I think you and parent comment might actually agree. The 3x trees is an indication of too much, too many small trees, too much fuel. Places that burn and recover lose their "excess" trees. The trees get more space and are healthy top to bottom.
OTOH, tree farm trees are bred to have few branches and are planted very close together. Tree farms grow tree trunks, not trees.
There is a line of thought, which honestly I think comes from the timber industry, that growing trees are a bigger carbon sink than existing trees. They do argue that the tree farm is actually better because it is growing. I'm extremely skeptical of that claim. Particularly skeptical because the trees in tree farms are so unhealthy, the total amount of green vegetative surface on them is confined to a small canopy and has no vertical depth.
In comparison, old growth vs tree farm is night and day for ecology. Tree farms are very dense, rodents thrive in them but not necessarily much else. Old growth OTOH is generally a pleasure to walk through.
> I would expect a few old growth trees in an acre would be a substantially better forest
There's indeed a mixture of ages unless we are talking a tree farm. A tree farm is a mono-culture with trees approximately the same age all growing like Q-tips together.
Old growth trees are fire resistant. The younger ones trees get overshaded and don't grow, or they burn down before they get tall enough. The young trees that do survive, they go on to become the next generation of old growth trees.
(My experience on the subject: extensive time camping & bikepacking in Northwest forests, I've traveled through a several thousand miles of northwest forests in the last 10 years)
Why would you be skeptical of tree farming leading to less carbon sequestering?
The whole point of farming timber is to harvest wood which is lignin and cellulose aka CARBON.
The green leaves on the tree are not what will store carbon. The green will fall off and become forest duff which gets digested by fungi and bugs and the carbon released back to the atmosphere.
Goal of timber companies == make more timber
timber == captured carbon
Only if the timber gets used long-term. I would argue that a lot of timber doesn't get sequestered for more than a few decades because people tear down old houses and build more density in their place on those time scales. And then that old timber ends up in the landfill.
It's even worse for flooring, trim and casing because people rip and replace those constantly over their lifetime because it's all cheap whitewood or MDF now unless you explicitly pay for hardwood.
I am skeptical of most "more trees" approaches simply because it's not really sequestering carbon in the long term unless you carefully bury the wood underground in rot-preventing conditions.
It's like a bathtub where the faucet is pouring out more than the drain can handle, and the "solution" is to throw a bunch of sponges in. Sure, it'll kinda temporarily keep the water level down, but at some point...
I appreciate the questions and retort. I somewhat agree, but I think when considering a larger context - it changes the equations.
> Why would you be skeptical of tree farming leading to less carbon sequestering?
Two primary reasons:
(1) Comparing a huge old-growth northwest tree that towers a hundred feet in the air, and comparing that to 30 smaller saplings. The amount of carbon stored in one ring of bark of a giant tree like that is immense. The amount of photosynthesis, the amount of total plant metabolism - is immense. This is an anecdotal perspective, but to consider a non-intuitive alternative, there really needs to be some good facts behind it.
(2) The Sinclair quote: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” There is a extremely strong financial interest for tree farming to be considered as ecologically friendly.
> The whole point of farming timber is to harvest wood which is lignin and cellulose aka CARBON.
I agree.
> The green leaves on the tree are not what will store carbon.
While leaves are not the primary store of carbon, they are still largely made out of carbon. What's more, this is a bit to me like saying "your lungs don't store oxygen."
> The green will fall off and become forest duff which gets digested by fungi and bugs and the carbon released back to the atmosphere.
Forest floors do build up over time. This implies there is still a sequestration effect from this alone.
Bringing it back to my skepticism, the amount of carbon in one ring of an old tree, one that is 6 feet in diameter, the amount of carbon in that one ring is immense. The surface area of leaves is what powers all these other processes.
Say now compared to a group of saplings, where half don't make it and are then chopped down and put into a refuse pile. The saplings that do make it are not adding ring upon ring of bark for a couple hundred years, but only for decades, and in much lesser quantities.
> Goal of timber companies == make more timber timber == captured carbon
The goal of timber companies is to grow tree trunks & cut them down. Does that actually sequester carbon though?
Peer comments point out that building materials are not often recycled and wind up in the atmosphere anyways.
Regardless, the impact of going from a bunch of old and really tall trees that have healthy foliage throughout their entire vertical density - to then go to something like a grove of saplings or a grove of Q-tip like tree farm trees that are older - is an immense difference.
First, there is a huge difference in vertical density of foliage. Tree farm trees I call 'Q-tips' because they do not have much vertical density. It's like a grove of bushes that grow tall but never really gain more area for photosynthesis than that. Meanwhile a "natural" forest has trees that are healthy top to bottom. It's very akin to the micro-surfaces in the lungs or gut to drastically increase surface area. It's the difference of the surface area of a pine cone to that of a flat circle.
Then the other side of the coin too, groves of saplings are not fire resistant. Tree farms are not fire resistant. At some point the area can no longer withstand fires because it's all saplings and they all burn clean.
Then, yet another side of the coin, how much carbon is needed to cut down the trees and transport them? I don't think I've ever seen the "tree farming is carbon negative" argument actually take those additional footprint aspect into consideration. It's always a purely mathematical argument based on tree trunk size alone (which is what timber companies care about, they do not care about roots, branches, leaves, forest floor soil quality; and all of those aspects are not counted for in the theory of "it's best to grow trees to then bury them"). Which also comes back to the other point - building materials sequester carbon only for so long - while incurring a large cost (many of which seem to be unaccounted for).
If the building would be built anyways using more destructive processes or materials, then perhaps. There’s no guarantee that the building would have been built though. Sure most would probably be built anyways, but at some point the different costs would affect the supply and demand at a macro level.
Nonetheless, it’s ignoring the entire carbon-sequestration system that the tree enables. What percentage of buildings are a net carbon-sink (including construction, use, maintenance and eventual demolition), or improve the naturally occurring carbon-sequestration process by merely existing? Any? I really don’t know. It’d be cool if we were constructing such buildings, but I doubt they’d be as efficient as just leaving old growth forests alone.
> They do argue that the tree farm is actually better because it is growing. I'm extremely skeptical of that claim.
One could measure the tonnage of tree farm wood extracted per day against the estimated tonnage of the trees in a non-farm environment pretty easily I would think.
Frankly, the claim, to me, seems incredibly intuitive and your skepticism sounds like stubborn environmentalist thought.
I don't agree with this claim. It is only intuitive on the surface.
But growth in trees does not slow down as they get older. It actually accelerates. This article corroborates that: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12914
Sickness and bad conditions usually slow growth down.
In tree farms almost all the trees are in bad condition. The low biodiversity creates a low quality environment. They catch fire very easily. It's low quality wood that ends up in a landfill (and then in the air via rotting) within a few decades.
Eventually a tree will get sick and die. The most ideal situation would be to harvest the tree when it's dead. I would think there could be a businessmodel that maps dead trees and extracts them from forrests for high quality old growth wood.
This is not about "stubborn environmentalism". Although I do agree with you that some environmentalist ideas are a bit short sighted (like dismissing all nuclear options without weighing the properly), it is generally based in science and research. The anti-environmentalist side are usually mostly based in money and corporate interests...
> One could measure the tonnage of tree farm wood extracted per day against the estimated tonnage of the trees in a non-farm environment pretty easily I would think.
Old growth has a far deeper and broader root system which is a relatively permanent and ever increasing store of carbon in relation to farmed new growth. Roots and stumps of cut new growth are sometimes extracted and used for biofuel, transferring that carbon back to the atmosphere immediately. At best they are left to decompose or converted to mulch and biochar. But the growth process has been halted and no further carbon sequestration will occur. Any further human processing will itself release additional carbon.
Old growth is itself a habitat for other carbon stores. New growth…not really.
Old growth is a habitat for animals which themselves assist in the storage of carbon through indirect means such as pollination and defecation. New growth…not really.
This is just the tip of the iceberg and what I could come up with quickly off the top of my amateur-environmentalist head. It’s complex. A simple estimation of wood tonnage is not going to account for the complexity of the system at all.
> Frankly, the claim, to me, seems incredibly intuitive and your skepticism sounds like stubborn environmentalist thought.
Not true frankly. Old growth plateaus from a ton/acre of carbon perspective pretty quickly, and old growth forests aren’t meaningfully sequestering much new carbon in their soil. It reaches a steady state, with excess rotting. Almost no forests do, or they’d be sitting on hundreds of feet of charcoal like matter.
Even the best of them it’s less than 6 feet of carbon containing soil.
New growth pulls carbon out of the atmosphere fast - and cutting it down and using it, gives room for more, fast.
It doesn’t look as nice, and isn’t as pleasant to be around, but the math is clear and easy to verify.
> Old growth plateaus from a ton/acre of carbon perspective pretty quickly, and old growth forests aren’t meaningfully sequestering much new carbon in their soil. It reaches a steady state, with excess rotting. Almost no forests do, or they’d be sitting on hundreds of feet of charcoal like matter.
> New growth pulls carbon out of the atmosphere fast - and cutting it down and using it, gives room for more, fast.
Once it reaches this steady state, how much carbon has it already stored? How long will the average undisturbed old growth forest remain at steady state? 200 years, 1000 years? 10000 years? Surely longer than the average lifespan of all the products a destroyed old growth forest might produce. This is especially true when considering that old growth wood is particularly valuable for use as biofuel due to its high carbon density. This means that that carbon will be released far sooner than it otherwise would have, likely magnitudes sooner. And it says nothing of the carbon that doesn't even make it into a product. The simple act of killing the forest and turning over the soil will immediately release carbon.
But, you might say, we'll plant new growth and that'll absorb carbon at a faster rate than ever. Is that rate fast enough to account for the early release of the old growth carbon? How many cycles will it take to recapture that carbon?
> Even the best of them it’s less than 6 feet of carbon containing soil.
So? Is that an average for old growth forest soil? How does it compare to new growth soil average? A single measurement is meaningless here.
More importantly, what is the comparitive density of the carbon in the soil? Depth of carbon-containing soil without a density doesn't tell me much about the total carbon stored.
> the math is clear and easy to verify.
If you say so, but unfortunately you didn't provide any math whatsoever. You seem confident though so if you have any sources, then please do share. I did a quick search for various numbers and comparisons and the numbers don't look good for your argument unless you are only comparing the rates at a given moment and ignoring the total sequestered carbon over a suitable time range (there's probably a better description for this...something like average years of sequestration for any given carbon atom during the average lifespan of an undisturbed old growth forest vs the same tract of land cyclically harvested and replanted at a profit-maximing rate over the same time period)
Most of these products do actually end up sequestering carbon nearly indefinitely, as unless the house or structure burns down, the product ends up in the landfill or remains on site. Unlike forest products on the forest floor, they don't naturally decompose - we protect them to stop that, as a side effect of how we use them.
Because it is usually pretty well protected, and doesn't meaningfully decompose. Even in most (sufficiently old) landfills, you can dig up newspapers from the late 1800's and still read them. When people print things out, the vast majority of them end up shredded (and tossed in the trash), or just tossed in the trash - which ends up landfilling them, etc.
Once landfilled, what decomposition does happen can be mitigated by processing/burning/storing what methane and the like does come off them.
You're confusing carbon storage (as in total retained) with carbon flux (as in net amounts in/out). Something that old growth folks intentionally also do (first link), near as I can tell, to specifically confuse the issue. If you read carefully you can see them stepping around the issue in the first link I pointed you too.
TOTAL carbon starts to plateau relatively quickly, even as noted by old growth proponents - with total carbon flux dropping and eventually being roughly at equilibrium - usually well before we even consider a forest 'old growth'. If you look at the charts in the second link, you can see the actual curve.
Peak flux (as in total negative carbon) is usually at around 15-20 years.
I'm not proposing we cut down all old growth forests. That would be ugly and counterproductive.
Rather that making a forest that has already been cut down be untouched until it becomes old growth is not the most efficient way to reduce carbon, if we're trying to use forests as carbon sinks.
Be aware however, I've done the math before and even if we turn ALL potentially forestable AND farmable land into forests, it is impossible to sink all the carbon we're currently emitting into forests. Not even close, unfortunately.
But if land has already been harvested (which most has), the more efficient way to reduce carbon is a decent amount of turnover where the products end up going into either durable goods, or landfilled products.
I love trees, and spend a lot of time in nature. I've also done the research, and looked at the reality in front of me, and it's hard to ignore.
It also states [1]: "On sites like Fairy Creek, old forests are estimated to store twice as much carbon as mature forests and six or more times as much as clearcuts. Productive coastal old forests can store up to six times more carbon than old forests in drier climatic areas."
In that quote "productive" I think means mostly a mature forest (in other places it is noted that only a fraction of area is available for logging, so it's not quite clear what exactly productive means).
From the table of sequestration - it's very interesting how much carbon is sequestered into the ground compared to above ground. Old growth put a lot more into the ground, while new trees sequester almost entirely above ground. The numbers are very different too... The old growth, per same unit area, have a lot more sequestration compared to regen and immature forests.
> Be aware however, I've done the math before and even if we turn ALL potentially forestable AND farmable land into forests, it is impossible to sink all the carbon we're currently emitting into forests. Not even close, unfortunately.
A lot of land cannot be forests. I know this wasn't quite your point - but one thing I think missed by the "grow forests to chop them down and bury them" - is that when a forest is chopped down it no longer is fire resistant. A person can only do that for so long before an intense fire comes along and turns that area into a savannah. The growing trees have no chance, they all burn down - this is how forests become savannahs.
I truly appreciate your comment and the dialog here!
Edit: fuck it, I’ll just do the math again. See the bottom.
They keep confusing the issue because they keep talking about storage. Because their underlying motivation is to have more old growth trees, and to pull carbon from the atmosphere as a secondary effect. Which hey, I get, they’re beautiful. But it’s still BS to say old growth is extracting carbon from the atmosphere faster than new growth.
To see for yourself, use that table they made and take ‘estimated total carbon’ and divide that (tons) by the estimated stand age. That gives you tons of carbon per year of stand age. The really old growth stands with the impressive (overall) carbon numbers actually have really terrible (relative) tons/year numbers. Like the first one is ~ 2.3 tons/year. Where if you go to the new growth stand and ignore year zero (because that has a super high number/divide by zero), it’s 13 tons/year. About ~6 times higher.
And note, it has to be that way. If you took the rate from the new stand, and multiplied it by the stand age for those old stands, the whole forest would have to be solid carbon with no air or gaps.
And unlike those old growth stands, the new growth stand is also producing useful-to-humans output like lumber as part of that calculation, where old growth stands will be nature preserves in this calculation.
In my experience, it’s useful to think of forests like a carbon ‘spring’, or even dam. They aren’t (generally) sequestering it the way the word tends to bring to mind (locking it in a warehouse somewhere maybe). Wood wants to burn in our atmosphere, especially dry and dead wood. If enough of it builds up, eventually that spring will release, or dam will break/overflow, and that carbon goes right back into the atmosphere. Usually in a catastrophic fashion.
Harvesting it and putting it somewhere it won’t rot is like releasing that spring or the water in the dam, without breaking anything.
Regarding your comment on chopped down forests not being fire resistant - it’s actually the other way around. Non-existent trees and brush can’t burn.
Additionally, not harvesting timber from most forests results in overgrown and sick trees, which are a nightmare forest fire wise. It’s why california (and other western states) keep catching on fire so badly, because logging has been so heavily restricted. I’ve done thinning work, and it’s night and day from disease and fire risk. Almost impossible to burn a forest after it’s been done, and it doesn’t want to.
Before that, it was a complete tinderbox.
Now don’t get me wrong, clear cut logging followed by terrible replanting and management practices are certainly be worse (fire wise) than just letting an old growth forest be. Especially since those tend to be in consistently very wet areas that don’t like to burn. But that isn’t how it’s been done in a long time, outside of perhaps random bandit operations.
In California’s climate, it requires cutting down a significant portion of trees and removing built up brush (or doing a controlled burn), or the whole thing turns into a mini-nuclear explosion waiting to go off.
Also, most of their numbers actually seem weird to me though, because as far as I’m aware, more independent data actually shows even newer growth at more like 1.5 tons/year on average across the US.
Edit - here comes some math (different links this time)
Ok, so the US Forest service says that research shows forested land in the United States sequestered 775 million metric tons of carbon/yr [https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/sites/default/files/2022-04... ], and also that the US has 819 million acres (approx.) of forested land.
Which is approx. 1/3 of all US land cover.
Notably, I don’t think that is discounting carbon released due to wildfires in those lands, but I might be mistaken.
That also works out to (on average) 1 metric ton of co2 stored per acre per year on forested land in the US.
If I remember correctly, another 1/3 of the US by landmass can be considered arable (there is overlap), aka can grow things, with some work.
That means all US forested land sequestered enough carbon to represent a little over 10% of one years co2 emissions per year. Doubling all US forestland would therefore account for around 20% of each years co2 output.
If we figured we could double again efficiency by using fertilizer, etc. we’d still be stuck at only 40% of each years co2 output. And we’d starve, because we converted all our farmland to forests and those trees are generally not a good source of nutrition for humans. Also, we’d have to kill all the cows/pigs/etc.
So barring turning every forest into some sort of super productive co2 farm somehow, and converting all available fertile land in the US to do it while somehow not starving to death - I don’t see how we’d even pass 50%. And even then, I wouldn’t take that bet. :(
That hopefully also provides a more useful idea of the scale of the addiction humanity (and the US in particular) has with fossil carbon, when we’re digging up and burning the equivalent of 10x the rate our forests grow, every year, and we’re one of the top 10 most forested countries in the world.
Thank you for the reply. I plan to re-read it a few times and go into details tomorrow. I appreciate the effort and will look through it.
Meanwhile, a few quicker responses:
> Regarding your comment on chopped down forests not being fire resistant - it’s actually the other way around. Non-existent trees and brush can’t burn.
True, but if we are trying to regrow a forest to capture the next round of resources & sequestration benefits - that area has to go from being a non-forest to a young forest. During that time it's very susceptible to fire. Even worse, if the area is being re-grown as tree farm, AFAIK it'll never become fire resistant.
Though, really the question is how do you continuously regrow trees and never have the area eventually burn and turn into a savannah? Given so much forests have been chopped down a few times since the 1800s in California. We are looking at maybe 2 to 4 rounds of trees being chopped down and regrown. Lots of younger forests create a component for larger forest fires.
> It’s why california (and other western states) keep catching on fire so badly, because logging has been so heavily restricted.
My understanding is fire suppression is more to blame. I'm curious where exactly our views differ & why.
For tinder box fires, I think it's a bit more complex than one factor & the combination of factors is not good. Essentially, forests were logged with impunity and at mass scale (still kinda true today) for a few hundred years, then in North America we started fire suppression on an industrial scale circa 1950. A lot of forest is young'ish and/or doesn't have the same fire resistance as what was before it - and combined with mass fire suppression & young'ish age -> it's a huge tinder box.
Though, you point to the lack of logging as the cause for the tinder box. To what extent would you say fire suppression has played a role in current western fires?
I'm a bit surprised we might disagree here, perhaps I'm ignorant how logging has kept the situation in check. My very (tersely stated) impression of things is essentially Europeans came, logged the crap out of the area, stopped letting the fires burn 70 years ago because we could do something about it and secondly there were then enough people in the area to care. Fast forward, the west coast is now very populated and the forests are kinda young and are regrowing in a full fire-suppression environment. Do you disagree with that (frank) assessment?
> In California’s climate, it requires cutting down a significant portion of trees and removing built up brush (or doing a controlled burn), or the whole thing turns into a mini-nuclear explosion waiting to go off.
I agree. Otherwise when a fire does comes through, it will potentially turn the area into a savannah (mini-nuclear explosion'esque). I've seen a few examples, it brings back memories. There certainly are forest fires, big ones, then even bigger ones that damage the forest, and then there are the ones in California that remove the forest..
-------------------------
Again, thank you for digging up numbers & references. I want to go through those in a bit more detail before sharing any thoughts/questions
> Frankly, the claim, to me, seems incredibly intuitive and your skepticism sounds like stubborn environmentalist thought.
I've travelled along lots of tree farms, on foot and on bike. That is good time to really inspect them. I've also done the same in places that have had healthy burns, California style burns where nothing remains, and have also travelled to some truly majestic red wood groves in California.
A tree farm is a grove of Q-tip like trees where there is darkness underneath and thick nasty underbrush. The 'healthy' forests have trees that are healthy from top to bottom. The Q-tip trees are not healthy, they are too close together.
> One could measure the tonnage of tree farm wood extracted per day against the estimated tonnage of the trees in a non-farm environment pretty easily I would think.
I like the direction of thinking here, namely to try and quantify the effects.
Considering tree farms are left to grow for (AFAIK 40 to 60 years), the "daily harvest" rate needs normalization to account for that growth time (and that needs to be compared against what would happen had those been mature trees instead).
First perspective, plant metabolism. Why do plants use photosynthesis? Namely, to extract carbon so that they can grow. The overall rate of photosynthesis is thus related to the overall rate of carbon uptake. If we then consider the amount of green surface area per square foot (being very careful to consider that healthy trees have immense vertical depth to them) - the photosynthesizing surface area of an old tree is magnitudes more than that of a sapling and much more than a tree farm tree. The area of photosynthesizing surfaces is very important, that's all pulling carbon out of the atmosphere, it's used by the plant. Do plants grow extra leaves for those leaves to do nothing, or for that carbon to be extra?
Thus, area for photosynthesis is a proxy for plant metabolism & carbon uptake. Comparing the total green surface area of a tree farm vs a forest is drastically different. Tree farm trees do not have a depth of canopy. Young saplings have many, many fewer leaves.
So, by one measure, the total area of photosynthesis is very different. How can carbon sequestration be greater for small trees that are incapable of even pulling down the same magnitude of carbon compared to a taller tree that has magnitudes more leaves and surface area?
Thus, the first argument is one purely based on metabolism. A cat needs about 200 calories a day. An olympic athlete needs anywhere from like 4000 to 7000 calories a day. This is the comparison, the metabolism of a giant tree is just huge, compared to that of a 8 foot tall sapling that has a diameter of 3 inches. It's an olympic athlete vs a mouse.
-----------
Second, let's consider a mathematical argument for just wood material. We need to compare the total tree growth of an old tree compared to an equivalent number of tree farm trees in the same area. So, we're just counting here total bark increase over one year (and we're ignoring roots, and leaves - which are significant). For this, a single ring on the diameter of the trunk is huge. The linear length of a ring of tree bark on a 5 foot diameter tree is much more than the linear length of a dozen 3 inch diameter trees. Then, we also need to consider the linear length of all of the branches. A tree farm tree grows short branches and drops most of them. Trees in 'natural' forests have vertical depth, the branches low on the tree are growing and healthy whereas the tree farm tree is not. Comparing the growth of branches, the old trees will be way more than that of young trees, and/or of any tree farm tree (which have been selected for those that grow few branches - makes them easier to process and cut).
----------------------------------------------
Thus, skepticism is rooted in:
- I see an immense conflict of interest to speculate that tree farms are more carbon negative than a non-tree farm forest.
- Plant metabolism allows for carbon to pulled out of the atmosphere. Plant metabolism is proxied by photosynthesizing surface area, which is magnitudes more in a non-tree farm tree. The rate at which older trees can pull down carbon is just way more.
- The total volumes (per year) storing carbon in trees is much greater for a larger tree than several small ones. That is all of the growth of the roots, the growth of the trunk and all of the branches. It's like what happens when you add half an inch diameter to a baby compared to half an inch on an adult - the half inch on an adult creates a dramatically bigger volume.
OTOH, tree farm trees are bred to have few branches and are planted very close together. Tree farms grow tree trunks, not trees.
There is a line of thought, which honestly I think comes from the timber industry, that growing trees are a bigger carbon sink than existing trees. They do argue that the tree farm is actually better because it is growing. I'm extremely skeptical of that claim. Particularly skeptical because the trees in tree farms are so unhealthy, the total amount of green vegetative surface on them is confined to a small canopy and has no vertical depth.
In comparison, old growth vs tree farm is night and day for ecology. Tree farms are very dense, rodents thrive in them but not necessarily much else. Old growth OTOH is generally a pleasure to walk through.
> I would expect a few old growth trees in an acre would be a substantially better forest
There's indeed a mixture of ages unless we are talking a tree farm. A tree farm is a mono-culture with trees approximately the same age all growing like Q-tips together.
Old growth trees are fire resistant. The younger ones trees get overshaded and don't grow, or they burn down before they get tall enough. The young trees that do survive, they go on to become the next generation of old growth trees.
(My experience on the subject: extensive time camping & bikepacking in Northwest forests, I've traveled through a several thousand miles of northwest forests in the last 10 years)