Comment Log Display

Dear Air Resources Board,
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this important issue.
I have managed the Forest Practices Program of the Mattole
Restoration Council for over 12 years. I support sustainable land
management practices, including careful timber harvests. 
The idea of cap and trade to help reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
(GGEs) has some clear benefits if it is within scientifically
accepted boundaries that promote less impacts to our air quality.
However, the current proposal that would allow even-aged management
as an offset for GGEs is completely opposite of the intended
purpose. In order to reduce our carbon footprint we must embrace
forest practices that will be carbon neutral. The only forest
practices that are carbon neutral are ones that promote the growth
of standing forests by thinning from below and thereby reduce the
threat of catastrophic fire. This type of forestry is called
sustainable uneven-aged management. Even-aged management or
clearcutting is not carbon neutral. It actually increases impacts
to our air quality by cutting down forests that should be
sequestering carbon while cleaning our air.

Please consider carefully any program with market incentives to
ensure that the offset is indeed an improvement to our environment.
Clearcuts are not, plain and simple. The proposal as written is a
mockery of the intended purpose and would increase the problem we
are attempting to solve. Please include language that protects our
forests in California as they are becoming one of our most valuable
assets in dealing with climate change. 
Sincerely, Alison Freedlund