tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3376634240427854248.post1304598682640756566..comments2012-07-19T15:28:24.201+02:00Comments on Forestry Policy: Hindsight, Forethought, Foresight: Is "Bringing Woodland Back into Management" good for the Climate?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3376634240427854248.post-71815663728166162732012-07-19T15:28:24.201+02:002012-07-19T15:28:24.201+02:00There is also evidence that innefficiently burning...There is also evidence that innefficiently burning wood can result in more black carbon, damaging for human health and climate.<br /><br />http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/27/wood-fires-fuel-climate-changeAlec Daunceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14292595153624521079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3376634240427854248.post-21897461289862956192012-06-11T01:07:09.705+02:002012-06-11T01:07:09.705+02:00The model includes the carbon benefit from sawlogs...The model includes the carbon benefit from sawlogs, furniture (including the locked up for centuries angle) as well as firewood instead of fossil fuels? The Read report does say that the result may be modestly positive by 2150, so it would be hard to suggest thinning was doing much harm on that timescale. (Note - I have been in correspondance with one of the contributors to "Read" who has suggested that the positive values for this may be "conservative" E.g. your furniture point may be stronger than in the model, I'll do an update on this.)<br /><br />So - the numbers suggest that by 2150 you could claim a modest climate benefit from what you propose. I'm afraid the model still suggests thinning might be negative for the atmosphere in the medium term? <br /><br />I think my main point is that some forestry lobbyists are suggesting that bringing woodland into management is a carbon "public benefit" and thus seeking a management subsidy? If an owner can thin at a profit without taxpayers help, I think it would be rather hard if we were to penalise them for the net carbon emmissions 2030 to 2080. However the woodlands we are talking about are already neglected. This is presumeably because it does not currently make business sense to thin them in the free market, even with no income tax on timber revenue? <br /><br />So if thinning such a woodland made me money in a free market, I too would be tempted to do it, knowing that I might be damaging the climate until 2080, but benefiting it from then on.Alec Daunceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14292595153624521079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3376634240427854248.post-4859050540002832462012-06-10T10:31:29.319+02:002012-06-10T10:31:29.319+02:00On that basis then, I'll continue thinning my ...On that basis then, I'll continue thinning my broadleaved woodlands, in order to concentrate the carbon sequestration in valuable sawlogs which i can cut down at a later date to produce furniture which will lock up the carbon for centuries. The thinning I'll use for domestic heating, rather than buying fossil fuels.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3376634240427854248.post-4392266977843982552012-06-07T12:24:14.002+02:002012-06-07T12:24:14.002+02:00I purposely refrained from dealing with biodiversi...I purposely refrained from dealing with biodiversity, rural economy etc in this post. I wanted to focus purely on the carbon science and calculations and the integrity of some of the (I suspect sentimental) arguments from the "woodland management lobby". <br /><br />So, being "true to truth" in carbon terms I'd have to agree. Underplanting with Western Hemlock would probably maximise carbon abatement.Alec Daunceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14292595153624521079noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3376634240427854248.post-46167733410747192062012-06-07T09:38:42.888+02:002012-06-07T09:38:42.888+02:00Damn it, now that i know that I'll have to go...Damn it, now that i know that I'll have to go back to burning coal then! or could i plant fast growing conifers in those canopy gaps?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com