The Life Cycle of Trees Means Reforestation is Irrelevant.

This proposition is the first of a trilogy of propositions which lead to the same conclusion. The trilogy covers the life and death of Trees (and Forests). The first covers young Trees (and Forests); the second ‘mature’ Trees (and Forests); and the third ‘old’ Trees (and Forests). What is important to note here is that the life cycle of a Tree (youth, maturity, old age) is used as a model for the life cycle of Forests. It is argued in this work that this analogy is fundamentally unsatisfactory. The life cycle of a Tree is totally different from the life cycle of a Forest - indeed, it is arguable whether a Forest has a life cycle at all. The three life cycle propositions outlined in this work are amongst the most important reasons used by greens to dismiss Reforestation. If it is possible to undermine these propositions then it will be much harder for greens to continue opposing Reforestation.

18: ‘Young Trees are More Virile than Mature/Old Trees’: ‘Young Trees extract Carbon from the Atmosphere more quickly than Mature/Old Trees so it’s necessary to chop down Mature/Old Forests to combat Global Burning’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Greens, the logging industry, and Forest scientists, all agree that a young Tree absorbs more Carbon than a mature Tree or an old Tree. This leads them to conclude that, in order to combat global burning, mature and old Forests should be cut down and replaced by young ones. This means that natural Forests (which are mostly mature or old) should be replaced by Tree plantations which are periodically harvested to keep the Trees young.

Green Proponents.

FoE (Foes of the Earth).

.. “in order to control the greenhouse effect, we need to log old forests, replace them with young plantations and increase our timber consumption ...” [87]

Matthews, Ben.

“For instance, mature forest does not take up carbon, only young forest is a net sink.” [88]

Pearce, Fred.

“Trees do not carry on growing forever. Mature trees may continue to take up Carbon dioxide for up to 1000 years, but only slowly.” [89]

Marland, Gregg.

"Carbon uptake is at its highest in young, vigorous Forests." [90]

Easterbrook, Gregg.

“Growing trees require more carbon than do mature trees.” [91]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

It is a common belief amongst greens, the logging industry, the logging industries’ puppet Forest scientists, and right wing extremists, that a virile, young sapling absorbs more Carbon than a dark, dank, ageing Tree. Once this initial premise is accepted, greens end up having to argue that natural Forests should be replaced by young Tree plantations to increase the amount of Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere and thus combat the greenhouse effect. There are a number of criticisms which could be made of this argument.

From Trees to Forests - the false Analogy.

Greens believe that a young Tree absorbs more Carbon, more quickly, than a mature or an old Tree. This ancient view may have originated in common sense - that living things are energetic when they are young, reach a point of maturity, and then get less and less active until they die. It has to be suggested, however, that the analogy between an individual Tree and Forests does not work. Whilst it is easy to comprehend that a Tree has young, mature, and senile stages, it is much more difficult to depict Forests in the same way. A Forest is a collection of Trees at different stages in their growth. Forests consist of Trees of all ages - from saplings, mature Trees, to old and decaying Trees, not forgetting Tree corpses rotting into the soil, so how could a Forest be said to be either young, mature or old? It is absurd to treat the life cycle of an individual Tree as an analogy for the life of Forests. Individual Trees live and die but Forests last for centuries, millenia - in fact there is no reason why Forests can’t go on living forever unless they are destroyed by external forces. They would not naturally die of old age. Their tendency is to keep on living.

Younger Trees do not absorb more Carbon than Mature/Old Trees.

The green belief that a young Tree absorbs more Carbon, more quickly, than a mature or old Tree but is not based on any scientific evidence. It may be true that younger Trees absorb Carbon at a faster rate than mature/old Trees but there is no scientific evidence that younger Trees absorb more Carbon than mature/old ones. On the contrary, there are a number of reasons for suspecting that younger Trees do not absorb more Carbon than older Trees:-

Firstly, it is simply implausible to suggest that a huge, mature Tree with tens of thousands of leaves absorbs less Carbon than a young Tree with only thousands of leaves. To put this more academically: Terrestrial Phytomass .. yields a leaf area that is three and a half times the world’ land area. .. it is just slightly more than the surface area of Earth. Thus life’s total leaf area is equal to 1 Earth area.” [92]

Secondly, the most obvious reason why it appears that younger Trees absorb more Carbon than older ones is because whilst the Carbon absorbed by young Trees boosts their height in a highly visible way, this is not the case with older Trees. However, if all parts of an older Tree grow by about a millimetre a year, which would be virtually imperceptible to the ooman eye, it would amount to a considerable increase in weight considering the Tree’s huge volume. It seems as if young Trees grow upwards whilst older Trees grow outwards - perhaps this is a rule of many life forms!!

Finally, the huge amounts of Carbon absorbed by older Trees are not used solely to boost their size. Some of it provides sustenance for Wildlife (whether in the form of sap or leaves), some becomes soil litter, some ends up in the top soil, some is used by fungi, and some is pumped through the Tree’s roots deep into the soil where it triggers off chemical weathering which keeps the global Carbon spiral in motion. As a consequence, when trying to measure the Carbon absorbed by Trees, it is necessary to measure not only the increase in the size of the visible Tree, but the Carbon deposited in soil litter, top soil, fungal growth, chemical weathering, and in the Phytomass consumed by biodiversity. It is truly staggering that greens could accept the proposition that a young Tree could absorb more Carbon, more quickly, than a mature or old Tree.

Mature/Old Trees store more Carbon than Younger Trees.

Even if new Trees plantations absorbed more Carbon than natural Forests they couldn’t store the Carbon because there is far less Wildlife to consume Phytomass, far less soil litter, and Tree roots do not reach as far underground. Natural Forests store more Carbon than Tree plantations because, paradoxically, they store Carbon not only in the form of Trees but in the form of soils and Wildlife. In addition, whilst Forests’ role have a major role in speeding up the rock weathering process, which is crucial to the eventual burial of Carbon on the ocean floor, Tree plantations are even less likely to be of any help in dragging Carbon out of the atmosphere and combating global burning.

Natural Forests absorb more Carbon than Tree Plantations.

It is not the case that Tree plantations absorb more Carbon than natural Forests. On the contrary, natural Forests absorb more Carbon than Tree plantations. Some of the Carbon absorbed by a natural Forest falls as leaves onto the ground supplying nutrients for the growth of the Forest. Some of the Carbon absorbed is pumped underground where once again it provides nutrients for the Forest. This does not happen on anything like the same scale in Tree plantations.

The reason it is believed that Tree plantations absorb more Carbon than natural Forests is because whilst on Tree plantations most of the Carbon ends up in Tree trunks, in natural Forests the Carbon is distributed into Tree trunks and branches, the soil, Biodiversity, underground, and through leeching into the oceans. If all the Carbon that had been absorbed by a natural Forest could be collected and weighed it would be greater than that absorbed by Tree plantations.

It has been pointed by michael allaby that, “The technique for estimating overall increase or decrease (of Phytomass) begins by measuring or calculating the total amount of sunlight used in photosynthesis by plants within a defined area. This produces a figure for gross production (G). The amount of energy used in respiration (R) is then calculated. What remains is the net production (N). Unfortunately the results can be misleading because the calculation takes no account of the herbivores feeding on the plant.” [93]

Some commentators have argued that what is important about natural Forests, as opposed to Tree plantations, is not what is visible above ground but what is happening underground, “Solid support for increased weathering by vegetation is coming from experiments .. We usually think of trees as defined by trunks, branches, and leaves. But as a recent biochemical guild (assemblage) of gaia, it may be tree roots that are most significant in altering the cycle of elements. In the largest taxonomy of the guilds, trees are photosynthesizers, big siblings to algae and cyanobacteria. But they occupy a unique slot as rooted photosynthesizers. Rooted photosynthesizers have worked distinctive effects on the cycles of carbon and other elements.” [94] Another commentator argues that two thirds of the Carbon absorbed by a Tree ends up in the soil, “A hectare of Sycamore Trees in the u.s. soaks up from the atmosphere about 7.5 tonnes of Carbon per year, says marland. Of that, up to 5 tonnes may end up in soils rather than the Trees themselves.” [95] But even this underestimates the amount of Carbon which might be absorbed since a Trees’ roots would push a great deal of Carbon into the soils and then because of leeching, the Carbon would end up in the world’s oceans, “If the soil of a well-vegetated region almost anywhere on Earth is examined, the Carbon dioxide content is between 10 and 40 times higher than the atmosphere. What is happening is that living organisms act like a giant pump. They continuously remove Carbon dioxide from the air and conduct it deep into the soil where it can react with rock particles and be removed. Consider a Tree. In its lifetime it deposits tons of Carbon gathered from the air into its roots, some Carbon dioxide escapes by root respiration during its lifetime, and when the Tree dies the Carbon of the roots is oxidized by consumers, releasing Carbon dioxide deep in the soil. In one way or another living organisms on the land are engaged in the business of pumping Carbon dioxide from the air into the ground. There it comes into contact with, and reacts with, the calcium silicate of the rocks to form calcium Carbonate and silicic acid. Were life not present, the Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would have to reach the calcium silicate of the rocks by slow inorganic processes like diffusion.” [96]

The Older the Forest, the greater the Carbon Storage.

The longer a Forest survives in its natural state, the greater its store of Carbon, “So long as harvest does not occur, considerable Carbon accumulation continues to take place in litter, soil organic matter, and the below ground portion of Trees." [97] When natural Forests are replaced by Tree plantations there is a considerable drop in Carbon storage, "When Forests are harvested much of the standing Wood is converted into CO₂. This happens when waste is burnt, wood decays, paper is manufactured and so on. The amount of CO₂ that is produced by those processes is so great that it would take 200 years for young trees to absorb an equivalent amount as they grow. Worldwide the conversion of old growth forests to managed logging may already have contributed 2% of the total carbon released by changes in land use over the past century." [98] If natural Forests are cut down to make way for Tree plantations to combat global burning this is more likely to boost global burning than to moderate it. This is the case, "Even where forests are harvested on a renewable basis, there is carbon loss of anywhere from 10-25% in temperate and boreal forests. The same reduced carbon storage is found in "recovered" forests that regrow on abandoned agricultural land." [99]

The more Natural, untouched the Forest, the Greater its Carbon Store.

Humans cause considerable damage to Forests’ storage of Carbon even when they make a minimal contact with Forests. People walking through a Forest compress the soil slowing down the Carbon flux. The more people who walk through a Forest the greater the compression of the soil, the slower the Carbon flux. Forests only attain their maximum Carbon storage when aliens such as oomans are banned from trespassing on them.

The Ecological Damage caused by Tree Plantations.

Tree plantations cannot absorb, and store, more Carbon than natural growth Forests because they cause extensive ecological damage which reduces their long term ability to extract and store Carbon from the atmosphere.

* Firstly, the rapid cropping of Trees sucks out so many nutrients from the soil, and then releases them into the environment rather than recycling them, that the Trees can grow only with the aid of artificial fertilisers, "Plantations are not without problems. When Trees are harvested, they generally take along a large stock of nutrients, requiring increasing applications of fertilisers to maintain the site's productivity." [100] Trees in plantations do not provide nutrients for the soil like Trees in a natural Forests. Much of the leaf litter in Tree plantations is removed to ensure access by tractors or land rovers or to prevent fires.

* Secondly, the Photosynthetic capability of Tree plantations is reduced as a result of Insect damage which is inevitable in monocultural plantations, “Moreover, like many monoculture cropping systems, plantations are particularly susceptible to attack by insects and disease." [101]

* Thirdly, the planting of Tree pharms on agricultural/mining/industrial sites often generates pollution problems, “Carbon dioxide from the air is absorbed by green plants. A policy of massive afforestation on suitable sites makes a lot of sense (Read 1994). However, not all sites are suitable. ‘Greening the deserts’ programmes may be ill-fated from the outset. Think only of the unavoidable salinization of the soil if a steady flow of fresh water (containing certain quantities of salt) enters the system, but the only outflow is via (salt-free) evaporation.” [102] ; "Planting new forests on old farmland could trigger 'chemical time-bombs' in the soil, suddenly releasing toxic heavy metals accumulated over decades." [103]

It is true that problems would arise in certain areas around the world when Forests regrow naturally but these problems should be less damaging than the problems caused by Tree plantations since the former would be allowed to regrow at their own rate. The fact that some greens generalize from these localized difficulties to suggest that all natural Reforestation is unsafe reveals more about their own reluctance to consider such a policy than it does about the viability of this option.

The Harvesting of Young Trees.

Synthetic Forests store even less Carbon if they are harvested on a frequent basis. The more frequent the harvesting, the smaller the Carbon storage, "Even where forests are harvested on a renewable basis, there is carbon loss of anywhere from 10-25% in temperate and boreal forests. The same reduced carbon storage is found in "recovered" forests that regrow on abandoned agricultural land." [104] ; “Forests that are harvested regularly hold less Carbon in their soils and the organic ‘litter’ on the Forest floor. As we have seen, soils can hold more Carbon than the Trees themselves.” [105] ; “Forests managed for maximum production contain less Carbon than those managed for maximum biomass.” [106]

This has led some commentators to argue that Tree plantations are not Forests, “Tree plantations cannot be considered forests in any meaningful sense of the word. In reality they are industrial timber stands .. dubbed “forestry’s equivalent to the urban tower block” - they are ruinous to wildlife, detrimental to the soil and destructive of water supplies.” [107] Fast growing eucalyptus plantations may reach a loggable state in a matter of decades but they do not contribute to Soil formation, soil enrichment, nor do they provide a habitat for a wide range of Wildlife which help to break down Phytomass and provide even more nutrients for the soil. The tragedy of logging the world’s old growth Forests is not simply that the Carbon stored in Trees is dumped into the atmosphere but that Soil erosion, the obliteration of Biodiversity, and the termination of the Carbon pumped underground, dumps even more Carbon into the atmosphere.

The Logic Underlying Tree Plantations/Natural Reforestation in Combating Global Burning.

It has to be suggested that the quantity of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere depends on two factors - the area, and intensity, of Photosynthesis. If the area of land set aside for Reforestation is small then the rate of Photosynthesis must be high to extract the desired amount of Carbon from the atmosphere. Correspondingly, if the area of land set aside is large then the rate of Photosynthesis can be lower. The implications of this are, firstly, the smaller the amount of land devoted to Reforestation, the greater the pressure there will be to rely on Tree plantations, the greater the risk of an ecological breakdown. Secondly, if natural Reforestation is to extract Carbon from the atmosphere and increase the albedo effect to combat climate change then substantial areas of land need to be set aside.

The real issue entailed by the need to extract Carbon from the atmosphere as quickly as possible is not the necessity for fast growing Tree Plantations but setting aside as much land as possible for the natural regrowth of Forests. To the extent that greens are interested in Reforestation they invariably propose small scale Tree plantations to instantly mop up vast amounts of atmospheric Carbon because they dismiss the idea of setting aside large areas of land to allow natural Forests to absorb substantial quantities of Carbon. But Tree plantations are doomed to fail as a means of combating global burning. Greens recommend them solely as a means of evading the need for the restoration of the Earth’s life support system.

Conclusions.

Earth rapists invariably have a serious addiction to speed. They love travelling in fast cars and planes. They eat instant food. They demand instant solutions. It is hardly surprising then that they should call for instant solutions to global burning e.g. Tree plantations or seeding the oceans. Such solutions would enable them to get back to their Earth wrecking activities. What is saddening is that some greens also share this point of view.

Variation on a Theme: the wwf believe that Natural Trees store more Carbon than Younger Trees so there’s no hope of using Reforestation to combat Global Burning.

It has just been argued that greens believe that Tree plantations absorb more Carbon than natural Forests so it is possible to combat global burning only by replacing natural Forests with Tree plantations. However, some greens believe that natural Forests absorb more Carbon than Tree plantations but then they conclude there is little chance of Reforestation being able to combat global burning! “Many environmentalists fear that offset projects might encourage bad forestry practice—for example, providing incentives for the replacement of natural forests with fast growing plantations of non-native species. Because natural forests store more carbon than plantation forests, this replacement results not only in the loss of important old growth habitat, but also in a net addition of carbon to the atmosphere. WWF seeks solutions that will result in the greatest levels of domestic emissions reductions in industrialized nations, while simultaneously providing incentives for forest conservation and protection. However, it is a certainty that forest projects will not be as effective as early action to reduce industrialized nations’ fossil-fuel emissions at source. This means a strongly increased emphasis on energy efficiency and co-generation, a move towards natural gas from oil and coal, the development of low emissions technologies (such as fuel cells) and economic support for renewable energy such as solar and wind power.” [108]

19: ‘Trees eventually reach a point of maturity in which the amount of Carbon they extract from the Atmosphere is Balanced by the Carbon they release into the Atmosphere’; ‘Trees are in a state of balance and Release as much Carbon as they Absorb.’ ‘There’s a limit to the amount of Carbon Trees can extract from the Atmosphere.’

Greens’ Proposition.

The first proposition was that when a Tree is young it absorbs Carbon quickly. The second proposition is that as the Tree gets older it reaches the next stage in its life cycle, maturity, in which the amount of Carbon absorbed is equal to the amount of Carbon released into the atmosphere i.e. through various processes such as respiration. Once again, this tenet obtains its credibility by extending the life cycle of a single Tree to that of Forests where the notion of a life cycle is much less credible. A large proportion of greens thus argue that as Forests reach their ‘mature’ or ‘stable’ state the amount of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere equals the amount released into the atmosphere which means that natural Forests cannot combat global burning through Reforestation. These greens also believe that many Forests around the world are currently in a stable state and should thus be replaced by Tree plantations.

Green Proponents.

Bossel, Hartmut

Bossel dismisses the idea of Reforestation to soak up Carbon emissions because of the mature Forest myth, “Brilliant idea, it seems, until someone does the calculations and points out that a young, growing Forest with an area of about 150 kilometres by 150 kilometres would be required to take up the CO₂ emissions of a city of 1 million people. Furthermore, in sustainable Forestry, a Forest consumes just as much CO₂ as is released by its life processes and in the final burning or rotting of its wood products. There is no room to take up additional CO₂ (from a power station) in a sustainable scheme.” [109]

Easterbrook, Greg.

Easterbrook uses the concept of mature Forests to promote Tree plantations, “Many trees growing in the united states are not primal but are young trees replanted after logging. But why would nature care about that, so long as ample mature forests continue to exist?” [110] The answer to this question being that Tree plantations are not as good Carbon stores as primal Forests. He believes that Tree plantations are better for biodiversity than old growth Forests, “In some respects young woodlands as developed by genus homo are better places for biodiversty than old growth forests.” [111] He believes Tree plantations have less canopy which allow in more sunlight thereby attracting more species. It has to be suggested, however, that a more pertinent determinant of biodiversity is the question of camouflage. The greater the camouflage the greater the concentration of Wildlife and the amount of camouflage offered by Tree plantations is minimal. Easterbrook is quite open about his geophysiological ignorance, “What reason is left to preserve rainforests? The same one that justified preservation of so many other habitats: We don’t know what we don’t know and thus cannot say what ultimate significance, either to nature or the human future, any wilderness may possess.” [112] He sees no connection between deforestation, global burning, and the need to combat global burning through Reforestation.

Friends of the Earth.

“Even if massive forestation took place world-wide, this would only postpone the need to drastically reduce carbon emissions. This is because the forest would only capture and store Carbon during its years of growth.” [113]

Goldsmith, Edward; Hildyard, Nicholas; McCully, Patrick & Bunyard, Peter.

“In a climax ecosystem - a mature oak forest, for example - the bulk of the energy received from the sun is used to maintain the system. Very little energy goes into new growth.” [114]

Hall, David

“The problems with growing biomass solely as a carbon sink are that: once the trees or plants reach maturity they start losing their stored carbon; and, maintenance and protection costs are incurred throughout the lifetime of the trees.” [115] ; “A clear point for policy makers is that trees and other forms of biomass can act as carbon sinks, but at maturity or at their optimum growth rate there must be plans to use the biomass as a source of fuel to offset fossil energies (or as very long-lived timber products). Otherwise, the many years of paying to sequester and protect the carbon in trees will simply be lost as they decay and/or burn uncontrollably. Biomass has many advantages for an environmentally-friendly future. To obtain maximum benefit, trees, other than in primary forests, should be used as an energy source or long-lived product at the end of their growing life.” [116]

However, not all of hall’s ideas are misplaced, “It is probably preferable in most circumstances - except in mature and primary forests - to use the biomass on a continuous basis as a substitute for present and future fossil fuel use.” [117]

Leggett, Jeremy.

Leggett talks about growing Forests to extract Carbon from the atmosphere, “Such a mechanism for suppressing global warming would be a finite process - it couldn’t go on forever. As some trees reach the limit to which they can store carbon, while others succumb to the spread of drying soils, the fertilization effect could become a thing of the past.” [118]

Marland, Gregg

"Mature Forests can continue to accumulate Carbon for remarkably long periods (300-1000 years) but this is at very slow rates. Carbon uptake is at its highest in young, vigorous Forests." [119]

Matthews, Ben.

Matthews opposes Reforestation as a means of combating global burning. When outlining his views on this issue he starts off by expressing his love for Trees, just as Fox hunters express their admiration for Foxes, and it isn’t long before he’s swinging his chainsaw around as if re-enacting a video nasty, “For instance, mature forest does not take up carbon, only young forest is a net sink.” [120] You know there’s some serious Tree felling in store when this phrase appears. Like the greenless greens before him he believes in the fantasy of mature Forests which compels him to dismiss Reforestation as a climatic liability. If Carbon sinks are to be created they must be Tree plantations which should be harvested regularly to prevent them from reaching maturity. This is a highly convenient conclusion for the logging industry. As far as matthews’ is concerned, the Reforestation proposal is as dead as Trees on the ground, “As the forest matures, it approaches equilibrium where growth equals decay. So this is only a long term solution, if you continually harvest the wood and then store it somehow. It has also been suggested that we fertilise existing forests to maximise carbon uptake, this would likewise provide only a temporary sink.” [121] He provides no evidence to back up any of these statements - they’re just taken as being true.

Pearce, Fred.

“Trees do not carry on growing forever. Mature trees may continue to take up carbon dioxide for up to 1000 years, but only slowly. So to keep removing Carbon from the atmosphere the Forests would need to be harvested and, most important, some permanent use must be found for the wood.” [122] It is quite true that Trees could never last forever but this doesn’t mean to say that Forests can’t.

Renew.

Renew mentions research suggesting that american Forests are absorbing huge amounts of Carbon - so much so that the Forests are countering america’s anthropogenic Carbon emissions, “This startling conclusion might be put down to errors in the data .. but equally it could be because many of the Trees in the usa are new and growing - replacing forests torn down in previous periods and trees absorb most carbon dioxide when they are growing. By contrast rainforests are fairly static in terms of new tree growth.” [123]

Renew’s ‘Energy Crops’ leaflet states, “Regularly coppiced plantations will actually absorb more Carbon dioxide than mature trees - since carbon dioxide absorption slows once a tree has grown.”

Schneider, Stephen.

Schneider responds to a study (mentioned in the previous section on Renew) which suggests that american Forests are absorbing vast quantities of Carbon, “The u.s. pumps around 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. But a new report claims that the nation’s trees could be sucking up just about all of this pollution. To the researchers’ surprise, almost all the carbon was being taken up by north america south of 51N. They suspect that some of it is being absorbed by young trees in areas cleared in the victorian era that have since been reforested. The rest could be due to improved fire prevention. But stephen schneider cautions that neither of these sinks would be long term: when a forest matures, its emissions of carbon can grow to exceed the amount it absorbs.” [124]

Author of ‘Notes towards a Green Theory of Money’

“Furthermore, since a stable Forest is CO₂ neutral, as decay releases the Carbon as methane, Forests can only indefinitely be used as CO₂ sinks if they are being sustainably harvested, with the wood being taken out, preserved and used as the valuable structural material that it undoubtedly is.” [125]

Criticisms of Greens’ Proposition.

Trees are not an Analogy for Forests.

As has already been suggested, it is wrong to treat the life cycle of a Tree as an analogy for the life of Forests. Just because a Tree has a life cycle doesn’t prove that Forests also have one. Individual Trees come and go but Forests are far more resilient - they are, in effect, ageless.

No Scientific Evidence of Mature Forests.

The idea that Forests have a ‘stable or mature state’ in which the amount of Carbon absorbed through Photosynthesis is matched by the release of Carbon is wrong for a number of reasons.

Firstly, there is no scientific evidence to show that Forests exist in a state of maturity. The idea of a stable state is a pure fiction. The hypothesis has no empirical basis because there is no way of measuring such a phenomena. There is no academic who could point to any Forest around the world and state, with any scientific certainty, that it is in a stable state. It is likely there is no such thing as a stable state Forest. Forest scientists are conventional corporate brain workers who fail to understand the relationship between Forests and the atmosphere. It is much more realistic to argue that Forests grow when there is a surplus of Carbon in the atmosphere and decline when there is a deficit of Carbon in the atmosphere. Forests are likely to be in a state of equilibrium only when there is a stable climate.

It is remarkable that the people who most often use the precisely measurable concept of mature Forests to denounce Reforestation as a means of combating global burning, are the same people who talk about scientists’ inability to measure the Earth’s Carbon flux. Let’s take as an example fred pearce, a meat eating, fur loving, Whale hunting, Elephant murdering, green (he probably likes circuses as well as Fox hunting but this has yet to be ascertained). Pearce makes this elemental mistake even in one paragraph, “The kyoto protocol allows countries to meet part of their targets by planting forests to soak up CO₂ instead of making cuts. Most importantly, there is no way as yet to accurately measure how much carbon is absorbed or released by forests as they grow, die or burn. Many conservationists believe that carbon credits could be disastrous for the world’s surviving forests. Adam markham of WWF fears that foresters will chop down existing natural forest to make way for fast growing carbon-guzzling trees. In the process, the millions of people who rely on these forests will lose out. Then there is the problem of what to do with carbon-sink forests once they have matured and are emitting, through decomposition, as much carbon dioxide as they absorb. These trees must then be removed or managed to ensure that the carbon they have locked up is not simply released again into the atmosphere.” [126] Pearce starts off by stressing the current difficulties of measuring Carbon fluxes from Forests. However, before he’s even got to the end of the paragraph, he sidles into the cliché about ‘mature Forests’ whose existence could be proved only by precise measurements of Forests’ Carbon fluxes. If it isn’t possible to measure the Earth’s Carbon flux then how is it possible to talk about mature Forests? This is just green stupidity. This quote is useful because it clearly encapsulates the anti-Reforestation bigotry of environmentalists like pearce.

Secondly, it is not possible to measure a number of life-cycle related phenomena: the point at which a young Forest reaches maturity; how long a Forest remains in a mature state; the point at which a Forest passes maturity into the stage of senility. In other words, Foresters know zilch about the concept of Forest maturity - they’re just making it up as they go along.

Thirdly, the reason why Forest scientists tend to believe in a stable state is not merely because their pay-masters are multi-national logging corporations who use the concept to protect and boost their profits, but because they have an inadequate concept of Forests’ Carbon flux. They believe that if a Tree or Forest is razed to the ground then all of the Carbon that Tree/Forest has absorbed from the atmosphere is returned to the atmosphere. This is not true. Such a scenario does not take into account the Carbon taken up by Biodiversity, soil litter, or top soil, the Carbon in Tree roots which stretch as far down as a Tree grows upwards, nor the Carbon pumped into the soil which leeches through the ground and eventually ends up triggering off rock weathering. It’s hardly surprising that Foresters see mature Forests all around them when they ignore so many of a Tree’s major Carbon stores. Michael allaby is one of the few commentators who points out one of the inadequacies in measuring a Forests’ Carbon flux, “The technique for estimating overall increase or decrease (of Phytomass) begins by measuring or calculating the total amount of sunlight used in photosynthesis by plants within a defined area. This produces a figure for gross production (G). The amount of energy used in respiration (R) is then calculated. What remains is the net production (N). Unfortunately the results can be misleading because the calculation takes no account of the herbivores feeding on the plant.” [127] The scale of the error that bogus Forest scientists make about the Carbon absorbed by Tree plantations is thus significant, “A hectare of Sycamore Trees in the u.s. soaks up from the atmosphere about 7.5 tonnes of Carbon per year, says marland. Of that, up to 5 tonnes may end up in soils rather than the Trees themselves. He calculates that, at that rate, we could absorb 5 billion tonnes of Carbon each year by planting 7 million square kilometres ...” [128]

The Implication of the ‘Mature Forests’ Fantasy: the Green belief in the Mythology of ‘Mature Forests’ boosts the Credibility of right Wing Loons who want to replace Natural Forests with Tree Plantations in order to combat Global Burning.

The logging industry and bogus Forest scientists support the proposition that a young Tree absorbs more Carbon than an old one because it legitimizes the replacement of natural Forests with Tree plantations. Not surprisingly, the logging industry and Forestry scientists also support the proposition of mature Forests because this gives them another justification for designating a natural Forest as mature and then replacing it with Forest plantations to combat global burning.

It is the fundamental tragedy of green politics, ooman survival, and perhaps also the survival of life on Earth, that greens are opposed to greening the planet. Virtually en masse, greens use the notion of mature Forests to dismiss demands for Reforestation as a means of combating global burning. Unfortunately, they seem incapable of realising that giving credibility to this proposition legitimizes wholesale deforestation! Every time that greens express their support for the concept of mature Forests, they end up boosting the credibility of multinational logging corporations seeking to replace natural Forests with Tree plantations. It has to be asked just how stupid can greens be?

20: ‘Tropical Rainforests are Mature - they are not net Absorbers of Atmospheric Carbon and should be Cut down.’

Greens’ Proposition.

Greens speculate that Forests reach a ‘mature’ or ‘stable’ state when the amount of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere equals the amount released into the atmosphere. They believe tropical Rainforests are a good example of a mature Forest. This leads them to conclude that tropical Rainforests should be replaced by Tree plantations.

Green Proponents.

Lovelock, James.

The idea that the amazon Rainforests are in a state of maturity is even found in lovelock’s work, even though his theory clearly provides the intellectual framework to dismiss such speculation. "Amazonia may not be worth much as a source of oxygen, or by the same calculation, as a sink for carbon dioxide, but it is a magnificent air-conditioner, not only for itself but also for the world through its ability to offset, to some extent, the consequences of greenhouse gas warming." [129]

Juniper, Tony.

“This is because once the forest reached maturity, it would cease to absorb carbon, but would become a carbon store. Eventually, though rotting or deforestation, the carbon would be released once again into the atmosphere. The recent predictions from the uk’s hadley centre, that eastern amazonia will by 2050 be transformed from dense rainforest to savannah grassland and even desert, and in so doing contribute billions of tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere, is a good case in point.” [130]

Renew.

“By contrast rainforests are fairly static in terms of new tree growth.” [131]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

It is bad enough when greens promote the proposition that mature Trees (Forests) cannot combat global burning. It’s even worse when they also argue that tropical Rainforests are in a state of maturity. What this implies is that they need to be clearcut in order to combat global burning. For decades Forest scientists have suggested the amazon is a mature Forest in which the absorption of Carbon is in balance with the release of Carbon emissions - even though they don’t have any evidence to back up such a claim.

During the second half of the 1990s some scientists decided they could no longer just accept such speculation about the amazon Rainforests so they carried out research into its Carbon fluxes. They discovered it was not in a state of maturity but is a net Carbon absorber. Given that the atmosphere contains a surfeit of Carbon, it is not surprising this is happening.

Oliver Phillips.

“Oliver phillips and his colleagues report that they have measured as much as one tonne per hectare per year of growth in (the tropical forests of central and south america). .. if all the forests of the brazilian amazon, covering some 360 million hectares, put on biomass in that way, the amazon in brazil alone would be an annual sink of up to 0.56 billion tonnes of carbon.” [132]

Tiger.

“A unique set of measurements has revealed the importance of forests in the global carbon cycle. Measurements made during TIGER show that forests in amazonia, cameroon and canada are all accumulating carbon, and at a scale far greater than anticipated: in amazonia alone the scale of the uptake is enough to account for the so-called ‘missing sink’” [133]

21: ‘Old Forests decay and Release into the Atmosphere the Vast quantities of Carbon they have stored thereby Boosting Global Burning’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Previous sections have explored the green propositions that a young Tree absorbs more Carbon than a mature or an old Tree, and that a mature Tree absorbs as much Carbon as it releases into the atmosphere. The third stage in the life cycle of a Tree is that once it has passed its period of maturity it becomes an old Tree and begins releasing all the Carbon it has stored throughout its life. Just as in the case of the first two propositions, greens extrapolate from this view about an individual Tree to a proposition about Forests, arguing that when Forests become ‘old’ they release huge quantities of Carbon into the atmosphere thereby boosting global burning. This leads to the view, held by free market loonies, that Forests are the worst polluters on Earth. Greens, bogus Forest scientists, and Earth wreckers, agree that it is imperative to replace ‘dying’ Forests with Tree plantations to prevent a climatic disaster.

Green Proponents.

Friends of the Earth.

“In scandinavia trees can live for up to 700 years, storing carbon for long periods. However, they eventually die and rot releasing the stored carbon back into the atmosphere.” [134]

Terrestrial Carbon Working Group.

“Fossil fuel emissions are essentially irreversible whereas terrestrial sinks are part of an active biological cycle, so that a substantial fraction of the fossil fuel carbon sequestered in terrestrial biosphere sinks during the next few decades is vulnerable to return to the atmosphere a century or so hence. Thus, terrestrial sinks are best viewed as important but temporary reservoirs that can buy time to reduce industrial emissions but they are not permanent offsets to these emissions.” [135]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Criticisms of using Trees as an Analogy for Forests.

It has been suggested that the life of a Tree is not an analogy for the life of a Forest and that Forests could easily live forever. However, it is certainly true that Forests die. But, this is not from old age. They die as a result of external causes. The vast majority of the Forests that have died since oomans have been on Earth, have not died from old age but because they have been destroyed by oomans. All Forests continue to grow as long as there is a surplus of Carbon in the atmosphere.

Greens finding themselves supporting Deforestation.

Once again, greens find themselves in a hugely embarrassing position. They support the proposition that Forests reach a stage of senility, just as they supported the propositions about the two other stages in its life cycle, but once again this forces them to conclude that it is necessary to log natural Forests to protect the climate. When logging Corporations and bogus Forest scientists suggest that the world’s Forests are dying as a result of old age and ought to be replaced by virile young saplings in Tree plantations, greens suddenly start wondering how they became ensnared in this conclusion. They’re so pathetic they prefer to stick by the nonsensical assumptions of Forest science rather than challenge such assumptions. If it comes down to it they would rather accept the idea of ageing Forests, and then oppose Reforestation, and just deny they are legitimizing deforestation, rather than demand Reforestation. Every time that greens talk about young, mature, old, Forests they are promoting the interests of the logging industry and undermining the case for combating global burning through Reforestation.

Criticizing Tree Plantations: Old is Best: Ernst-Detlef Schulze, Christian Wirth, Martin Heimann.

The following text was discovered just prior to the completion of this work. It serves as an excellent summary of the criticisms of the propositions analyzed in the last few sections, “A new study has cast doubts on an important element of a proposed treaty to fight global warming: the planting of new forests in an effort to sop up carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas. The research concludes that old, wild forests are far better than plantations of young trees at ridding the air of carbon dioxide, which is released when coal, oil and other fossil fuels are burned. The United States and other countries with large land masses want to use forest plantations to meet the goals of the proposed treaty. The study's authors say that any treaty also needs to protect old forests and that, so far there is no sign that such protections are being considered. Without such protections, the scientists conclude, some countries could be tempted to cut down old forests now and then plant new trees on the deforested land later, getting credit for reducing carbon dioxide when they have actually made matters worse. The analysis, published in the journal Science today, was done by Dr. Ernst-Detlef Schulze, the director of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, and two other scientists at the institute.” [136] ; “The German study, together with other similar research, has produced a picture of mature forests that differs sharply from long-held notions in forestry, Dr. Schulze said. He said aging forests were long perceived to be in a state of decay that releases as much carbon dioxide as it captures. But it turns out that the soils in undisturbed tropical rain forests, Siberian woods and some German national parks contain enormous amounts of carbon derived from fallen leaves, twigs and buried roots that can bind to soil particles and remain for 1,000 years or more. When such forests are cut, the trees' roots decay and soil is disrupted, releasing the carbon dioxide. Centuries would have to pass until newly planted trees built up such a reservoir underground.” [137] ; “It appears that only large-scale inventory studies that include not only biomass but also coarse wood debris and the organic layer can capture the stochastic effects of disturbance, and it remains unclear why inventory studies result in lower estimates of the terrestrial sink than inverse models. Consider, for example, the changes in carbon pools of a boreal pine forest of Siberia following a stand-replacing fire. The total carbon pool of a stand decreases in young stands because decomposition of dead biomass from the previous forest generation results in respiration that is higher than the NPP of the regrowth. In a boreal forest, it takes decades for NPP to exceed Rh (which is the annual budget of heterotrophic respiration of soil organisms). The carbon pool then increases rapidly until canopy closure. In contradiction to the ecological equilibrium paradigm, the total carbon pool continues to increase even in old stands. In boreal forest, this trend of carbon accumulation is interrupted by repeated ground fire (in managed forests by thinning), which results in a "sawtooth"-type time response. .. an increasing number of process studies indicate that terrestrial forest ecosystems do not reach an equilibrium of assimilation and respiration and act as net carbon sinks until high ages. We believe that this is because the carbon cycle of forests is driven by the turnover of leaves and roots, which will continue to contribute to a stable part of soil organic carbon unless disturbed by harvest or fire. We also hypothesize that the accumulation of carbon in a permanent pool increases exponentially with stand age, because time without disturbance is required to channel carbon through its cycle into a nonactive pool of soil organic carbon and the production of black carbon depends on biomass.” [138]