizations and activists," characterizes CMD as "a counterculture public relations effort disguised as an independent media organization.".
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/arctic-temperature-reporting-in-the-news-needs-a-reality-check/
try again!
x4estworker
28-09-2009
More Green Propaganda
As just one tiny example of how innaccurate this story is, look at the nonsense about cutting old growth.
Old-growth forests are not at all efficient in sequestering carbon. The fact is, once a forest reaches the old-growth stage, the carbon is already sequestered in the wood and the trees are growing at such a slow rate or not at all that carbon sequestration is negligible.
Carbon sequestration occurs through the process of photosynthesis. Very simply put, photosynthesis is a chemical process that occurs within the needles (leaves) of a tree. Carbon dioxide is taken from the atmosphere, and combined with water and light. The resulting chemical reaction produces oxygen, water and complex carbohydrates. Carbon sequestration occurs during the formation of the complex carbohydrates.
In a younger fast-growing forest, the process of photosynthesis in each tree takes place at a much higher rate than occurs in slow growing old-growth trees. That allows more carbon dioxide to be utilized in the photosynthesis process. Annual net growth per hectare is higher in a stocked young forest than in an old-growth forest. The overall result is more carbon sequestered in the young forest.
Of course, we all know that the Sierra Club does not care at all about science. As good deep ecologists (Google that term), its all about saving the trees by whatever means it takes.
OilbertaRedTory
28-09-2009
Staffing for Exposure
deSmog only has one full-time and three part-timers ?
Wow ! Who knew how little effort it takes to find out where the old cancer-stick lobbyists went. Bravura!
If the science lectures rattle the brain-rocks, mix it up with some art :
http://www.ageofstupid.net/
And try not to worry too much about those lefties; as an old-fashioned Tory, I'm glad to know that burning less carbon now will conserve more for the future.
Y'know, just in case the professional Oillies turn out to be the prescient visionaries seeing through the 'conspiracy of UN scientific lies and enviro-radical volunteers'.
For the True, North, Honest Canadians who know how to profit :
http://www.energyandcapital.com/
Don't get stuck in the tar traps.