climate change

Study: Wildfires produced up to half of pollution in US West

by
Hayman Fire 2002 from Colorado Springs. Wildfire smoke isn’t new, but measuring it has definitely ramped up in the last 20 years.

I like how this the author of this AP story sought out different scientific points of view. Thanks for sending, Rebecca!

Some scientists say: Wildfires are all about climate change, study in PNAS:

The findings underscore the growing public health threat posed by climate change as it contributes to catastrophic wildfires such as those that charred huge areas of California and the Pacific Northwest in 2020. Nationwide, wildfires were the source of up to 25% of small particle pollution in some years, the researchers said.

“From a climate perspective, wildfires should be the first things on our minds for many of us in the U.S.,” said Marshall Burke, an associate professor of earth system science at Stanford and lead author of the study.

“Most people do not see sea-level rise. Most people do not ever see hurricanes. Many, many people will see wildfire smoke from climate change,” Burke added. The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Other scientists say: Wildfires are not ALL about climate change, and why pick 10 years if you have satellite data?

There’s little doubt air quality regulations helped decrease other sources of pollution even as wildfire smoke increased, said Loretta Mickley, an atmospheric chemist at Harvard University. But it’s difficult to separate how much of the increase in smoke pollution is driven by climate change versus the forest fuel buildup, she added.

Mickley and researchers from Colorado State University also cautioned that fires can vary significantly from year to year because of weather changes, making it hard to identify trends over relatively short periods such as the decade examined in the new study.

Yet other scientists say:

The new study matches up with previous research documenting the increasing proportion of pollution that comes from wildfire smoke, said Dan Jaffe, a wildfire pollution expert at the University of Washington. Jaffe added that it also raises significant questions about how to better manage forests and the role that prescribed burns might play.

“We have been making tremendous progress on improving pollution in this country, but at the same time we have this other part of the puzzle that has not been under control,” Jaffe said. “We’re now at the point where we have to think about how to manage the planet a whole lot more carefully than we’ve done.”

While looking at some historic documents about air quality, I ran across this:

On 28 July 1994, dry-lightning storms started multiple wildfires across the Eastern Cascades of central Washington State. Conditions were extremely dry in the national forests. The 1994 water year was the third in a row in which annual streamflow had been well below average at various long-term gaging stations (USGS 2004; Robison 2004). Water years 1993 and 1994 were more than one standard deviation below period of record average values for the Wenatchee, Stehekin and Methow Rivers. The largest of the fires burned 185,000 acres (74,867 ha) on the Wenatchee National Forest. At that time, it was the largest wildfire complex within a single national forest in the history of the Forest Service (FS). The fires caused many weeks of impaired air quality in all five cities of Chelan County. This paper discusses the evolution of two resource management programs, the Healthy Forests Initiative, relying heavily on prescribed fire, and the Air Quality Management Program, both of which have evolved since the fires of 1994. The subject area is the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests (Forests) of central Washington State (Figure 1).

Folks have obviously been trying to ramp up prescribed fire since the mid-90’s- even before climate change developed as the umbrella issue.

Will framing it as a climate issue instead (as promoted by some scientists) help or hurt these efforts that have struggled for at least thirty years to get attention and support? Not to pick on Jaffe but the quote says “we have to think about how to manage the planet a whole lot more carefully than we’ve done.” I think there’s been quite a bit of thinking, since Biswell in the 40’s. The problem to me is about actually doing something that’s been adequately thought out, but has a host of well-documented difficulties in implementation. Will the energy of defining it as a climate issue bring it more attention and push us over the hill of difficulty? Or just more words and studies?

Climate Science Voyage of Discovery: Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage- From Pulpmill to IAMS to Saving the Planet

by
A Kraft pulp mill in Sweden.

I’ve always been curious as to how forests are handled in climate modeling (to predict the future they have to assume many things, including land use). I wonder who is the “they” who decides what goes in, and what groups are consulted on these numbers. Here’s a history of the idea of BECCS from Carbon Brief that touches on one aspect of this- where BECCS came from and how it got included into the IAMS (integrated assessment models). The article also has sidebars for some of the technical terms which is handy.

Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage – better known by the acronym “BECCS” – has come to be seen as one of the most viable and cost-effective negative emissions technologies.

Even though they have yet to be demonstrated at a commercial scale, negative emissions technologies – typically BECCS – are now included by climate scientists in the majority of modelled “pathways” showing how the world can avoid the internationally agreed limit of staying “well below” 2C of global warming since the pre-industrial era.

Put simply, without deploying BECCS at a global scale from mid-century onwards, most modellers think we will likely breach this limit by the end of this century.

But where did the idea for this “saviour” technology come from? Who came up with it? Who then developed and promoted the concept?

…

Möllersten says the first spark for the idea of BECCS came to him in 2000 when he was preparing to give a presentation at the 5th biannual Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies (GHGT) conference in Cairns, Australia. Working the idea through with Jinyue Yan, his PhD supervisor, Möllersten claims today that he “cannot remember the exact moment when we thought about this”, but he can recall the background:

“The way it started for me was when I started doing the work for my PhD. My focus was on looking at the pulp and paper industry as a very important industrial branch in the Swedish energy system. What measures could be taken to achieve cost effective emission reductions or CO2 emission reductions? Having worked on this topic for a while, looking at the most conventional measures, my professor and I noticed that there was a lot of work going on in this rather new and exciting area that was called “carbon capture and storage”. We also noticed that, as far as we could see, all that work was focused on emissions from fossil use. We simply decided to investigate what CCS could mean in the context of pulp and paper mills. When we did this work, we were looking at energy systems with a negative CO2 balance. For me, personally, it felt exciting to see that.”

And from the pulp mill study we get to..

But a key tipping point in the story of BECCS came when climate scientists started to increasingly include it in their modelling for sub-2C emissions pathway scenarios, often to the point that they grew reliant on it.

..

In little more than a decade, BECCS had gone from being a highly theoretical proposal for Sweden’s paper mills to earn carbon credits to being a key negative emissions technology underpinning the modelling, promoted by the IPCC, showing how the world could avoid dangerous climate change this century.

It’s interesting to me that an idea could become so important among modelers (whom we look to as experts on climate change) without ever having a stop for a reality check with folks who would have to carry it off.

Substituting for Fossil Fuels: The Bio-Chemical Side of Wood Products

by
From the Forest2Market Article

As far as I have been able to ascertain, N-95 masks are made from propylene, which is a currently a byproduct of oil or gas. I’m not a psychologist, but it must be difficult to feel as angry at the “fossil fuel industry” as many are (or claim to be), and yet be dependent on so many of their products. It’s interesting that people can blame workers involved in production (often with blue-collar jobs) for the bad parts (environmental negatives), and enjoy the good parts (the products) seemingly without moral qualms.

Oil and gas folks are probably just as befuddled by this as forest industry folks were during the Timber Wars by folks against logging. Of course, I’m not saying that people don’t have a right to question practices and regulations of any industry, but, at least the rhetoric, sometimes goes beyond that to something that may feel like “industry hate.”

Anyway, if we want to keep fossil fuels in the ground, as some do, we would have to come up with substitutes for uses in addition to electricity and liquid or gas fuels. These folks in British Columbia are apparently doing that with western red cedar, and folks in Nova Scotia are doing research on spruce-fir pulp.

In early December, reporter Doris de Guzman of Forest Industry News did a nice roundup of EU efforts in using lignin products.

Lignin is expected to play a significant role as a new chemical feedstock particularly in the formation of supramolecular materials and aromatic chemicals. Lignin is a complex plant-derived macromolecule found in the cell walls of almost all dry plants. It makes up 20-30% of the composition of wood.

According to a European Commission (EC) report “Top emerging bio-based Products, their properties and industrial applications” published by Germany-based Ecologic Institute on June 2018, lignin – among the most relevant large-volume biomass components – was found to generate the highest number of innovative products together with terpenes and urban wastes. Its natural abundance and global availability represent the main drivers for the persistent attempts at its exploitation beyond its actual relevant role as a bioenergy source, although its chemical versatility and uniqueness as a source of aromatic building blocks also play a role.

Innovative products derived from lignin range from fundamental chemical building blocks such as BTX aromatics to material for advanced applications in technical fields like construction engineering, where for instance both carbon fibres and thermoset resins play a major role but are currently not available from renewable sources.

As with our chart yesterday, we would need to consider all the environmental impacts of substitutions, such as these..

Environmental impacts depend on the energy demand for cracking the lignin as well as on the catalysts and solvents needed in the production process. Bio-derived methoxylated alkylphenols are promising alternatives to traditional alkylphenols as their toxicity is significantly lower. Furthermore, methoxylated alkylphenols from lignin can possess unsaturated alkyl chain (i.e. eugenol). The unsaturation is also proposed to benefit the biodegradability of the alkylphenol, as unsaturated compounds often degrade faster in various environments than their saturated counterparts.

There’s a great deal of chemistry in the article that for me required frequent side-trips to look up words. I’d guess we don’t hear much about these new uses as they tend to be using products from pulp and paper plants, and we don’t have many of those in the Western US.

Talking Past Each Other on Forest Carbon: Differing Questions Asked and Alternatives Considered?

by

For many years, folks have been disagreeing about different aspects of forest carbon. First, there’s using different abstractions, which aren’t necessarily clearly defined, as we saw yesterday. Then there’s the temporal and spatial scale, and location and level of any site-specificity. So ideas, scope, and assumptions have been all tangled up.

I thought it might be helpful to develop a taxonomy of analyses to clarify what different studies are analyzing and how the pieces might fit together. My original idea was a diagram, and for each study, we could highlight where it fit, or not.

So here’s a first stab at a diagram. I’m hoping fellow TSW folks will help me improve it. Note that none of these framings are in themselves “scientific.”

What came to me is that sometimes when folks talk about bioenergy, they mean it as a primary purpose, while others mean it as an alternative way of disposing of waste, say from logging slash, fuel treatment projects, urban wood waste. Some mean thermal and small scale (putting up a fuels project for firewood collection) and others mean electric and large scale (building a plant).

So I came up with three boxes of environmental impacts to consider:

I. What is the primary purpose and are there other ways of fulfilling this purpose, if so what are those alternative’s carbon as well as other environmental, social and economic impacts?
Under this you would include:
a) adding or decreasing total acres of forest (alternative land uses)
b) management practices on the land (alternative silvicultural practices)
c) tree removal: live vs. dead, species/size removed, harvest method (alternative methods)

II. If you have woody material left over from a primary purpose use, what are the alternative ways of disposing of it? Say for fuel treatments, this could be burning in piles- which of course has some operational problems and risks, as well as environmental effects.

Just based on this diagram, it seems that we can talk past each other because some people are talking about primary purpose and others are talking about waste. They are definitely connected, and those connections are worthy of more examination. The questions are, for a landowner “What are we going to do with this forest?” vs. “What are we going to do with all this extra woody material?” On the other hand, when the EPA Scientific Advisory Board debated “is biomass carbon neutral?” that’s another way of looking at it, around how using it should be regulated.

Here’s an EESI 2018 piece that shows some of the complexity of which question in which place..in this case for regulators:

However, while the determination helps clear the path towards greater use of woody biomass for energy, it remains unclear what net effect this will have on the U.S. energy mix. Solutions from the Land, an agriculture, forestry and conservation group, cheered the decision but note that there are numerous conflicts in no fewer than 14 different federal regulations pertaining to biomass utilization.

State level policies, to a large extent, decide the level of biomass utilization domestically. For example, Massachusetts’ Renewable Portfolio Standard largely forbids the use of biomass as renewable energy, while Oregon promotes it as a renewable source of energy. In California, the biomass power industry has largely shut-down due to expiring Power Purchase Agreements, despite a great need to address vast amounts of wildfire and agricultural wastes. Currently, the only other method of disposal of these materials is open burning.

The Clean Power Plan had offered hope to the biomass industry. Under the now defunct Clean Power Plan, states and the EPA had been charting a pathway for states to use biomass as a way to ratchet down emissions. However, with the administration’s reversal on the rule, along with larger market forces, such as low natural gas prices, biomass power is a less attractive energy option than even a few years ago.

But for forest land owners and managers, the question can be quite different. It might be “how best can this forest sequester and store carbon?” or “how best can this forest help with climate change given other needs and values not climate-related?” or “given future uncertainties,how should we balance s&s with the need to develop resilience? while at the same time providing important ecosystem services?”.

Talking Past Each Other: Language on Carbon Forestry and Offsets

by

James Bailey mentioned how hard it is to describe anything in a meaningful way in 300 words. I’ve found Twitter to be an extreme extension of that (280 characters?), though many times you can dig down and ask researcher Tweeters questions and they will respond.. so I have a bit of a love-hate relationship with Twitter (I tweet as ForestMaven). Too often, though, in my experience, it’s where people say mean things to and about other people and ideas. Perhaps scarier is the way complex ideas can get reduced to snarky one liners.

One of my pet projects is to try to explain to people the concept that I don’t think you can really understand land use and practices without understanding people who make the decisions, their views, and the physical and technological possibilities. But nowadays so many people project land use changes based on satellite data and assumptions about what people might do. For some reason, these quantified assumptions seem to be cooler science than say, social science studies of what farmers do, or understanding the physical and technological envelopes in which they operate.

Anyway, to that end, I follow Ted Nordhaus (and other folks) of The Breakthrough Institute. The other day Nordhaus retweeted 

“Protecting trees, as habitat, shade, and a source of life, is a good thing; a very good thing. Carbon forestry, conversely, is a con game, and a cynical one even bad standards of the best corporate grifters.” from a fellow named Paul Robbins.

What, might you ask, is “carbon forestry”? It’s undefined so it’s easy to question it, as no one really knows what it is. If he really meant “offsets”, why not just say that?  And who is Paul Robbins? Apparently he’s the Director of the Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin.

In 2011, a bunch of knowledgeable folks (Malmsheimer et al.)  wrote a paper called “Managing Forests because Carbon Matters: Integrating Energy, Products, and Land Management Policy” and published it in the Journal of Forestry. Here’s a link.

In the abstract, they say

“The value of carbon credits generated by forest carbon offset projects differs dramatically, depending on the sets of carbon pools allowed by the protocol and baseline employed. The costs associated with establishing and maintaining offset projects depend largely on the protocols’ specifics. Measurement challenges and relatively high transaction costs needed for forest carbon offsets warrant consideration of other policies that promote climate benefits from forests and forest products but do not require project-specific accounting.”

So it seems like many agree that offsets (from forests) are not a good idea. In the humble world of doing our forest Climate Action Plans in the early 2010’s, we thought about integrating mitigation and adaptation concerns in various ways, planting trees, restoring riparian areas, and so on. I’m hoping that in the great debate of “think tank” climate change, where the titan opinion leaders clash, our efforts to manage forests considering carbon won’t be mooshed together with offsets and thereby dissed.

Bloomberg Green on The Nature Conservancy and “Meaningless Carbon Offsets”

by

We’ve been talking about carbon tax credits for forest land as part of the Forest-Climate Working Group policy platform. This story is about offsets and talks about some of the difficulties determining what is really changed due to the payments. It seems to me like a government run program could have the same difficulties..

Another thing of interest about this story is that it is supposed to be “news” but comes across as not particularly unbiased. (FWIW, I’ve never been a fan of offsets). It reads more like an op-ed.
“The blistering urgency of the planet’s climate crisis is almost impossible to overstate.”
“But a review of hundreds of pages of documents underpinning those projects and interviews with a half-dozen participating landowners indicate that the Conservancy is often preserving forested lands that don’t need defending.” A half-dozen? Often? What is the total number of projects?

“The offset controversy has not deterred the Conservancy, which for years ruffled the feathers of other environmental groups for its businesslike approach and close ties to corporate partners.”

“With the window to address climate change slamming shut, many observers say the scarce resources to tackle this problem should be funneled into projects that actually result in concrete emissions reductions.”

There are also good things in the story about TNC:

The approach has produced some enormous victories. In 1998 the Nature Conservancy spent $35 million to buy pristine forests surrounding much of the 130-mile upper St. John River in Maine. A decade later it acquired 320,000 acres of forested land in Montana from a timber company before developers could get their hands on it. Each year, the Conservancy spends around $150 million purchasing land or paying for easements that shield it.

The story gives a history of offsets and talks about some of the difficulties figuring out landowners’ intentions in the short and long term. It seems so simple- paying to keep trees in the ground. You can measure the trees. Are they there or not? More difficult are questions about whether they would have been cut without the carbon payments. On the other hand, if we think about payments for ecosystem services, would we care whether the landowner intended to provide deer habitat without the payment? Or would we just say, “if you’re going to do it, we’ll pay you.” To reimburse people with original wildlife intentions, and to reward those who change. It seems fairer and more straightforward than having to prove you were not otherwise going to manage for wildlife habitat.

So perhaps the problem is with the idea of the “offset” itself- having to change behavior before it is counted, and perhaps the marketing thereof. And I don’t know whose idea that was. What if instead Disney said “we are paying landowners for carbon services” it’s still a good thing- but just not comparing tons of carbon that the company uses.

But if you get away from the ton for ton equivalence, the you might as well give up on specific solutions and do whatever floats your corporate boat. If the window is indeed “slamming shut” then we need transformative technological solutions, and if I were those corporations, the bucks should go to technology development, say, for CCS. Or perhaps for Delta, for alternative jet fuels. But I suspect their jet fuel footprint has already decreased greatly this year due to Covid.

Ideas for New Administration: Managing for Climate Change Mitigation-Biomass With Chart and Links Fixed

by

From the 2013 Argonne National Lab study

 

Apologies to everyone and especially Mac.. I couldn’t get the links and image to work on some platforms for this so am trying various tricks, like reposting the whole thing. Thanks to folks helping me troubleshoot the problem! Please comment below if you can’t see the one link to the Argonne report nor the chart.

Here’s Mac McConnell’s idea for the new Administration:

MANAGING NATIONAL FORESTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION

In 2011 the United States Forest Service (USFS) promulgated a program document entitled Strategic Energy Framework.
“The Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework sets direction and proactive goals for the Agency to significantly and sustainably contribute toward resolving U.S. energy resource challenges, by fostering sustainable management and use of forest and grassland energy resources.”
I write this paper in hopes of furthering these goals, focusing on the national forests’ signature resource: biomass.

Biomass

In 2013, the Argonne National Laboratory, under contract with the USFS, published a report “Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U.S. National Forest Land”. It revealed that, at that time, some 14 million acres of national forest (NF) land were highly suitable for biomass production. This resource is renewable, immense, and virtually untapped.
Should this resource be developed? The question has been raised as to whether the national forests can support a larger timber harvest. Alternatively, should the carbon remain sequestered in standing trees , thus slowing the progression of climate change? The answers can be found in the chart.

During the 31 years period ending in 2016, drastic changes took place in the management of national forest resources. Emphasis (dollars|) shifted from tangibles, such as timber, forage, and road construction and maintenance to intangibles (wilderness experience, endangered species and old growth protection) and fire management.

As a result of these factors, plus chronic under-funding, serial litigation, and over-planning and analysis, timber harvest has declined by 75% and the forests are now harvesting about 8% of their growth. Mortality due to fire, insects, and disease increased by 200%.. Net annual growth (Gross annual growth minus Mortality) decreased by 39%.

The chart makes apparent the long-term adverse impacts of virtual non-management. As trees in unmanaged forests and under stress from climate changes die in increasing numbers they no longer sequester carbon, but rather become sources of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Prudent harvesting for energy biomass uses these dead and dying and unwanted trees to replace fossil fuels while creating a healthier and more resilient timber stand. It also creates a market for presently unmerchantable material and a new job market in rural areas urgently needing economic help.

Other renewable resources

While this paper focuses on biomass, the 2013 Argonne Lab report also investigated the presence of the solar and wind energy potential on NF land.
National forest solar resources are abundant with 565,000 acres of NF land with a production capacity of 56,000 Megawatts potentially available, primarily in the Southwest.
While minor wind opportunities exist locally, the principle developable areas are located on the 17 national grasslands totally 4 million acres.

Proposed Action
I propose that the Forest Service initiate a greatly expanded program of biomass utilization focused on active participation in the development of small-scale (< 20 MW) energy projects on selected national forests. This would include assistance in siting (providing suitable land for facilities), planning, financing (grants or low-interest loans), and long-term contracts that would ensure a continuous fuel supply.

Congressional authorization and funding will allow this action to take place.

Bibliography
USDA Forest Service 1997, FIA Forest Resources of the United States, 1997 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service 2011, Strategic Energy Framework
USDA Forest Service 2017, FIA, Forest Resources of the United States, 2017 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service, Annual Cut and Sold Report
McConnell, W.V. (Mac). 2018. Integrated Renewable Energy from National Forests in193 Million Acres, 32 Essays on the Future of the Agency, Steve Wilent editor, Society of American Foresters,651:333-338
Zvolanek, E.; Kuiper, J.; Carr, A. & Hlava, K. Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U. S. National Forest Lands, report, December 13, 2013; Argonne, Illinois..

W.V. (Mac) McConnell is a self-styled visionary who, b(uilding on his 30 year career with the U,S. Forest Service and mellowed by 47 post retirement years in the real world,  hopes to change the way the  Service manages the peoples’ forests. He specializes in energy biomass management (short-rotation-intensive culture energy crop systems)

*Additional Note from Sharon: The Argonne study also looked at hydropower and geothermal; it’s interesting to look at the tables by forest and also the maps for concentrated solar, PV, wind, hydro and geothermal. The biomass estimates focused on logging residues and thinning. Criteria are listed on page 12 of the report.*

Ideas for New Administration: Managing for Climate Change Mitigation-Biomass

by
From the 2013 Argonne National Lab study

 

Here’s Mac McConnell’s idea for the new Administration:

MANAGING NATIONAL FORESTS FOR CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION

In 2011 the United States Forest Service (USFS) promulgated a program document entitled Strategic Energy Framework.
“The Forest Service Strategic Energy Framework sets direction and proactive goals for the Agency to significantly and sustainably contribute toward resolving U.S. energy resource challenges, by fostering sustainable management and use of forest and grassland energy resources.”
I write this paper in hopes of furthering these goals, focusing on the national forests’ signature resource: biomass.

Biomass

In 2013, the Argonne National Laboratory, under contract with the USFS, published a report “Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U.S. National Forest Land”. It revealed that, at that time, some 14 million acres of national forest (NF) land were highly suitable for biomass production. This resource is renewable, immense, and virtually untapped.
Should this resource be developed? The question has been raised as to whether the national forests can support a larger timber harvest. Alternatively, should the carbon remain sequestered in standing trees , thus slowing the progression of climate change? The answers can be found in the chart.

During the 31 years period ending in 2016, drastic changes took place in the management of national forest resources. Emphasis (dollars|) shifted from tangibles, such as timber, forage, and road construction and maintenance to intangibles (wilderness experience, endangered species and old growth protection) and fire management.

As a result of these factors, plus chronic under-funding, serial litigation, and over-planning and analysis, timber harvest has declined by 75% and the forests are now harvesting about 8% of their growth. Mortality due to fire, insects, and disease increased by 200%.. Net annual growth (Gross annual growth minus Mortality) decreased by 39%.

The chart makes apparent the long-term adverse impacts of virtual non-management. As trees in unmanaged forests and under stress from climate changes die in increasing numbers they no longer sequester carbon, but rather become sources of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane. Prudent harvesting for energy biomass uses these dead and dying and unwanted trees to replace fossil fuels while creating a healthier and more resilient timber stand. It also creates a market for presently unmerchantable material and a new job market in rural areas urgently needing economic help.

Other renewable resources

While this paper focuses on biomass, the 2013 Argonne Lab report also investigated the presence of the solar and wind energy potential on NF land.
National forest solar resources are abundant with 565,000 acres of NF land with a production capacity of 56,000 Megawatts potentially available, primarily in the Southwest.
While minor wind opportunities exist locally, the principle developable areas are located on the 17 national grasslands totally 4 million acres.

Proposed Action
I propose that the Forest Service initiate a greatly expanded program of biomass utilization focused on active participation in the development of small-scale (< 20 MW) energy projects on selected national forests. This would include assistance in siting (providing suitable land for facilities), planning, financing (grants or low-interest loans), and long-term contracts that would ensure a continuous fuel supply.

Congressional authorization and funding will allow this action to take place.

Bibliography
USDA Forest Service 1997, FIA Forest Resources of the United States, 1997 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service 2011, Strategic Energy Framework
USDA Forest Service 2017, FIA, Forest Resources of the United States, 2017 (Tables 33 & 34)
USDA Forest Service, Annual Cut and Sold Report
McConnell, W.V. (Mac). 2018. Integrated Renewable Energy from National Forests in193 Million Acres, 32 Essays on the Future of the Agency, Steve Wilent editor, Society of American Foresters,651:333-338
Zvolanek, E.; Kuiper, J.; Carr, A. & Hlava, K. Analysis of Renewable Energy Potential on U. S. National Forest Lands, report, December 13, 2013; Argonne, Illinois..

W.V. (Mac) McConnell is a self-styled visionary who, b(uilding on his 30 year career with the U,S. Forest Service and mellowed by 47 post retirement years in the real world,  hopes to change the way the  Service manages the peoples’ forests. He specializes in energy biomass management (short-rotation-intensive culture energy crop systems)

*Additional Note from Sharon: The Argonne study also looked at hydropower and geothermal; it’s interesting to look at the tables by forest and also the maps for concentrated solar, PV, wind, hydro and geothermal. The biomass estimates focused on logging residues and thinning. Criteria are listed on page 12 of the report.*

Woodman spare that forest (the climate needs it)

by
Source: Biodiversity Sri Lanka

I’ve been wondering if there is a straightforward answer to the question of how to best manage forest lands to sequester carbon for the foreseeable future to reduce potential climate change impacts.  We’ve beaten around that bush a few times, such as here.

I thought such an answer might be found in the kind of forest management activities carbon offset programs are willing to pay for.  I recently ran across this example, which describes two new programs for small forest landowners.

“Forest carbon projects have historically faced skepticism around their additionality and potential for leakage — that is, the shifting of tree removals to nearby acreage. The concern is that despite paying a landowner to keep trees on one parcel, the same number will simply be removed elsewhere, resulting in a null offset with no net change in carbon storage. Yet SilviaTerra believes this problem can be addressed by creating a market in which all landowners are eligible to receive carbon payments as an alternative to timber revenues…  Payments are scaled to target the timeframe when forests have matured to a point of likely timber harvest… SilviaTerra believes that timber harvest deferrals hold the potential for removing over a billion tons of atmospheric carbon within the United States in the coming decade, or 4.3 billion tons globally.”

SilviaTerra is paying landowners to not harvest mature trees now, and presumably they would continue to do that indefinitely for a parcel because, (according to this article on the carbon value of old forests), “We now know that the concept of overmature forest stands, used by the timber industry in reference to forest products, does not apply to carbon.”   The Family Forest Carbon Program pays for “improved forest management practices,” “such as removal of invasive species or limiting thinning.”  Both seem to treat the answer to my question as obvious – the best management for carbon is “don’t cut down trees.”

Here is what the Forest Service has had to say about the best available science.  This 2017 General Technical Report covers a lot of the pros and cons and questions and considerations and reservations that we have previously discussed, such as wood products, wood energy and fire risk, but if the goal is to “maintain and increase carbon stocks,” the best answer appears to be “decrease carbon loss:”

“Decreasing the intensity of forest harvest is one way to decrease carbon losses to the atmosphere (McKinley et al. 2011, Ryan et al. 2010). Across diverse forest systems, the “no harvest” option commonly produces the highest forest carbon stocks (Creutzburg et al. 2015, Nunery and Keeton 2010, Perez-Garcia et al. 2007).”

The Report was written for a broad audience of landowners and managers, so it also discusses options for managed stands:

“Managed stands typically have lower levels of forest biomass than unmanaged stands, even though the annual rate of sequestration may be higher in a younger forest. In managed forests, reducing harvest intensity, lengthening harvest rotations, and increasing stocking or retention levels will generally increase the amount of carbon stored within forest ecosystem carbon pools in the absence of severe disturbance (D’Amato et al. 2011, Harmon 2001, Harmon and Marks 2002, McKinley et al. 2011, Taylor et al. 2008b).”

However, they also provide caveats and qualifiers associated with obtaining overall carbon benefits from any strategy that removes trees, which make it clear this would likely be a second-best strategy for carbon sequestration.

With regard to national forests, the Report recognizes the role of NFMA and forest plan revisions:

“Assuming carbon is one of these key ecosystem services, the plan should describe the desired conditions for carbon in the plan area that may vary by management or geographic area. In developing plan objectives, the interdisciplinary team should consider the linkage between carbon and how plan objectives would contribute to carbon storage or sequestration. Standards and guidelines may also be needed to achieve desired outcomes for carbon.”

We shouldn’t have to just assume the importance of carbon sequestration, since that is a decision a forest plan could make.  With an incoming administration that has said it would integrate climate change into everything it does, a good question to ask them would be why should the Forest Service not establish in its forest plans the desired outcome to “maintain and increase carbon stocks.”  This should create a presumption or default that trees should not be removed unless the Forest Service can demonstrate scientifically that it would improve carbon sequestration (apparently difficult to do), or if it would meet some other goal that the planning process has determined is a higher priority than climate change (such as public safety).  Climate change mitigation has typically been diverted to a side-channel during forest planning, but there doesn’t seem to be any excuse now for why at least managing for carbon sequestration isn’t mainstream.

North Versus Hanson

by

Experts Frustrated by Stalled Efforts to Counter Megafires

“Use every damn tool you’ve got,” he said. “If we could have beavers on crack out there I’d be donating to that process — anything that will speed up the pace and scale of this thing.”

Dr. Malcolm North