Site Discussions

Thanks for this explanation! I’ve always wanted to know, even though I don’t sugar.

Of course, it raises the question, How do you know it’s time to stop (assuming the holes don’t get plugged)?

Having burned pellets for 3 years now, I can say I will not burn oil again in the future. Oil is more expensive than firewood, which I also use, however my biggest concern is the price fixing of pellets relating to oil. Not a lot of difference between pellet companies…

Thanks for posting this!  I really like your blog!!

Steve
Common Cents
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

Wendy,
I asked a forester who was familiar with your area about cherry stands and he says that there are several areas of the NYS Forest Preserve where cherry is the predominate species. The Mongaup Mountain ridge, in the Town of Rockland, Sullivan County, North side of Mongaup Pond stretching towards Hodge Pond is fairly close to you and has nice cherry trees.  I guess most ridges over 3000 feet in that area contain a significant percentage of cherry.

Very nice article and blog.

Many thanks Mr. Mance for this article.  Upon my return from Haiti after the earthquake (as part of the CARICOM reconnaissance team), the devastated landscape was obvious from the air, in addition to the many “coal sellers” at the roadside amidst the utter mayhem behind them. Since returning, I have been trying to make the connection behind the deforestation, the coal industry, and the survival of the Haitian people within this environment/landscape. Your article has provided a rather succinct and valuable introduction to my knowledge/research.  Do you have (know of) any references that might include actual photographs of the Haitian landscape pre- and post-deforestation?  I am a Soils/Civil engineer by training.  Thanks again, Derek Gay

Of all my years living in Maine I have never seen more than two Grouse at a time other than a mother hen and her brood. Recently I have noticing two hens and one male together feeding in our back yard on buds and vine berries in the trees. One day this week I notice them coming into the yard and there were six of them. I thought this very uncommon for Grouse.

The carbon cycle that involves forests and trees is more complicated than most understand it to be.  And, while forest growth certainly cannot solve the climate problem, the incremental loss of forest cover and services will make the cost of fighting climate change progressively more expensive for all of us.  As a society we have much to gain by conserving as much of the forested landscape that presently exists as possible.  We should creatively focus our resources directly on the conservation of forest land threatened by conversion to non-forest uses.  Of course, as Mr. Wooster suggests, we also need to focus our resources on the reduction of the use of fossil fuels.  Together, aggressive forest conservation and aggressive fossil fuel replacement will go a long way toward reducing atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

Thank you Mr. Mance for this article! I have been trying to encourage those I know in permaculture fields to consider Haiti as a project to consider helping with. With sound Biodynamic growing practices I do not doubt this ailing country could reclaim its fertile landscape and benefit from food and other crop production. Would you consider sending your article to Paul Farmer and the other members of PIH (Partners in Health)? They could direct this wave of interest to those who could hear and use it. Many thanks again - Deborah

Mr Wooster,

Thank you for writing that.  Public misunderstanding of the carbon cycle is deeply troubling.  Perhaps your article will help to open peoples’ eyes and minds.

Over the long term, forests are carbon neutral. Your article is the first I have seen clearly stating this.  Net carbon sequestration or release is associated with land use changes, not equilibrium conditions. 

The only aspect of your article I would question is in regards to the origins of oil.  There is much controversy and debate about biotic versus abiotic origin.  I certainly don’t know the answer to that one and sincerely doubt anyone else does either.

Thank you for an excellent article.

Regards,

Matt Stacy
West Topsham, VT

Agree with Chuck’s points and am glad to see them stated so clearly and succinctly.  There is one point I would like to add- that burning wood for fuel does displace burning fossil fuels, and burning wood is a closed loop, if you assume that you grow wood back at the same rate that you use it for fuel.  Burning fossil fuels is not a closed loop, unless you look at enough hundreds of millions of years.  So in theory burning wood does not add to atmospheric carbon if you look at enough decades to absorb it back into new trees.  This of course assumes perfect management and also doesn’t take into account the diesel fuel required for harvesting and processing.

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis of forest management and global warming.  As we try to figure out the right thing to do with our northern forest land, Sandy and I have been “literature tourists” on this topic for a few years now.  It’s often difficult to distinguish fact from fiction, particularly when much of the fiction is aimed at advancing a particular business or policy agenda.

Below is a link from the US National Academy of Sciences to an interesting recent study that addresses the controversial topic of clearcutting, or “deforestation”, and global warming.  The study distinguishes the northern forest (latitudes that are snow-covered in the winter) from tropical forests (not).  The conclusion is that deforestation in the northern latitudes, particularly in evergreen forests, may actually reduce global warming.  This is because a dark green winter landscape (evergreen cover), which captures heat from solar radiation, is converted, after clearcutting, to a snow-covered white one.  The white winter landscape reflects back heat-causing radiation, and thus reduces the warming effect.

This is of course just one of many factors in a complex soup of cause and effect, and there may be other factors that outweigh the shift in heat retention from cutting an evergreen forest.  But the study probably should be taken into account and given some amount of weight in the political environment where “cutting” or “deforestation” is often simply equated with “bad”.

Here’s the link:  http://www.pnas.org/content/104/16/6550.abstract

Thanks,

Jim

I think the title of this article is unfortunate and confuses some of the good points in the article. I think what you meant is “Forests can’t stop climate change on their own.” Agreed. But they can be part of the solution, and the article says as much when it identifies the importance of deforestation. The correlation to avoided deforestation is of course reforestation which also holds promise in parts of the world.  In addition, the loop is not entirely closed with the forest cycle because carbon is absorbed and released by other biological systems, such as the oceans.  More carbon can be moved into the on-site forest part of the loop to our benefit.  What is important is the movement and location of carbon in the loop over critical periods of time. As we can flush the carbon out of the forests by harvesting them all right now, so too can we also manage them to build up forest carbon supplies over critical periods to give us the time to develop alternatives. The point that forests cannot by themelves solve the entire climate problem is well understood. I haven’t met anyone who believes this or read anything that presents this point of view.  The question we are now struggling with is how much can it help, what management strategies work, and what are the costs and benefits of using forests in this way.

Interesting and good article. There is a lot of confusion about what’s good and what’s not, as you note.

Can you expand on the 80 percent fossil fuels part and talk about the move to biomass and the like? And the differences between new carbon and old, fossilized carbon? Thanks.

Thank you , Chuck, for putting into words the thoughts I have not been able to express.  It is ironic that the simplest carbon market exchange will reward investors who reforest their cutover land and agree to keep it forested (perhaps softwood plantations on former cotton fields) for 20 or so years.  Ironic also that those 20-year old trees could be “financially mature” and cut as part of the normal management scheme in some parts of the US.

If we are serious about managing atmospheric carbon levels, we need to keep it buried in the ground where it took millions of years to accumulate.

I am always dismayed during reportage of tragedies how infrequently anyone mentions their effect on flora and fauna. Focus is always about people and money.

Thanks, Dave, for talking about Haiti as a place occupied by people and an environment in interaction!

My father had died and he used to fly small planes and made almost any thing out of wood, but his favorite is cherry, so I thought to take his ashes up in a plane and sprinkle them over a cherry tree forest, that’s where he’d be the happiest! Would you be able to give me a location of a forest where cherry is processed?
Thanks,
Wendy Jayne

Virginia,
That was an informative summary that was easy to read.  Can you tell me who is working on the albino strain?  I worked on a project like that with Forintek about 15 years ago and I’d be interested to know the status

The balance between keeping the natural habitat and forests alive and keeping coffee in the cups of consumers is a delicate one. Personally, I think that more emphasis should be placed on protecting the environment, even if it means that coffee prices will go up. Caffeine is the most consumed drug in the world, and people don’t really need to be drinking coffee each and every day anyway.

- GCBM

A fourth possible option subject to local fire codes would be dividing the field into thirds or quarters by mowing lanes or planting cool season grasses in lanes and performing a controlled burn each year of one third or one fouth of the land. This approach will invigorate the soil and do minimal damage to all critters flora and fauna a like. The burn is best done very early in the day or late in the afternoon in a no wind condition as soon as the snow has melted and the grasses have dried. It should go without saying this is not a one man opperation.