An interesting post.  Thanks for the links to Ecotrust John - An
organisation that seems to accommodates humanity and addresses the
possibility of a socially equitable, sustainable economy (rather than no
economy or humanity). I think this is a moral stance.

As to the story on carbon from forests - it is necessary to read between the
lines.  The idea that forest "plantations" PER SE are worse than "old, wild
forests" ....

(aside here - many of Europe's "old, wild forests" started with a spade way
back.  Does this - perhaps - create a dilemma when differentiating what some
like to call "plantations" [pejoratively loaded] and contrast them with
"old, wild forests" [warm and fuzzy "goodness"]? - end of aside)

 ..... at "ridding the air of CO2" is not a tenable argument.  If you put
forest plantations on a grassland site (providing you don't rip off the soil
C in the process of establishment) then the effect will be a sink for
carbon.  Wood is largely C, H & O from photosynthesis (our only free lunch!)
of atmospheric C. A quick growing regenerating forest can fix up to 20
tonnes (and more) of carbon per ha/yr in the form of stem wood, branches,
accumulated soil C and roots when it is at it's peak - but it starts out
slowly - rapidly accelerates accumulation - and eventually settles down to a
much slower C accumulation - or even a C emission in time (discussed below).

So generally, in those situations of forest establishment, there is no
problem with the IDEA of forests as a sink for C.  Further, using wood (the
product of a free lunch) sourced from forests also "fixes" C - at least for
a time - by slowing down the decay process of wood (preserved as furniture
etc.)  that reverses the processes of photosynthesis (i.e. - decay
"respires" by takes in O2 and giving off CO2 while converting the energy to
macroinvertebrates, fungi, et al).  It is a far more environmentally
sustainable product than materials that rely upon non-renewable energy (I
facetiously assume the sun is renewable for the sake of argument), such as
metal, plastics and concretes.  Suggested bumper sticker.........."Save the
planet - use more wood! - your very own carbon sink!"  (assuming it is
managed sustainably of course).

However, plantations can sometimes be bad.  Where someone rapes a
pre-existing carbon source - an existing forest or soil-C store for
instance - and perhaps burns it (releasing C to the atmosphere) - and THEN
plants a plantation on the same area that may take years to accumulate the
same amount of C that has just been released, then the article has a point.
The "loss" of the previous forest has to be accounted for in the "gain" of
the new one.  That is - it is not planting forests that is debateable per
se - rather it is how it is done and where it is done that matters.  A
complex, slowly revolving forest system should not be sacrificed to make way
for a vastly more simple and faster-revolving forestry system.  There is a
net loss to carbon in such a move.  Not so if the relatively simple
plantation forest replaces some herbaceous land cover - perhaps even
degrading land that it can improve.

"Old, Wild Forests" (a term I do not expect to find in ANY ecology text) are
not - generally - major accumulators of carbon (unless they are recovering
from some shock or other - or revegetating an area).  A "mature" forest
(another less often used concept in ecology) will often have as much carbon
being emitted through the normal death and decay processes as it will have
new growth accumulating C.  An exception is soil C where there is an
accumulation of peat or a thick humus layer (future oil & coal etc.) - but
these are more associated with wetlands than forests.  A forest can even
reach a stage where there is much more tree senescence and wood decay than
there is growth of wood (called "over-mature" by foresters - but to
ecologists it is just another state of nature, and "maturity" is a
utilitarian-loaded word) - though across any wider landscape ecology the
range of forest conditions would mask these microsite diversities.
Suggesting that "old, wild forests" will be net fixers of lots of atmos-C is
a bit of an overstatement.  Generally they are not - unless of course some
evil person manages them and takes some proportion of dead timber away to
create a carbon sink in somebody's household furniture (A Queen Ann commode
of 1710 AD perhaps?), thus preventing their demise through the gut of some
microscopic organism, thereby reducing the respiration of CO2.

(another aside - it sometimes comes as a shock to some people that "natural"
systems can do such bad thinks as emit CO2, not to mention methane.
Similarly with the points made above, it is not that fact that creates any
problem - rather it is the relative degree)

Not surprisingly, people grab the little bumper sticker that "plantations"
(nasty word) are (by definition) bad, and trumpet it to condemn those they
already prejudge.  It is a bit more complex than that.

Chris Perley

> -----Original Message-----
> From: This list has been established to provide a discussion forum, and
> informati [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of John Foster
> Sent: Friday, 1 December 2000 19:13
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Old Forests Needed for Carbon Storage
>
>
> From Tidepool.org
> SEPTEMBER.22.2000
>
> http://www.ecotrust.org
> http://www.nytimes.com/2000/09/22/science/22FORE.html
> Old Forests Needed For Carbon Storage
>
> A new study has cast doubts on an important element of a proposed
> treaty to
> fight global warming: the planting of new forests in an effort to sop up
> carbon dioxide, a heat-trapping gas. The research concludes that old, wild
> forests are far better than plantations of young trees at ridding
> the air of
> carbon dioxide, which is released when coal, oil and other fossil
> fuels are
> burned. The United States and other countries with large land
> masses want to
> use forest plantations to meet the goals of the proposed treaty.
> The study's
> authors say that any treaty also needs to protect old forests and that, so
> far there is no sign that such protections are being considered. Without
> such protections, the scientists conclude, some countries could be tempted
> to cut down old forests now and then plant new trees on the
> deforested land
> later, getting credit for reducing carbon dioxide when they have actually
> made matters worse. (9-22-00) From the New York Times.
>
> http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/national/warm02.shtml
>
> US Proposes Using Forests To Fight Global Warming (8-2-00) From
> the Seattle
>
> http://www.georgiastrait.org/
>