Here’s an interesting blog post by Alice Palmer focusing on BC, but applies elsewhere.
Can We Log Our Forest and Conserve It Too?
If we want to transition to a bioeconomy, we will need more biomaterials. Finding them won’t be easy.
Speaking at a recent forestry conference in BC, futurist Nikolas Badminton enthused about recent forestry innovations, such as mass timber high-rises, wood-based windows, and electricity-generating floors. Indeed, one has only to open their daily newspaper to be inspired about the promise of a “bioeconomy” replacing carbon-intensive materials such as cement or plastic with bio-based ones such as wood fibre.
Unfortunately, while wood is increasingly viewed as a climate-friendly building solution, the logging activities that provide this wood are not viewed in the same positive light. Indeed, many people believe industrial forestry to be environmentally damaging in terms of both carbon emissions and biodiversity conservation. These beliefs frequently carry over to the media and various levels of government.
In short, we want to “eat our cake and have it too” – use the wood, but preserve the forest. However, if we want to both take advantage of the multiple carbon benefits of building with wood and conserve 30% of the earth’s surface (as per the UN Convention on Biological Diversity), we’ll need to make some tough decisions.
The author continues with four hypothetical scenarios…. All worthy of discussion.
Scenario 4: Active land management
With climate change threatening biodiversity, conservation groups and the forest industry call a truce. Some forests are set aside for conservation purposes and others are designated for industrial wood production. Previously degraded forests are actively restored and intensive silviculture in the industrial forests reduces the risk of catastrophic wildfires and enables high-quality wood production. These industrial forests rapidly sequester carbon, contributing to global net zero emissions.
Some might say that public forests were “set aside for conservation purposes.” And the nice thing about “over-conserving” is that it is more easily reversible than the alternative.
This made me laugh “while wood is increasingly viewed as a climate-friendly building solution, the logging activities that provide this wood are not viewed in the same positive light” because it’s true … and yet glossed over by wood proponents.
This also made me laugh “industrial forests reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires” because it’s 180 degrees from the truth. Industrial forests are one of the most homogeneous high-hazard fuel conditions imaginable.
This futurist appears to be playing outside his area of expertise.