First Name: | Sue |
---|---|
Last Name: | Lynn |
Email Address: | suelynn403@yahoo.com |
Affiliation | Sierra Club |
Subject | CARB's Draft Scoping Plan |
Comment |
These comments are a response to the Appendix on Forests. The discussion of forestry in these appendices fails to mention key debates that currently rage between the timber industry and the majority of forestry scientists. The practice of clearcutting has expanded exponentially in the last decade. It’s very surprising that there is no mention of this practice in the forestry section. To assume that it makes no difference what type of harvesting methods are used, as this section seems to do, flies in the face of current research by forestry scientists. I have outlined below some of the major points made by forestry science on this issue, and included footnotes to some major studies. It is obvious that healthy forests can serve as a source of carbon sequestration. But how those forests are managed has a huge impact on whether they sequester carbon, and if so, in what quantity, or whether in fact carbon emissions caused by certain forest management processes outweigh carbon absorption. The timber industry currently argues that their standard procedures of clearcutting, which involve cutting down older forests and replacing them with plantations of young trees, will help combat global warming. They argue that since young trees absorb more carbon than older ones, the net result will be a reduction in greenhouse gases. This argument is based on a misunderstanding of what happens to mature forests if they are clearcut. Mature forests continue to store carbon in ever greater quantities for many decades as they age, and cutting them down releases much of that carbon into the atmosphere, thus contributing to global warming. Young trees do absorb carbon quickly, and when a forest is logged, some of its carbon may be stored for years or decades in wood products. But when forests are clearcut, large quantities of CO2 are also released to the atmosphere - immediately through the disturbance of forest soils, and over time through the decomposition of leaves, branches, and other detritus of timber production. One study found that even when storage of carbon in timber products is considered, the conversion of 5 million hectares of mature forest to plantations in the Pacific Northwest over the last 100 years resulted in a net increase of over 1.5 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere. (Harmon, M.E., W.K. Ferrell and J.K. Franklin, 1990. “Effects on carbon storage of conversion of old-growth forests to young forests.” Science (9 February 1990), 247, 699.) Clear-cutting followed by replanting thus clearly contributes to global warming. Forests and agricultural lands in the United States have been slowly diminishing in their role of sequestering carbon since 1960. (Executive Summary, “Global Warming in Depth,” The PEW Center on Global Climate Change,” cited on the web at http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-indepth/all_reports/carbon_sequestration/exe.) The major causes of this shift are the increasing practice of clearcutting coupled with clearing forests for development. From 1990 to 2001, as forests on private lands have been increasingly clearcut, managed unsustainably, or cleared for development, carbon sequestration decreased by approximately 20 percent. (“Forest Carbon Sequestration: How It Works,” Catalyst: The Magazine of the Union of Concerned Scientists 3:2 (Fall 2004), cited on the web at http://www.ucusa.org/publications/catlyst/fa04-catalyst-forest-carbon-sequestration.html) According to Olga Krankina, Professor of Forestry at Oregon State University, it takes approximately 100 years of growth for a new forest to regain the amount of carbon storage that older forests maintain. National Forests currently store three times as much carbon as those on private land, because they are managed differently and clearcutting is no longer permitted on National Forest land. (Olga Krankina, “Forest Management and Mitigation of Climate Change,” lecture at “Clearcutting the Climate Conference,” Eugene Oregon, January 256, 2008). If this pattern of increased clearcutting continues, forests will shift from net sources of carbon sequestration to net sources of carbon emissions. To conclude, the CARB needs to do a thorough analysis of the issue of the role of forestry in carbon sequestration. It looks like the information contained in these appendices is drawn from the arguments of the timber industry and the Board of Forestry. By not including the competing narrative presented by the leading forest scientists in this country and abroad the results are not science-based. This smacks of the practices we have seen in the Bush administration over the last eight years- ignoring or misrepresenting scientific information in favor of serving the needs of industry. California, a leader in the fight against global warming, deserves better. |
Attachment |
Original File Name:
Date and Time Comment Was Submitted: 2008-08-05 20:56:17 |
If you have any questions or comments please contact Office of the Ombudsman at (916) 327-1266.