I am extremely appreciative of David Atkins’ effort to delve into the complicated area of forest carbon in this piece at TreeSource. I actually asked several scientists if they knew of a paper that outlined the different assumptions and conclusions, and discussed the area of disagreements.. maybe someone out there knows of one? Otherwise, you have to wonder why that would not be the most important kind of paper to write..Here are the areas of disagreement, here is why, and here is what we need to do to find out more. If we are going to use science in policy, wouldn’t that be the most important kind of investigation to conduct?
It’s not the universities’ job though, here’s what Acting Dean Davis of OSU says:
“Researchers often explore extremes of a subject on purpose, to help define the edges of our understanding; or other studies might only examine one aspect of an issue which in reality does not occur in a vacuum. It is important to look at the whole array of research results around a subject rather than using those of a single study or publication as a conclusion to a field of study.”
That might be difficult for policy makers to do unassisted, and I wouldn’t blame them for throwing up their hands at what appears to be an arena of scientist gladiators.
I think it falls to government to address these policy questions, through research designed as Peter Gluckman describes here.
But how could researchers come to such wildly different conclusions on the carbon effect of wood products? This led me to a series of interviews and multiple other sources to sort through a rabbit warren of questionable assumptions and conclusions in the OSU researchers’ paper.
Make assumptions with care
Did the scientific process break down in the review – or lack of review – given this paper and its assumptions and conclusions?
The problems that surfaced in the Law paper include:
* The quote used by Oregon Wild can’t be found in the references cited.
* The calculation used to justify doubling forest rotations assumes no leakage. Leakage is a carbon accounting term referring to the potential that if you delay cutting trees in one area, others might be cut somewhere else to replace the gap in wood production, reducing the supposed carbon benefit.
* The paper underestimates the amount of wildfire in the past and chose not to model increases in the amount of fire in the future driven by climate change.
* It assumes a 50-year half-life for buildings instead of the minimum 75 years the ASTM standard calls for, which reduces the researchers’ estimate of the carbon stored in buildings.
* It assumes a decline of substitution benefits, which other LCA scientists consider as permanent.
* It models just one species of insect to account for tree mortality when there are a variety of insect and diseases which impact forest carbon capture and storage. And the insect mortality modeled was unrealistic.
* The OSU scientists assumed wood energy production is for electricity production only. However, the most common energy systems in the wood products manufacturing sector are combined heat and power (CHP) or straight heat energy production (drying lumber or heat for processing energy) where the efficiency is often two to three times as great and thus provides much larger fossil fuel offsets than the modeling allows.
* The researchers claim to conduct a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), but fail to use the international standards for conducting such analyses, without explaining this difference in methods.
* The peer reviewers did not include an LCA expert.
* The claimed significance of substantial carbon savings from delaying harvest and the large emission numbers from the forest products sector are undermined by all of the above.
I think the pros and cons of the different assumptions might be an interesting conversation to have on this blog. And we could perhaps use this blog, if scientists were interested, as a forum for extended peer review.
Yep, some variables haven’t even been recognized yet, and some variables are outright ignored. “Beyond the scope of this study” often means that the ‘desired results’ would be in question if that important aspect were explored.
Thanks for an interesting post. On first reading I had the impression that the list of problems with the Law article came from the OSU Dean of Forestry rather than Atkins, whose Board of Directors includes a WSJ reporter, a former USFS chief, and a forest products marketer. It’s a good start for what can hopefully become a great conversation and a useful exposition, if not exactly the equivalent of an objective, peer-reviewed scientific article like the Law paper.
Atkins, being a journalist, can publish whatever he wants unlike Dr Harmon, whose work must pass peer review. Atkins’ surprise at his failure to be able to draw Harmon, a scientist, into making broad policy pronouncements seems a little disingenuous, and perhaps reflects on the TreeSource pro-industry slant in the article.
Among other unanswered questions the article raises one might point out that the problem of leakage is not at all a scientific phenomenon, but is political. Should their laws change to mirror the kind of longer rotation forestry the Law paper explores, timber imports from the countries which quickly filled the timber deficit left by the NW Forest Plan could evaporate overnight. Choosing to regard existing export arrangements as permanent is a political, rather than a scientific judgement, and deserving of in-depth and critical analysis.
Another relevant point that can be drawn from the Atkins article is the much greater scale of resources backing research oriented to the industry point of view about forest carbon (including TreeSource itself) in contrast to Law who, since Harmon’s recent retirement, essentially works alone.
Here’s hoping this discussion leads to the kind of peer-reviewable, permanent, long term on the ground study of the very young and highly uncertain science of the forest carbon cycle (including substitution) needed to apply Gluckman’s principles to this most timely discussion about the future of forest management.
Atkins paper does not add to the scientific conversation and muddies the public conversation.
Atkin says:
” It boils down to whether they made reasonable assumptions. … The problems that surfaced in the Law paper include: … • It assumes a decline of substitution benefits, which other LCA scientists consider as permanent.”
This is just an example of “he said. she said.”
In fact, the scientists who have criticized high estimates of substitution benefits of wood products have given specific, well-reasoned support for their criticism, and many substitution proponents such as Atkin continue to stick by the flawed analyses.
Law & Harmon conducted a literature review and concluded …
Beverly Elizabeth Law & Mark E Harmon 2011. Forest sector carbon management, measurement and verification, and discussion of policy related to mitigation and adaptation of forests to climate change. Carbon Management 2011 2(1). http://terraweb.forestry.oregonstate.edu/pubs/lawharmon2011.pdf
Sarah L. Shafer, Mark E. Harmon, Ronald P. Neilson, Rupert Seidl, Brad St. Clair, Andrew Yost 2011. Oregon Climate Assessment Report (OCAR) http://occri.net/ocar Chapter 5. The Potential Effects of Climate Change on Oregon’s Vegetation. http://occri.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/chapter5ocar.pdf
I tend to give more credence to those who have done a good literature review.
Well, then, it’s a good thing that we don’t base projects solely on incomplete carbon storage beliefs. I’m very content that the pluses outweigh the minuses in modern thinning projects in the Sierra Nevada National Forests. I wonder what the carbon numbers are like for the preservation of overstocked and unnatural forests, full of dead trees (like the Sierra Nevada).
Thanks so much for engaging on this topic!!!! I really appreciate your taking the time to do this. Stay tuned and we will circle back around to taking yours and other papers and comparing them directly. Thanks again.
As far as national forests go, I think there is a simpler answer. Forest carbon is a “dominant ecological characteristic (for example, composition, structure, function, …).” It is therefore subject to the NFMA requirement of being managed within its natural range of variation. Since national forests must be managed for ecological integrity (which I assume would provide carbon within NRV), it seems like a fool’s errand to bother with trying to make a case for manipulating carbon as an independent purpose.
Hmmm I still don’t get when NRV gets invoked.. is fire suppression/are campgrounds/ski areas within NRV?
AND, are human-caused wildfires within NRV, in numbers, sizes and intensities? (Of course not, especially if you include the pre-human times and the ice ages *smirk* )
“Fire suppression/are campgrounds/ski areas are not “ecological characteristics.” They may occur if that can happen while NRV is met for dominant ecological characteristics. There should be an NRV for fire numbers, sizes and intensities; vegetation, fires (and humans) should be managed accordingly.
Since we cannot significantly ‘manage’ humans, doesn’t that set of constants invalidate NRV? Or, at least base a new ‘small sample size’ NRV, with this set of constants in mind? Do we base projects more on current conditions….. or on NRV?
Around here, in California, humans have manipulated the NRV since the glaciers retreated.
Unfortunately, we are not able to manage fire with that degree of specificity (even if folks could agree on the details of what post- Ice Age NRV might have been, which time window, Native American actions included, etc.). If I recall correctly, NRV is only in the Handbook explaining how to define EI in the regulation.
The definition of IN the regulations of “ecological integrity” (which is the requirement for forest plan components):
“Ecological integrity. The quality or
condition of an ecosystem when its
dominant ecological characteristics (for
example, composition, structure,
function, connectivity, and species
composition and diversity) OCCUR WITHIN THE NATURAL RANGE OF VARIATION and can
withstand and recover from most
perturbations imposed by natural
environmental dynamics or human
influence.”
The “right” answer is what a forest actually say it is. They just have to say it (and that must be based on the best available scientific information). (And there is no requirement to actually achieve the desired conditions, recognizing the lack of control of budgets, nature, people, etc.)
Do we assume “Natural” to be a pre-human landscape? Or does it include historical human impacts and effects, too? If such an adjective mandates activity, should it have a rigid definition? I would go for ‘Desired Range of Variation’, based on science AND current conditions.
“Do we assume “Natural” to be a pre-human landscape?”
===
I’ve often found that the word/tern “Natural” means pre-white European introduction. Science has often viewed the Native Americans as a type of sub-human animal as part of the natural world’s ecosystem landscape where some sort of mystical balance was achieved.
“Or does it include historical human impacts and effects, too?”
===
No one has ever entertained the idea that Natives were equal to people today. If we remove the assumption they only used fire for conservation and stewardship of the land as part of the narrative, what impact did leaving a campfire unattended or improperly disposed of when moving on have on the landscape which may have sparked a wildfire ? Would it be considered natural because a native did it ? What impact did using fire by one tribe as a weapon against other Native Americans who were hated enemies have on the landscape ? Would it be considered natural because they were Native Americans ? What about irresponsibly starting a fire to cook food, send messages or to warm oneself during a Santa Ana or any other wind event have on the landscape ? Because it was done by the Native Americans, would their ignorance get a free pass and be labeled natural because they were Native Americans ?
The Planning Handbook (§23.11a) says, “The natural range of variation is a guide to understanding how to restore a resilient ecosystem with structural and functional properties that will enable it to persist into the future.” It really doesn’t lay out rules on any of this – the Forest Service just can’t be arbitrary; they need a reasonable explanation for what they decide NRV is. But they can’t ignore it or say “we’ll figure it out later.” It is a forest plan requirement by regulation.
Then again, some people insist that ALL ecosystems are resilient and that humans should not be ‘meddling’. Some think that massive carbon releases are perfectly ‘natural’, and they should be welcomed. I think if we compared ‘persistent’ forest carbon (ie large fire resistant trees) from the 1400’s with today and it would be eye-opening that we are so very, very far from a coherent carbon policy in our western public forests. ‘Non-persistent’ carbon sits in trees that are imminently about to release it all, in the next inevitable human-caused incineration.
I agree that a national forest could decide to just let whatever happen, and the ecosystems would find a new sustainable trajectory. I haven’t yet seen this as an alternative considered in any forest plan revisions yet for some reason.