<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br>*** <i> ~~~ Good Talk From Humboldt</i><i> ~~~ BC<br></i><u><br></u><div class="moz-forward-container"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><u>One very special THP!</u> by Dan Zimmerman...<br></div><div><br>Clearcuts, Global Warming and Sisyphus<br>The story of Sisyphus is a perfect metaphor for the struggle by activists to end the destructive <br>practice of clearcuts and short term rotations in forests worldwide. Even when a clearcut plan is <br>successfully fought, it will usually pop up again in a later plan and the trees will still be cut, but just <br>like Sisyphus, activists will still push the rock back up the hill. Initially we fought to save the forests <br>for their beauty as well as their biological significance. Then we learned of all the species that were <br>negatively impacted by this form of intensive management, many going extinct, and fought to save <br>those. Now we realize that allowing forests to grow to maturity is the only hope we have for saving all <br>of life from extinction brought on by global warming, and the fight becomes a moral imperative. <br><br>The first step in this process is awareness of the truth, but without an understanding of the lies <br>that are being passed off as truth, there is no hope for true awareness, and when it comes to forestry <br>there is no greater lie than the one that says cutting young forests will help end global warming, as can <br>be seen in this quote from an industry website;<br><br>“Did you know that carbon accounts for around 50% the dry weight of a tree? When trees are <br>harvested and manufactured into products, this carbon remains stored for the life of the wood <br>product.....One of the best ways to address climate change is to use more wood, as it is the most <br>abundant, biodegradable and renewable material on our planet!”<br><br>This is a lie based on three absurd concepts. One, that all of the forest will end up as a finished <br>wood product. Two, that this wood will stay in use for 100 years and this is long enough to be effective <br>in combating global warming, and three, that a young forest takes in the most carbon, and very little as <br>the tree matures beyond that point. The following refutes these claims.<br><br>Lie #1. Very little of the carbon in a forest will end up in a finished wood product. Roughly 60%<br>of the carbon in a young growth redwood and fir forest is found in the leaves, branches, stump, roots <br>and soil (Jandl 2007, Bonan 2008, Thomas and Martin 2012), all of which is left to decompose or be <br>burned, releasing most of it's CO2 to the atmosphere in a short period of time. <br><br>Lie #2. Of that which makes it to the mill, roughly 20% of the forest carbon will end up in a <br>finished product, the rest is mill waste to be burnt or put in a landfill where it is converted to methane. <br>Of that which does become a wood product, most of this will be in use for less than 40 years (Smith <br>2006, Gower 2006, Ingerson 2009, Skog 2008). Of the 1% that does stay in use for 100 years, this is <br>still not to be considered long term sequestration, as it only means that this carbon will enter the <br>atmosphere when sequestration is most needed. The conservative IPCC states that by 2100 we need to <br>be carbon neutral or carbon negative worldwide or expect the worst.<br><br>Lie #3. As a tree matures it adds ever greater amounts of carbon to it's structure. This is <br>especially true for conifer forests in Northern California. The following quotes from recent research <br>highlight this fact; “The oldest tree we measured produced more heartwood in its main trunk over 651 <br>years (351 m3) than contained in any tree we measured <1500 years old. Increasing wood production <br>as trees age is a mechanism underlying the maintenance of biomass accumulation during forest <br>development and the carbon-sink capacity of old-growth forests” (Sillett 2009). “Large, old trees do <br>not act simply as senescent carbon reservoirs but actively fix large amounts of carbon compared to <br>smaller trees; at the extreme, a single big tree can add the same amount of carbon to the forest within a<br>year as is contained in an entire mid-sized tree” (Stephenson 2014). <br><br>If the biomass of a tree is 50% carbon, and that biomass is growing ever greater as the tree <br>matures, then it's storage of carbon is also increasing as it matures, and not visa versa as the timber <br>industry claims. This is an important fact to understand as it negates all rationales put forth by the <br>industry to justify their actions. Intensive management of forests is allowed because the timber industry<br>has convinced state and federal regulators that clearcutting forests on short term rotations is good for <br>the environment and helps alleviate climate change.<br><br>Not only are intensively managed forests carbon emitters, those forests, if left to grow, are the <br>most important form of sequestration that we know of. Solving the climate crisis involves not only <br>reducing emissions, but removing carbon from the atmosphere and sequestering it as well, and there are<br>only two natural forms of sequestration that can accomplish this as all man made forms are untested, <br>exorbitantly expensive and many years away from implementation. <br><br>The two types of natural sequestration are the ocean, and plant/soil life. For many years <br>scientists believed that the oceans absorbed the greatest amount, but recent research has shown the <br>opposite to be true, that forests were the greatest carbon sink on the planet (Pan 2011). They also found <br>that all other forms of plant life (brush, agriculture etc) were insignificant in their role as carbon sinks. <br>This is a quote from one of the lead researchers, Dr. Simon Lewis; "Humans are altering the world's <br>forests in a number of ways.....Our research shows these changes are having globally important <br>impacts, which highlights the critical role forests play in the global cycling of carbon and therefore the <br>speed and severity of future climate change."<br><br>This point has also been stressed by Andrea Tuttle, former head of CDF. “Forests are a huge <br>carbon-storage bank, and represent our largest opportunity to remove carbon dioxide already in the <br>atmosphere. When forests are lost to development, fire or degradation, they become a major source of <br>emissions. (Tuttle 2015)<br><br>Of the two forms of sequestration available to us, the only beneficial one is forest sequestration,<br>as ocean sequestration increases acidity and kills aquatic life. Add to that the fact that a mature forest <br>helps stem the extinction crisis by providing old growth dependent species with a home, while <br>producing clean water and clean air, and the need to let forests mature worldwide becomes paramount. <br><br>All of the above is especially true for redwood forests. The redwood tree can take in more <br>carbon than any other living thing while sequestering that carbon longer than any other living thing, <br>anywhere from 1000 to 3000 years. That is the type of long term sequestration that we desperately need<br>in order to solve the climate crisis, and clearcutting a forest on short rotations is the opposite of this <br>type of sequestration. A young redwood tree ready for short rotation harvest might weigh roughly <br>50,000 pounds. This equates to approximately 25,000 pounds of carbon. If that tree is cut down, over <br>half of that carbon will enter the atmosphere in a short period of time with most of the rest emitted over<br>the next 40 years. If that tree is left to grow to maturity it will remove from the atmosphere 6,000,000 <br>pounds of carbon and sequester 2,000,000 pounds or more in the bole of the tree and the rest in the soil.<br><br>The timber industry points out that once a forest is cut the newly planted forest will begin to <br>take in carbon as it grows. What they don't state is that 40 years later the cycle of cut and release of <br>carbon begins all over again. None of this is beneficial, nor is it a solution for solving the climate crisis.<br>They are turning our forests into continuous emitters of carbon instead of letting them do the job that <br>only they can do, save us from a catastrophe. If left uncut, all of the carbon in that forest will stay <br>where it is, sequestered for hundreds and thousands of years, with ever greater amounts added to it as <br>the forest matures. This is the truth that they try to hide from us.<br><br>At this point in time we can't wait for the timber industry or government regulators to finally <br>admit the obvious and start helping us to solve the crisis we face. It is time for every citizen of this <br>country to stand up and force the change that is desperately needed. The following quote is from the <br>Oslo Principles; “The biosphere, all forms of life within it and the ecological processes that maintain <br>all living organisms are part of the common heritage of humanity. Human beings, because of their <br>unique nature and capacities, have an essential duty as guardians and trustees of the Earth to preserve,<br>protect and sustain the biosphere and the full diversity of life within it....Avoiding severe global <br>catastrophe is a moral and legal imperative. To the extent that human activity endangers the biosphere,<br>particularly through the effects of human activity on the global climate, all States and enterprises have <br>an immediate moral and legal duty to prevent the deleterious effects of climate change.” <br><br>Wildman (AKA Dan Zimmerman), <br>Northcoast Ocean and River Protection Association (NORPA), Trinidad, CA.<br></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>