Further Criticisms of Greens’ Opposition to Reforestation

In april 1998 the mundi club published tf12 featuring an article entitled ‘Greens’ Reasons for Opposing Reforestation as a Means of Reversing Global Burning’. This highlighted 28 excuses used by greens to dismiss the need for Reforestation to combat global burning. Since the publication of this article it has become clearer that one of the most critical of these arguments is the idea of ‘mature Forests’. This article updates criticisms of three of the excuses used by greens to dismiss Reforestation.

Young Trees are More Virile than Old Trees.

Greens’ Proposition: ‘The Rate at which Old Growth Trees extract Carbon from the Atmosphere is too Slow to combat Global Burning so it will be necessary to chop them down’.

The logging industry, Forest scientists and greens all agree that young Trees absorb more Carbon than old Trees. The logging industry and Forest scientists conclude from this that, in order to combat global burning, it is necessary to cut down old growth Forests and replace them with monocultural Tree plantations .. "in order to control the greenhouse effect, we need to log old forests, replace them with young plantations and increase our timber consumption ..." Greens keep quiet about this conclusion even though, by supporting the initial premise, they condone deforestation. The view that young Trees absorb more Carbon than old ones originates in common sense - that living things are energetic when they are young and slow down as they get older. Virile, young saplings absorb more Carbon than decrepit Forests.

Criticisms.

Whilst the view that young Trees absorb more Carbon than older ones may seem like common sense, it is not based on any scientific evidence. It may be true that younger Trees absorb Carbon at a faster rate than older Trees but it is not true that younger Trees absorb more Carbon than older ones.

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.

Secondly, the reason why it appears that younger Trees absorb more Carbon than older ones is because whilst considerable amounts of the Carbon absorbed by young Trees helps to visibly boost their height, this is not the case with the Carbon absorbed by older Trees. However, if all parts of an older Tree grow by about a millimetre a year, this will be virtually imperceptible to the ooman eye but it would amount to a considerable increase in weight when multiplied by the huge volume of the Tree.

Thirdly, 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 food consumed by biodiversity.

Natural Forests store huge amounts of Carbon not only in trunks and branches, but in the soil, in the Biodiversity which inhabit Forests, and underground. Some commentators have argued that what is important about Trees is not what is visible above ground but what is invisible 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."

Tree plantations cannot absorb more atmospheric Carbon than old growth Forests because they cannot store it - there is far less Wildlife to consume Phytomass, far less soil litter, and Tree roots do not reach as far underground. 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." It has been argued 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." Fast growing eucalyptus plantations may reach a loggable state in a matter of decades but they do not contribute to Soil formation nor do they provide a habitat for a wide range of Wildlife. 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 longer a Forest survives in its natural state, the greater its store of Carbon. It has been suggested that, "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." 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."

Mature Forests Release as much Carbon as they Absorb.

Greens’ Proposition: ‘Forests quickly reach a point of maturity in which the amount of Carbon they extract from the Atmosphere is Balanced by the Carbon released into the Atmosphere’.

A variation on the fiction that old Trees extract less Carbon from the atmosphere than young Trees is that Forests quickly lapse into what is called a ‘mature or stable state’ whereby the amount of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere equals the amount released into the atmosphere. It has just been pointed out that the logging industry and Forest scientists support the proposition that younger Trees absorb more Carbon than older ones and that this legitimizes deforestation. The logging industry and Forestry scientists also support the proposition that Forests rapidly reach a mature state because this also entitles them to log these Forests for the sake of combating global burning.

Virtually en masse, greens also 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 by giving credibility to this proposition they end up legitimizing wholesale deforestation! Every time that greens object to Reforestation by referring to the mature Forests’ proposition, they end up boosting the credibility of multinational logging corporations seeking to deforest old growth areas and replace them with Tree plantations. It has to be asked just how stupid can greens be?

The Criticisms.

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

Firstly, there is no evidence to show that Forests subside into maturity. The idea of a stable state is a pure fiction. It may have started off as an academic construct used primarily in arcane academic discussions. Unfortunately, over the centuries, the stable state hypothesis has festered in the minds of academic Foresters until by the late 20thc it has become not merely a cast iron reality but an invaluable propaganda resource which can be used to promote the interests of logging corporations. This hypothesis was never based on any empirical research because there has been no way of measuring such a phenomena. There is no academic on Earth 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. It is much more feasible to argue that Forests will continue to grow as long as there is a surplus of Carbon in the atmosphere. There will be stable Forests only when there is a stable climate.

Secondly, it is not possible to measure the point at which a Forest reaches maturity, how long it stays in this state, nor when it passes this point and starts to decay and eventually die. In other words, Foresters know zilch about this phrase which is why they make it up as they go along.

Thirdly, the reason why Forest scientists tend to believe in a stable state is because they believe most of the Carbon that Forests absorb from the atmosphere is dumped back into the atmosphere. They do not take into account the Carbon absorbed from the atmosphere and then taken up by Biodiversity, soil litter, top soil or rock weathering, "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." It’s hardly surprising that Foresters see mature Forests all around them when they ignore four of a Tree’s major Carbon stores.

Mature Forests Die Releasing their Carbon into the Atmosphere.

Greens’ Proposition: ‘Mature Forests quickly die and Release Vast quantities of Carbon into the Atmosphere’.

Greens, and other right wing bigots, argue that Forests quickly mature and die thereby releasing their huge stores of Carbon into the atmosphere. Free market loons believe this shows that Forests are the worst polluters on Earth. This is another hypothesis being used to suggest that natural Forests should be replaced by Tree plantations to prevent a climatic disaster. Once again, greens find themselves in a hugely embarrassing position. They support the proposition but don’t seem able or willing to face the conclusion that if Forests die and release all of their Carbon back into the atmosphere then it is logical to log them to protect the climate. Whilst logging Corporations and Forest scientists are all too eager to suggest that the world’s Forests are dying and ought to be logged and replaced by virile young saplings, greens suddenly start wondering how they became ensnared in this conclusion. They are so pathetic they prefer to stick by the nonsensical assumptions of Forest science rather than demand the natural rejuvenation of the Earth’s life support system. If it comes down to it they would much rather accept the idea of ageing Forests, oppose Reforestation and then just deny they are legitimizing deforestation than demand Reforestation.

The Criticisms.

All Forests continue to grow as long as there is a surplus of Carbon in the atmosphere. Whilst oomans have been on Earth, most Forests do not die, they have been destroyed by oomans.

The Greens who believe in the Mythology of ‘Mature Forests’ and thus boost the Credibility of right Wing Loons who want to replace Old Growth Forests with Tree Plantations in order to combat Global Burning.

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."

Easterbrook, Gregg.

"Growing trees require more carbon than do mature trees."

Eliot, Dave, (Editor of Renew)

"On reafforestation, i’m not so convinced. I’ve looked into it - trees absorb most CO2 when they are growing, so short rotation cropping is better than mature rainforests. So we should pay people to grow trees, chop them down and grow more." In other words Tree plantations are better for the stabilization of the climate than mature Forests which will soon die and release their store of Carbon.

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."

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."; "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."

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."

Hall, David - article in Renew.

Dave eliot must have been so impressed by david hall’s adherence to the idea of mature Forests that he published his article in renew, "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)." etc, etc.

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."

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."

Pearce, Fred.

Second only to tony juniper, fred pearce is another great believer in propping up arguments which lead to mass deforestation, "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."

The following quote has been included because it so clearly encapsulates the contradictions of environmentalists like fred pearce, "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." Pearce starts off by pointing out the current difficulties of measuring Carbon fluxes from Forests and then sidles into a cliché about ‘mature Forests’ whose existence could be proved only by measuring very precisely Forests’ Carbon fluxes.

Schneider, Stephen.

"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."

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."

Green Organizations which believe in the Mythology of ‘Mature Forests’

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."; "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."

Renew.

Renew highlights new quack research allegedly showing that american Forests absorb such huge amounts of Carbon they are countering 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."

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."