A report released last week by Vancouver-based ForestEthics said continued logging of the intact boreal forest is contributing to increased carbon dioxide levels and accelerating climate change. It also suggests Ontario has to change its logging practices if it's serious about cutting harmful greenhouse gas emissions.
Ontario Natural Resources minister David Ramsay countered that only two per cent of trees in northern Ontario are logged each year. Ramsay did clarify that the province does recognize the role the boreal forest can play in halting climate change, but he said the province doesn't have to change its logging practices.
Canada's boreal forest stretches across the northern part of Canada, covers millions of hectares, and contains spruce, fir, pine, and larch trees.
A few things I would consider in this debate include:
- Forestry is a renewable resource. All the areas harvested by companies must be restocked with new trees that will continue to benefit the fight against global warming. True, it takes time for the small seedlings to grow and reach the level of CO2 uptake from the previous forest. But consider that every year previously harvested areas are coming online with older forest, there is likely minimal net loss over the entire managed area.
- Wood and fibre create necessary products and jobs. This shouldn't be an overriding factor, but if there is less supply of wood to produce lumber, for example, where will companies turn to get their building materials? Steel? Cement? Plastic? Or some other chemical based product? Personally, I am more comfortable knowing that the wood I use for my own projects is coming from an area that is being managed to produce a new forest. Wood is also more easily recycled than other building materials. As for jobs and the economy, how can we fight global warming if we have a poor economy, especially due to job losses in a renewable sector?
- Harvesting below a sustainable rate leaves more forest available to insect attack and forest fire. We already know the mountain pine beetle is in Alberta, and threatening to enter the boreal forest. Spruce and fir have their own bark beetles too. Is it better to leave more aging forest standing than necessary? Older forests generally contain more fuels and are more susceptible to insect attack - while newly harvested and planted areas have a reduced fire hazard and less fuel to burn. If harvest levels are reduced, I think it could lead to more forest fires and more dead timber from insect attacks. And when wildfire and insects have passed through areas, who will restock them? Nature can take a long time to reforest areas on her own. The environmental groups? The government? It will take a lot of resources and money to reforest large areas where there has been no economic gain, and where there is standing and fallen dead timber to work around. How much CO2 is lost from forest fires and dead forest? With harvested areas, the company uses some of the revenue from the timber to manage and restock the area.
We have already seen what can happen with aging pine forests in BC in terms of insects and fire, and we will probably see more of it in summer 2007. Provincial and National Park boundaries mean nothing to fire and pests.
At this time, when global warming, insect attacks and wildfire are interacting and their effects on forests becoming more common, I would seriously consider what benefit is gained from preserving more susceptible forest in the hope that it will be there for decades to help fight global warming.
No comments:
Post a Comment