Are Logging Allowances On Federal Land HELPING The Environment?

Question

All the environmental groups have come out AGAINST logging on Federal land. However, when an area gets logged of old trees, new trees are planted.

And since a young forest, composed of growing trees, absorbs carbon dioxide and acts as a sink while mature forests, made up of a mix of various aged trees as well as dead and decaying matter, may be carbon neutral above ground, we can see that younger trees remove more Co2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration#Forests

So, trees absorb Carbon dioxide more efficiently when they are younger. So Constant cutting down of older trees and replacing them with new trees is BETTER for removing C02 from the atmosphere.

Meaning that the logging taking place on Federal lands is actually making Federal forests BETTER at removing Carbon Dioxide from the air.

These environmental groups shoudl be THANKING these logging companies. Right?

Answer 1

This whole thing about "sequestering" carbon in forests has been taken way too far. People buy "carbon offsets" for their activities by donating to plant trees. It's a bit like buying indulgences in the Middle Ages. A forest planted where none existed will suck up some carbon - for a while - then it will reach a steady-state where many small trees are replaced by fewer and fewer old large trees. The ammount of actual tree present remains constant at that point and is determined by the environment of the site. (It's true - ask any forester!) In temperate climates the "slow buildup" of duff mentioned in the reference above does not take in to account the role of fire. Fire is an eventuality, not a possibility, which is why you never see feet of duff in the forest.


The process of logging involves taking long, straight, horizontal pieces of carbon-based wood out of the area and replacing them with new small versions. While the new trees are sucking up carbon, the old trees are releasing their carbon as the wood is burnt or rots. (Termites never sleep!) The result is a zero-sum.

There are a lot of reasons to plant trees. For example, I live in a wood house that is heated by sawdust pellets. I love seeing a healthy, growing young forest, but I also enjoy the few ancient forests left. Many of the objections to logging come from the WAY and WHERE trees are harvested and the after-effects on the ecosystem, not the actual activity of using trees. We will have to wisely use all of the renewable resources of our planet to live sustainably, which means we NEED to use trees. Just don't delude youself by thinking that replacing old trees with young ones is going to make a big differnce in atmospheric CO2.

Of course, if you remove a forests and replace them with grass fields or farms, as in the Amazon, you have a very large carbon release. That is a different problem.

Answer 2

I fully agree with everything that's already been said and unfortunately must disagree with the premise of your question.

As well as what's been mentioned, there's the fact that once a forest is clearfelled, the "waste" is burnt, releasing massive amounts of nasties into the air. Another issue is the fact that ALL the CO2 that the forest has been carefully pulling out of the air is put back into the atmosphere within 5 to 8 years once the wood is turned into paper - through the process of manufacture and disposal. There's also the problem of the actual cutting - chainsaws use a bucketload of filthy petrol. The remaining life cycle goes a bit like this: you have to get the wood to a woodchipper via trucks - using petrol. Then there's the actual processing of the wood, shipping it to a manufacturing plant (often overseas), shipping it to a store to sell it (usually via a warehouse), shipping it to your house or office, then getting it away from wherever it was used to either a landfill (HUGE contributers to the problem) or a recycling facility, which again uses energy to reprocess the paper. Then you start the transport cycle again!

So it's a complete fabrication that "new" forests are better than Old Growth Forests. This BIG LIE has been peddled for years by the huge corporations that only want to make fast dollars from logging OUR heritage....they're absolutely NOT interested in contributing to the cessation of Global Warming, as my description of the life cycle of paper above illustrates!!!! There's a heap of evidence to refute these crass and objectionable statements around if you care to look - Australia's CSIRO is one place that I know has published peer - reviewed refutations...

Love and Light,


Jarrah

Answer 3

It's not the logging er se that's the problem--nor is it as simple as dealing with CO2 emmissions.

Old-growth forests are complex ecologies--and anchor local ecosystems in complex ways. You cannot simply say "reduce CO2" and ignore all other consequences.

In addition--you're scenario ignores the use to wich the logged off material is put to. A good portion of it will end up burned as scrap, etc. If you reduce the net amount of material (wood, etc) you end up with a net increase in unsequestered (atmospheric) CO2.

That doesn't mean there should be no logging. In fact, although the issue is more complex than you make it out to be, proper logging can not only help the environment, it can help sustain the forest as a healthy ecosystem. Unfortunately, logging companies (and government regulators) have historically NOT done this type of harvesting properly--and have resisted every effort to persuade them to change. So as long as they continue to use clear-cutting and other irresponsible methods, they're going to have the environmentalists in their face. And that's as it should be. If they don't like it, they can stop being irresponsible in the conduct of their business.

Answer 4

while smaller trees are more efficient at absorbing CO2, mature trees are still considered better because they are less prone to disease and other causes of death.

the biggest problem with "selective" logging is it almost always means more access roads being built, which opens the forst floor to more sunlight, allowing weeds and brush to kill more new trees, and drastically increasing the risk of forest fires and littering/pollution.

Answer 5

this is an issue because new trees are usually NOT replanted, and because even when they are, it takes years for them to be able to take in as much CO2 as big trees they replaced. also, trees give offCO2 at night, and younger trees do this more. also, logging decreases recycling

Answer 6

Generally, no. Clear-cutting is a horrible way to manage a forest. Replanting with monoculture trash pine is not a sound forestry practice.

Answer 7

yes I think that it does.