Site Discussions

That was a very pleasant story and this magazine is the greatest. I have to renew my subscription. The best wishes with your new job. Ciao

Elise
I don’t recall if we talked about this (I don’t recall a lot of things at my age), but I had a farm in Virginia too. It was just a hobby farm. We had Scottish Highlanders. The farm was in a little town called Markham. Just a post office, but so much more! =-)
Bob

Great opening blog, Patrick. Welcome to the organization!
Ed

Welcome, Patrick!  Nice job on your first blog - you’ve certainly set the tone for a promising tenure advancing NW’s unique and critical mission. Looking forward to much more from you.

Ryan Owens
Executive Director
The Monadnock Conservancy

We had a perfectly fine root cellar beside the road before any of this poppycock about ancient ruins started. Result: some jackass stole the supposedly OGAM inscribed cornerstone and the whole structure fell down in Irene and now is a real ruin. Nice.

Kudos to Dave Mance for expanding on an already thought-provoking lecture, one that I would have liked to have seen.  While I also am not fond of hearing of ecosystems boiled down to carbon units, I can’t help but chime in on a few points.  First, as the slides show, its the age of carbon coming out of the soils that is at issue…and since carbon is released for decades, that carbon is at least decades old.  But decades is how long it takes to grow the forest back, too.  Northern hardwoods have been cleared several times, and if really old (1000’s of years) carbon was to be released, it would have been after initial clearing and grazing in the 1800’s.  Second, although this disagrees with traditional forestry concepts, there is newer evidence that ecosystems continue to serve as carbon sinks even after canopy trees reach old age and begin dying (Luyssaert 2008 in Nature).  Other recent work in redwood forests, 2000 years old, show they continue to be an increasingly effective carbon sink over time.  Old forests are rare in the northeast not only because of harvest, but ice storms and wind, and they are not in our memory.  However, they were much more common during pre-settlement, as described in the nice Northern Woodlands story on Maine’s presettlement forests.  I believe in the value of allowing forests to get old simply to bring back a nearly extinct habitat.  And if old northern hardwood forests continue to be a carbon sink (as suggested by recent studies), then great.

One more comment regarding burning wood, because I can’t resist.  I am a recent convert to pellet stoves.  Here in Oregon, pellets come from small-diameter Douglas-fir from thinning operations and waste from lumber mills.  Pellet stoves emit about 25% of the particulates of an EPA-certified wood stove and are not banned when my town is under an air stagnation advisory.  While my pellet stove (made in VT!) requires some electricity and is a little noisy, there is minimal labor involved.  I don’t know the economics, but right now pellets are cheaper per btu than firewood, split and delivered.

By coincidence, a recent NPR blog post touches on a similar question—not about burning wood, but about how, why, and when scientific information is helpful to the general conversation and how, why, and when it can get in the way of a useful conversation. See http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/12/16/251437395/global-warming-explained-in-about-a-minute. A line from it that made me think of this blog post is “Many people assume the science is way beyond them (and of course, an expert level of understanding probably is beyond most of us), but simultaneously fail to appreciate how profoundly they lack the basics. When the basics are presented, they’re often sandwiched between some daunting math and some scary jargon, which don’t exactly boost overall palatability.” If I read your post correctly, I think you are suggesting that Friedland did some of this sandwiching of basics between relatively daunting specialty nuance, which resulted in confusion for at least some attendees.

I think I might be the person you refer to who “reported that a study he’d read said that only a small percentage of people in Vermont could burn wood, after which it would become unsustainable.” The study I mentioned at Friedland’s talk is the Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan, at http://publicservice.vermont.gov/publications/energy_plan.

It says that currently (or at least, as of about 2011), Vermont gets 14% of its heating from “biomass” which I think is nearly all cord wood or wood pellets. A small bit of bio-based heating oil and maybe a smidge of grass pellets is in the mix.

At Friedland’s talk, I (mis)quoted from memory that the study says Vermont can sustainably get 20% of the state’s heating needs with wood. I was remembering incorrectly. Looking back at the report, it says Vermont can sustainably go up to 30%. See volume 2, page 200.

What isn’t clear to me on a quick re-skimming of the report is whether that estimate includes assumptions about improving weatherization of buildings. Can we get 30% of heat from wood with our buildings as they are, or only after the average building improves its insulation and air leakage situation?

Dave,

Thank you for succinctly and eloquently putting into words what I have observed over 38 years of teaching, research, and service in the field of Natural Resources Management.  Trained as a “scientist” I had to learn that “management” involved more than just “science”; it involved the integration of the biophysical system with the socio-economic-political systems.  Also I came to perceive that even “science”, with it’s ever-increasing “fragmentation” into tiny islands of specialization, can only offer a blind man’s confidence about his little patch of the elephant.

Thanks also to the others who commented – my faith in common sense is restored!

The Blind Men and the Elephant
John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

“And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!”

—John Fox

Steve & readers: This story is the finest summary I have ever seen.  My first organized on-the-ground timber harvesting experience was as a forestry student on a field trip to Brown Co. lands in NH.  We ate in the classic camp kitchen, ventured out into the snow and watched cutters felling trees for pulp.  Every cutter had the recent advance (chainsaw) except one, who was still using a bowsaw (others said he was saving up for a chainsaw).  In an instant, that man, in the snow, working alone, sawing frozen wood by hand, instilled in me a very deep and lifelong respect for those who work our woodlands.  I have witnessed the entire transition described in this story.  Well done Steve.

Thoughtful reading Dave. What was he comparing wood burning to? Is there more or less co2 emission with the cleaner and more complete burn of pellets or was he comparing with slow burning wood logs?  Will be looking for more follow up on this. Thanks Andy

I am reading this before a cozy wood fire in my living room. The fresh snow outside falls silently. The cherry wood burning was harvested two summers ago from a hedgerow after it had fallen across a pasture fence.  The upcoming syrup season’s wood is stacked at the sugar house awaiting the evaporator’s beckoning. The dead ash will live again as a delightful breaking of fast. Sometimes a poem’s meter is clearer than science’s measure.

Phil in Boston…why NOT shoot the bear? Read the article before you post comments. The bear was processed for steaks, burger and roast…just like any deer, or do you have a problem with that, too?

“...It’s healthy in a scientific sense – bless science for being restless and poking things from every angle. But when a study becomes a cherry-picked bullet point in the hands of an activist with an axe to grind, or cover for a politician looking for easy answers, or a merry-go-round for a concerned citizen who’s trying to do the right thing and is just being spun around in circles and left to drop by the lack of context, well then it can be unhealthy, too.”

All I can say to this is: YES. Yes. Yes.

This was a very timely and thought-provoking article.  I was moved to search around on line, found this link:

http://norwichenergycommittee.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/andrew-friedland-talks-about-heating-with-wood/

which answered some of my questions.  It is indeed a complicated subject, I would like to hear more arguments and observations on all sides.

I do hope we won’t damage the long range life of the northern forest by ill use and short-sighted decisions.

Thanks Dave for an interesting piece.  To add some fuel to the fire (sorry), and not to pick on Dartmouth, here’s a link to a press report on another Dartmouth College research effort that has a different perspective:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-05/dartmouth-study-says-cutting-down-certain-trees-can-save-the-environment

I haven’t gotten the full study yet, but the summaries suggest that intensive harvesting in northern softwood forests may reduce climate change because of the increased reflectivity (albedo) of snow-covered vs. forested terrain. To oversimplify, if you clearcut a northern spruce/fir forest, the snapshot of the terrain as seen by sunlight in the winter changes from dark green to white, so more sunlight is reflected, resulting in less warming.

Putting all the studies together will not, as you point out, amount to any compelling conclusion.  But they do let a person find some support for almost any position!

“Because the females are unable to fly, the moths move across the land at only 1.25 miles per year and, without human help, would by now have traveled about 170 miles and just be approaching New York City”

This implies that humans are the only method of quick travel. Thats not true. Perhaps moths could be transported on a long bison journey, or sucked up into the atmosphere by weather conditions, perhaps by a log in a river. I’m sure there are more.

I also would tend to think, (of course i am not an expert—who also tend to be wrong quite often) that ‘slowing the spread’ is just a justifcation for someone job and not really a rational strategy. Time would be better spent building up mantis and native bird populations. Time would be better spend reducing ‘pesticide usage’ to help predator populations and time would be better used increasing biodiversity to support more diverse predators. Time would also probably be better spent identifying ideal tree specimens to be protected when the moth arrives to help preserve the best of the best. A program should also be put in place to identify resistant trees and offer them added protection for their genes.

This is how we could work with nature, not beat our heads against a brick wall. It will also never happen.

Good article tho, thanks.

I have more than enough and would like to know a way of getting rid of it. I thought it was a 2 year life cycle, but constant cutting doesn’t do it.

Haven’t had a chance to get out at all (dang work!). But, my brother and his son have had great success here. Thanks too for sharing your bear story. The best to all!

Fascinating article!  I always wondered how they did this prickly affair…