Only 2C Stands Between Planet's Forests As Carbon Sink And Carbon Source - AFP

[hatrack]

PARIS (AFP) — Forests that today soak up a quarter of carbon pollution spewed into the atmosphere could soon become a net source of CO2 if Earth's surface warms by another two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), cautions a report to be presented Friday at the UN. Plants both absorb and exhale carbon dioxide, but healthy forests -- especially those in the tropics -- take up far more of the greenhouse gas than they give off.

When they are damaged, get sick or die, that stored carbon is released. "We normally think of forests as putting the brakes on global warming," said Risto Seppala, a professor at the Finnish Forest Research Institute and head of the expert panel that produced the report. "But in fact over the next few decades, damage induced by climate change could cause forests to release huge quantities of carbon and create a situation in which they do more to accelerate warming than slow it down."

Authored by 35 of the world's top forestry scientists, the study provides the first global assessment of the ability of forests to adapt to climate change. Manmade warming to date -- about 0.7 C since the mid-19th century -- has already slowed regeneration of tropical forests, and made them more vulnerable to fire, disease and insect infestations. Increasingly violent and frequent storms have added to the destruction.

If temperatures climb even further, the consequences could be devastating, according to the report by the Vienna-based International Union of Forest Research Organisations (IUFRO). "The current carbon-regulating functions of forests are at risk of being lost entirely unless carbon emissions are reduced drastically," said Alexander Buck, IUFRO's deputy director and coordinator of the report.

EDIT

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hyKVZGsZ_H48OTtzo30s6ItsHdZQ

[XemaSab]

1. Since we're going to warm up more than 2c, we're okay, right?

:shrug:

[hatrack]

2. Yes, I'm sure we'll be OK, because . . . . uh . . . . TECHNOLOGY! Yes, that's it!

TECHNOLOGY(TM) will save us!

[Fotoware58]

3. We're already there!

Thick forests put out up to 100 tons of GHG's, per acre, when they burn. So, if you take a conservative figure like 10 tons per acre, the record fire season that burned 10 million acres put out an estimated 100 million tons of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere. AND, when fires burn so hot, those gasses go into or upper atmosphere where plants can't get at them to sequester the carbon. Wildfires, especially fires allowed (and encouraged by today's society) to burn throughout the summer, are NEVER good for the environment. So, how come the Feds have this Let-Burn program? They claim that those fires provide "resource benefits". I beg to differ.

Anyone else want to fill in the blanks?

[NickB79]

4. Small, low-level fires are beneficial for ecosystems that naturally have them

For example, jack pines cannot reproduce without fire. The resin on their cones is so thick that only the heat of a fire can release the seeds. In college, I had to bake these cones in an oven to extract seeds for planting! Most grasslands and savanna habitats wouldn't exist without fires every few years, either. Drought-tolerant shrubs and trees move in and displace the prairie grasses when fire is suppressed. The bark of many mature trees in western states is naturally fire-resistant to low-temp. fires burning around them.

Many ecosystems have evolved over tens of thousands of years to handle and even rely on low-level fires every few years. The problem is that, for the past 60 years, we've had the mentality that any fire is a bad fire (thank you Smokey the Bear). Without fires, branches, dead trees and leaves build up on forest floors. When a fire inevitably occurs, the unusually high concentration of combustible fuels creates the incredibly hot forest-destroying fires we are now seeing.

I think the "let it burn" program you refer to is inevitable. How long do you think the federal government can continue to suppress forest fires, as more fuel builds up year after year? Nature always wins in the long run, and forest fires were part of nature before we thought we could control them.

[Fotoware58]

5. Only partly true

Other than those truly pure pine stands and Giant Sequoia groves that have serotinous cones rely on catastrophic fires to regenerate. Yes, lodgepole and other pines do dominate pieces of land in that manner.

However, ponderosa pine forests (which are often invaded by lodgepoles) rely on cool frequent fires and the American Indians did provide those cool burns to clear out brush and other flammable trees. So, how many years have the Indians been NOT doing that? And how many years have the palefaces been NOT doing that? Fires, whether ignited by lightning, by accident or some dumb human, burn at very high intensities these days. Very little survive these catastrophic fires and the results are horrendous, for many decades and even centuries in some cases.

Yes, you are correct that we can't continue to allow fuels to build up. However, you offer no alternative other than implying we need to continue to let fires burn during the long, hot and dry summers. The government has abandoned the kneejerk reaction of putting fires out and has gone off the deep end by letting fires explode and then trying to defend homes and other human improvements from 300 foot walls of flame.

Fires burn because of three things; air, heat and fuels. We cannot control two of those but, we CAN exert some form of control over the fuels, as the Indians were so adept at. Today, our forests are full of those fuels with altered species composition that makes our forests so intensely flammable. Here in California, the understory is full of white firs and incense cedar, which provide perfect ladders fuels to incinerate the fire adapted pines. The eco-calls for forest diversity have ignored the ponderosa pine's fire adaptations and success in surviving fires. Also, quite simply, the land cannot support so many trees per acre. Parts of the southwest have up to 1000 more trees per acre than in pre-European times.

Tell us how we should proceed in saving our forests from drought, bark beetles and incineration. This IS occurring today and it's an ongoing disaster that affect WILL us for centuries unless we act. Just letting fires burn with no environmental analysis, no fuels modifications, no firelines and no public input just isn't what we should be doing.

Australia learned the hard way, in losing more than 200 souls, that fuels treatments are the only way to go.

[XemaSab]

6. Welcome to DU

And congratulations for using the word serotinous in under 5 posts. :D

[NickB79]

7. You seem to misunderstand my position

You basically repeated what I said in the first part of your post.

I said:

"The bark of many mature trees in western states is naturally fire-resistant to low-temp. fires burning around them.

Many ecosystems have evolved over tens of thousands of years to handle and even rely on low-level fires every few years. The problem is that, for the past 60 years, we've had the mentality that any fire is a bad fire (thank you Smokey the Bear). Without fires, branches, dead trees and leaves build up on forest floors. When a fire inevitably occurs, the unusually high concentration of combustible fuels creates the incredibly hot forest-destroying fires we are now seeing."

You said:

"However, ponderosa pine forests (which are often invaded by lodgepoles) rely on cool frequent fires and the American Indians did provide those cool burns to clear out brush and other flammable trees."

In this we're in agreement. I consider Native Americans part of the natural ecosystem of North America.


"Fires, whether ignited by lightning, by accident or some dumb human, burn at very high intensities these days. Very little survive these catastrophic fires and the results are horrendous, for many decades and even centuries in some cases."

Why do fires burn at high intensities these days? Largely because we stopped the low-level, cooler fires and allowed fuels to build up. Again, I don't see where we are in disagreement.

The reason I didn't list any alternatives to simply letting the fires burn is that there aren't many. There are millions upon millions of acres of land in the US that are overburdened with unburned leaves, needles and wood. What exactly can be done to remove this excess fuel that doesn't in itself destroy the forests? Selective cutting was a joke, a proposal by Bush appointees to allow lumber companies easier access to forests. The scale of the problem would be immense even if we didn't have climate change to deal with. We can't easily prevent the droughts that are now beginning to ravage the forests either. Carbon cuts and sequestration will take decades to implement and decades more to see meaningful changes.

What forms of fuel treatment do you suggest to make a meaningful impact, that can be economically scaled up to the degree that we need?

[Fotoware58]

10. If this were 1958.

We would probably have no trouble bringing back fire into the forest like the Indians did. However, today is 2009 and burning is like trying to burn tiny portions of a huge haystack without burning up the whole thing. The Let-Burn program doesn't even try to contain fires until they have gotten up a big head of steam.

Selective cutting surely isn't a Bush Administration invention. That silvicultural technique have been around for many decades and has been used very effectively since during and since the Clinton Administration. Just how was selective cutting "a joke"? I have worked on many projects in the past that have been complete successes, taking trees averaging 14" in diameter and leaving all trees over 30" in diameter. Actually, Clinton decided in his Northwest Forest Plan that trees up to 50" in diameter could be taken out on a very limited basis (not that I'm a big fan of that). So, again, why is selected cutting a bad thing? Instead of focusing on what is taken out of the forests, one should look at the forest that is left. Thinned out and drought resistant. Reduced ladder fuels and much more resistant to bark beetles and climate change. With tree densities restored to the pre-European levels. A forest should only be as thick as the average yearly rainfall can support.

To many, burning is the only option their minds will support. They think that man should not live in forests but only come to the forest as a visitor.

And that, my new friends, is one of the most "unnatural" forests of all. A forest with no people. All I want is what is best for the forests. Not what is best for the mill owner or the eco-lawyer. Save them or lose them is what we need to decide.

[NickB79]

11. I'm sceptical of selective cutting for a couple of reasons

One, just how much heavy equipment must be brought into forests to facilitate the removal of large amounts of vegetation? If trucks, tractors and trailers are needed, doesn't that require roads be built into previously untouched areas? I would list soil compaction as another concern related to this, but I understand current heavy vehicles use treads and large wheels to reduce pressure applied to the ground?

Second, how much would it cost to selectively cut the massive amount of forest that is currently overgrown, and how long would it take to scale up to a level where it would start making a difference? That's why in my previous post I made it a point to ask for economical solutions to excessive fuel loads in forests that won't take the better part of this century to implement.

Between the construction of new roads and the cost of the endeavor, I worry that logging companies will use this as an excuse to remove the larger trees to recoup some of the costs incurred in removing the less valuable undergrowth.

But since you have actual experience in this field, I'm more than willing to listen to what you have to say on the subject.

[Fotoware58]

12. Not just selective logging, either

What we need to do depends on what kinds of forests need what kinds of work. Also, there are rules, laws and policies that are currently in force. Here in the Sierra Nevada, the Forest Service manages for the California Spotted Owl, which is not on the Endangered Species list. It receives even more protection than the more well-known Northern Spotted Owl, in that the cutting of all trees above 30" in diameter are off-limits and there has also been a ban on clearcutting, as well. These self-imposed rules were enacted in 1993 to try to keep the California owl off the list. There are also rules and laws regarding how close they can log next to all kinds of watercourses and riparian zones.

Under these constraints, fuels reduction projects have to be designed to reduce fuel loads without seriously impacting ecosystem function. Most of these thinning projects are called "thin from below", where weak and suppressed trees underneath the crowns of the larger trees are cut. This frees up scarce water to make the remaining trees healthier and resistant to drought and insects. This style also enhances owl and goshawk habitat, as well. The Forest Service almost always uses existing roads to do these kinds of projects. They even use money from the harvesting of trees to close or obliterate roads that aren't/won't be needed in the near future. Other roads receive the road maintenance that is necessary to keep erosion from destroying them and sending sediments into our rivers and streams. That work is also paid for with the money from harvested trees. Depending on the value of the trees, other non-commercial work can be completed within the project area, too.

The difference these projects make in fire safety are impressive. It allows the fire management people to safely "reinvent" cool fires back into the forests and will result in the "natural" look and function of the areas. This also means that the forests will retain all that carbon and greenhouse gasses sequestered within the those trees over decades. Just for a comparison, fires in California's Trinity County last year produced as much pollution as 2 million cars running all year long. Also, the wood that was harvested will be made into durable wood products that will keep carbon sequestered, hopefully for many more decades. THAT really puts things in perspective and shows the danger of just letting forests burn, releasing ancient carbon.

There is a LOT more complexity to this issue, including economics but, it IS clear that we don't have to sacrifice natural form and function to economically get this done. It will take education and progressive thinking to convince all parties that active forest management is the way to save our forests.

Any other questions?

[Fotoware58]

13. I DO have other questions

Since the EPA now says that CO2 emissions need to be regulated, will they start regulating CO2, GHG's and smoke emissions from man-enhanced megafires? The EPA is supposed to be protecting citizens from bad air under the Clean Air Act. It is clear that smoke from fires burning for weeks on end have serious impacts on human lungs. As a matter of fact, my Uncle died from the smoke of fires burning around Rancho Bernardo a few years ago. Within 2 months of the fires, he was gone forever.

The Forest Service purposely allows fires to get big without scientific analysis of the impacts and possibilities. Not only do those fires impact our air, they also affect our water quality. Shouldn't the EPA force the Forest Service to do the same kind of formal scientific analysis that is required on fuels treatments? Shouldn't the EPA fully enforce both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act? Is there a reason why we let our government destroy our forests with out-of-control but, preventable fires? Where are the "resource benefits" they promise from letting fires burn? Could it be that Let-Burn fires lead to more salvage logging?

Lots of questions but no one seems to want to answer or even care.

[Fotoware58]

14. Woody biomass not "renewable"?

Walden asks Gore if there is a scientific reason why woody biomass from Federal forests won't be considered "renewable" under new energy legislation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L3L8mcGXbo

Al talks about the distant past and Canada but nothing about overcrowded, burning and dying forests here in America. This seems like it is more about politics and not about science. There ARE existing safeguards for our Federal forests with NEPA requirements. Alternatively, NEPA, somehow, isn't required for letting forests burn to the bare ground. Can someone explain all this, please?

[Fotoware58]

15. Moot point?

Since the Obama Administration has ALREADY passed new legislation to manage our forests, we should be able to proceed onward towards a big program of forest restoration projects. The law embedded within the Omnibus Amendment, Title IV, requires that Federal Agencies do forest restoration projects that exceed 50,000 acres per project. Since we are going to do these projects, wouldn't we be better off if that wood waste and unmerchantable trees be used as "renewable energy"? Gore implies that existing laws are not adequate to protect our public forests and that the system had been abused in the past. Just how far in the past have public forests laws been taken advantage of? I would guess that it was over 20 years ago.

I find it VERY interesting that these Congressional talks have not had wider interest, as those asking the panelists are the most local of our elected lawmakers.

[bananas]

8. And don't forget the worms

Which of these two pictures has more fuel?

http://www.nrri.umn.edu/worms/forest/


Sugar maple forest before earthworm invasion.


Sugar maple forest after earthworm invasion

So, which earthworms are native in the Great Lakes Region?
None!

[Booze]

9. Australia learned nothing

Australia learned the hard way, in losing more than 200 souls, that fuels treatments are the only way to go

I wish that were true. But it has happend in the past and will happen again. The greenies will never learn.

1851 – Black Thursday, February 6th –12 people died, 5 million hectares burnt.
1939 – Black Friday, January 13th – 71 people died, 1.5 million hectares burnt.
1983 – Ash Wednesday – 47 people died, 210,000 hectares burnt.
2003 – 2 million hectares burnt, North East Victoria, East Gippsland, NSW, Canberra.
2006-07 – 1.3 million+ hectares burnt north and south of the Great Divide.
2009 – Black Saturday – more than 208 people died.

"They cannot say the impacts of intense bushfires on human communities were unimaginable. We have known for 200 years that European settlement represented the insertion of a fire-vulnerable society into a fire-prone environment. We have seen the consequences of mixing hot fires and settlements on many..... too many..... occasions, to doubt the result"

"And they cannot say that they were not warned. Warnings have emerged from the aftermath of every damaging bushfire for the last 70 years or more...... from inquiries, commissions and reports, from independent auditors and from land managers, bushfire scientists, foresters, farmers and firefighters. In recent years the warnings have come thick and fast. Magnificent books have been written on the subject <4>; there have been dozens of scientific papers and popular articles written by our very own world-respected bushfire experts like Phil Cheney. There have been detailed submissions by professional groups such as Forest Fire Victoria, the Bushfire Front and the Institute of Foresters of Australia. As recently as 2008 the Victorian Parliament undertook its own review and produced one of the best reports I have ever seen. Its key recommendations were simply...... “noted” in passing"

"Can anyone say that no clear lessons have emerged from the bushfire calamities of the past? Can anyone say they are unaware of the previous fires that have burned Australian farms, settlements and suburbs, incinerated our national parks, nature reserves, rangelands and forests, or scorched out northern savannahs? Did no-one notice all those bushfires over the years that cut power supplies, burned out bridges and roads, destroyed schools, churches and hospitals, interrupted or fouled water supplies, destroyed observatories and threatened species, plantations, orchards and vineyards"

"Despite the protestations of environmentalists over the last few weeks, there is no question that the influence of green activists at Federal, State and Local government levels has resulted in a steep decline in the standard of bushfire management in this country. Their influence is exemplified by two things: (i) opposition to prescribed burning for fuel reduction, resulting in unprecedented fuel build-ups in parks, forests and reserves close to population centres; and (ii) rural residential developments, in which developers and residents have been prevented or discouraged by environmentalist-dominated local councils from taking reasonable measures to ensure houses are bushfire-safe; and where people are living in houses in the bush where there is no effective enforcement by councils of building codes or hazard reduction. <5>

The situation where a Government fails to govern is, of course, made worse when communities and individuals fail to self-govern. People building houses and choosing to live in the bush also have a personal responsibility – to look after themselves and their neighbours. This responsibility, it seems to me, has also been discouraged by modern governments"

Australia has not learned in the past. There is no evidence we will learn this time

Quotes are from this article. http://www.roymorgan.com/resources/pdf/papers/20090303.pdf