Six Reasons Why Fancy TP is No Big Deal

Well, an article in the October 2, 2009 issue of The Week caught my attention. It’s titled “Soft toilet paper: Environmental threat?” If you’re not familiar with The Week, it draws from multiple sources to give an idea of the news and opinions currently filling newspapers, magazines, and our airwaves.

One of the sources quoted is David Fahrenthold in The Washington Post. In his article, Environmentalists Seek to Wipe Out Plush Toilet Paper he writes:

Environmental groups say … [using soft toilet paper constitutes a] dark-comedy example of American excess … [because] plush U.S. toilet paper is usually made by chopping down and grinding up trees that were decades or even a century old.

Faithful Timberati readers know I’ve written about this tempest in a toilet bowl before (see Toilet paper, hummers, and global warming oh my!).

1. Old-growth trees are not cut down to be made into paper … tissue or otherwise.

My reading of this kerfuffle is that people seem to think paper companies hew massively majestic over-mature trees to be chipped directly into paper. Such is not the case. Tight grained, knot free wood does not go for such low-profit ends. That is akin to using filet mignon for generic dog food.

“[Fifteen] percent of the wood harvested is used to manufacture pulp and paper mainly for printing, packaging, and sanitary purposes. Fully half of this wood is derived from the wastes from the sawmills which produce the solid wood products for building. Most of the remaining supply is from tree plantations many of which are established on land that was previously cleared for agriculture. So even if we did stop using wood to make pulp and paper it would not have the effect of ‘saving’ many forests.”

— Co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore

So while the chips used for pulping may come from an over-mature tree, the tree itself was not harvested expressly for paper; its wood went into furniture and dimension lumber. Then the end-pieces and sawdust from the mill went to the secondary market for pulping.

2. Fiber length hinges more on species than on age.

Fiber length is an issue because longer fibers make softer paper. David Frielander at Treehugger.com says that paper companies use old growth because, “Old growth and virgin fibers are longer than recycled ones.”  This is true as far as it goes. True, tracheid cells (the fibers) increase with age, yet the species and even the cell’s position on the tree factor much more in the final result.1 (to read David Frielander’s post see Plush Toilet Paper: Soft on Your Butt, Hard on the Environment)

Within every tree are fibers of differing length, some shorter than average for their species and some longer than average for their species; it all depends on the position in the tree. A 25 year-old Pinus caribaea has longer tracheids (2.34 mm average fiber length)2 than a 50 year-old Eucalyptus regnans (0.80mm average fiber length).3


3. It’s a safe bet virgin fibers didn’t come from virgin tracts.

Virgin fibers are fibers that have not yet seen their first pulping process. Yes, virgin fibers average longer than recycled ones. That’s because recycling breaks fibers during the process of making new paper. But “virgin fiber” is not synonymous with fibers from primary forests4 and it’s definitely not synonymous with “old growth” (see the point above). Virgin fiber, as far as the paper process is concerned, is that fiber coming directly from a cellulose producing plant.

4. Fibers from old trees doesn’t necessarily equal old-growth.

There seems to be a trend to label second-growth and even third-growth stands as “old growth” because they happen to past middle age for the average American. You can see such a conflation in David Fahrenthold’s Washington Post piece, “… trees that were decades or even a century.” Up to a century is not terribly long in most forestry circles (New Zealand being a notable exception). You might say, foresters think in quarter centuries not quarters.

The University of California’s Cooperative Extension defines old-growth as “Trees that have been growing for such a long time that net growth or value is often declining.” Therefore, old-growth forest stands are so old they have numerous afflictions: rots, dead trees, broken tops, fire scars, etc. Yet, for purposes of pulping, older just means no longer a sapling.

For more information on old-growth forests see Old Growth Forests and Ancient Woodlands.

5. There is more variation between species than between over-mature and young-growth trees.

As you have read, not all trees have the same properties, partly because fiber length varies by species and partly the fact tracheid length varies by the location on the bole: whether it’s in the circumference and whether it’s above or below midway up the tree.

6. It’s okay, tissue paper accounts for only five-percent of the forest products market.

As noted before here, most of the material, in fact fully half, comes from scraps in the milling process not useable for higher end uses: sawdust and end pieces. The rest usually comes from tree plantations. I wonder if any of the quibblers are in bed with Big Bidet?


Summary

Facts won’t stop this debate and that’s unfortunate. Our goal should be sustainability and a balance. And rather than consider and discuss the balance point and how to stay there, we  hear quibbles about truly weird sh*t.

Literature cited

1. Source: Panshin, A. J., De Zeeuw, C. 1970. Textbook of wood Technology Volume 1. Pp 164-245

2. Source: Oluwafemi, O. A. 2007. Wood Properties and Selection for Rotation Length in Caribbean Pine (Pinus caribaea Morclet) Grown in Afaka, Nigeria. Pp 350-362

3. Source: Panshin, A. J., De Zeeuw, C. 1970. Textbook of wood Technology Volume 1. Pp 164-245

4. “Forest/Other wooded land of native species, where there are no clearly visible indications of human activities and the ecological processes are not significantly disturbed.” United Nations, Food And Agriculture Organization.

Perhaps that Sahara Plantation Could Power Itself

University of Washington researchers have produced electricity from a tree. Perhaps once they plant the Sahara with those eucalypts to alleviate global warming, the trees could deliver the power to provide their water. Or maybe not. According to their online article,”The custom circuit is able to store up enough voltage from trees to run a low-power sensor.”

Natural Resources Communication Workshop

My friend Jon Hooper has asked that I pass along the word that his Natural Resources Communication Workshop will be given January 11-15, 2010. Jon’s course is well worth it. His admonition for all presentations (CBS–Colorful, Bold, & Simple) has stuck with me lo these many years.


NATURAL RESOURCES COMMUNICATION WORKSHOP

January 11-15, 2010

The Natural Resources Communication Workshop, sponsored by the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, is designed to help natural resource workers more effectively communicate with general as well as technical audiences through personal presentations using good visual aids.  The workshop focuses on the use of computer-generated images created with Microsoft’s PowerPoint software.  The workshop is practical-oriented and enhances participants’ communication skills in planning, preparing, presenting, and evaluating presentations.  Since many of the problems in natural resources management are people-oriented, more effective communication can significantly improve many management programs.

Workshop Content:

1. Discussion topics include:

  • Planning:  communication principles, audience analysis, graphic design
  • Preparing:  creating computer-generated graphics, photo­graphic composition, rehearsal tips
  • Presenting: equipment setup, speaking tips, dealing with difficult audiences
  • Evaluating:  evaluation of performance

2. Each participant will bring a selection of computer-generated images (ex., graphics created with PowerPoint or other presentation software programs) for organization into an illustrated talk.

3. Each participant will prepare graphics (titles, graphs, charts, maps, cartoons, etc.) to be used in their presentations.

4. Each participant will give a 5- and 15-minute presentation (which will include graphics prepared during the workshop).  These presentations will be evaluated by the class and the instructors.

Instructional Team: Dr. Jon K. Hooper, Professor, Calif. State Univ., Chico (Certified Wildlife Biologist, Certified Interpretive Trainer, Ph.D. in Wildlife Ecology, 35 years teaching communication workshops around the country), Mr. Ethan Rotman, Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game (Coordinator, Fishing in the City in the San Francisco Bay Area, Certified Interpretive Trainer, Certified Interpretive Guide, Certified Interpretive Manager, 30 years of professional experience as an environmental interpreter and communicator), and Ms. Kim Rubin, (tour guide, interpreter, 9 years experience facilitating the Natural Resources Communication Workshop).

Location: California State University, Chico (90 miles north of Sacramento)

University Credit: Participants receive 1-unit CSUC Continuing Education credit; the workshop is worth 32 hours of continuing wildlife education credit through The Wildlife Society’s Professional Development Program (Category II).

Application Procedure: The initial deadline for applications is October 30, 2009 (Friday). Late applications are accepted (such applicants will become participants if the workshop is not yet full; otherwise, they will be placed on a waiting list in case of cancellations).  The registration fee is $749. The workshop is limited to 16 participants.  Since more applicants usually apply than there are spaces available, the registration fee is not due until an applicant has been officially accepted into the workshop (this occurs shortly after the October 30 deadline).

Since the workshop has a limited capacity, all applicants will be contacted after October 30, 2009 to notify them if they have been accepted.  Instructions on paying the registration fee will be provided at that time.  Payment must be received before applicants will be fully registered.  Failure to make timely payment will result in alternate applicants being selected.

To apply, send a letter, fax, or email describing: (1) your current position within your agency or organization, (2) how you will use the training, (3) any special reasons why you feel you should be chosen as a participant, and (4) if you already have official agency/organization approval to attend.  In your application, include your address, phone number, fax number, and email. To apply or for more information, write or call:

Dr. Jon K. Hooper

Dept. Recreation and Parks Management

California State University, Chico

Chico, CA 95929-0560

(530) 898-5811 or 898-6408

fax: (530) 898-6557   e-mail: jhooper@csuchico.edu

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

FLASH!!! Participants in the 2010 workshop will not only learn professional tips for using PowerPoint, but also will gain exposure to Photoshop Elements (digital photo editing and cataloging software).



Agenda

“NATURAL RESOURCES COMMUNICATION WORKSHOP”

January 11-15, 2010 at Calif. State University, Chico

Instructional Team: Jon Hooper, Ethan Rotman, and Kim Rubin

Monday

8:00 –   8:30 Registration

8:30 –   10:00 Workshop Overview  (Step 1: Pass the “Source Test”)

10:00 – 12:00 “Planning the Presentation Using the Targeted Design Approach”   (Step 2: Determine Your Target)

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch

1:15 – 4:00 “Outlining the Presentation”  (Step 3: Organize It)

4:00 – 5:00 “Designing Great Graphics”  (Step 4: Visualize It)

Tuesday

8:00 – 10:00 “Designing Great Graphics” (cnt’d)

10:00 – 12:00 Lab Exercise: “A PowerPoint Presentation Anyone Can Create”

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch

1:15 –    2:15 “PowerPoint Pitfalls (and How to Purge Them from Your Presentation)”

2:15 – 4:00 Lab

4:00 –    4:30 “Computer Hardware: Scanners, Card Readers, etc.”

4:30 –    5:00 “Adding Audio and Video to PowerPoint”

Wednesday

8:00 –   9:00   Lab Exercise: “An Introduction to Photoshop Elements”

9:00 –   11:00   Lab

11:00 –   11:30    “Digital Photography”

11:30 –   12:00   “Presentation Do’s and Dont’s”  (Step 5: Plan Facilities and Equipment)

12:00 –    1:15   Lunch

1:15 –   1:45   “Adding Presentation Sheen” (Step 6: Rehearse It)

“Working with a Host” (Step 7: Use a Host)

1:45 –    3:00    “Verbal Victories: Dealing with Difficult Audiences” (Step 8: Present It)

3:00 –    5:00            Lab

6:30 –    9:00            Lab (optional)

Thursday

8:00 – 12:00 5-minute briefings by participants  (Step 9: Evaluate It)

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch

1:15 – 4:00 5-minute briefings by participants

4:00 – 4:30 “Cataloging Your Digital Images Using Photoshop Album”

4:30 – 5:00 “Hints from the Pros” (time permitting)

Friday

8:00 – 12:00 15-minute briefings by participants

12:00 – 1:15 Lunch

1:15 – 4:30 15-minute briefings by participants

4:30 – 5:00 Summary and workshop evaluation

Extending THP Time

An article on the California Progress Report website says that California Assembly Bill (AB) 1066 would weaken environmental protections provided by the the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act. Taking An Ax To Forest Protection: Legislature Poised To Weaken Timber Harvest Plans was written by Traci Sheehan, Executive Director of the Planning and Conservation League. She contends, “Even after several rounds of amendments” AB 1066, “threatens the health of our forests, water, and air…”

Ms. Sheehan argues, “By allowing repeated one and two year extensions [to a Timber Harvest Plan (THP)], AB 1066 increases the difficulty of THP reviewing agencies…to effectively analyze environmental impacts.”

What AB 1066 Does

If passed, AB 1066 changes the effective period of a THP from its current three year lifespan to five years. Cal Fire, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (the lead agency under California’s Environmental Quality Act) then may give the THP up to a maximum of two one-year extensions if a listed species has not been discovered AND significant physical changes to the harvest area (or adjacent areas) have not occurred.

The Current Requirements

Before any timber operations start, the Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 requires an approved THP for all forestland in California (non-federally owned).

The THP gives the location of the planned harvest, the harvest method, the measures to used to avoid excessive erosion, the timeframe of operations, and other information required by the  forest practice rules (FPR) adopted by the Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. (Rules are created by regulators to put an act into practice with quantifiable objectives.)

The THP must be prepared by a Registered Professional (Licensed) Forester (RPF).

The THP is reviewed by the Cal-Fire, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Fish and Game, California Geological Service, and other stakeholders including the public. It is Cal-Fire’s responsibility to deny or approve THPs.

Once approved, a THP is limited to three years, though it may be extended (if work has commenced) for two, one-year extensions if cause is shown and all timber operations comply with law and mitigations agreed upon in the THP.

Registered Professional Foresters in California

California created RPFs in 1971. To become an RPF, one must have a minimum of seven years experience in forestry work (four of which can be substituted by a BS in forestry) and pass an extensive written examination. “Typically, less than 40 percent of those taking a given exam achieve the minimum passing grade of 75 percent.”1 I’m an RPF and the test is rigorous to say the least.

The Legislature’s Intent for the 1973 Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act

THPs were created with the enactment of the 1973 Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act. The Legislature declared they wanted “to encourage prudent and responsible forest resource management.” Their intent was to create comprehensive regulations assuring California’s non-federal timberlands maintained “maximum sustained production of high-quality timber products”

Why I’m For the Change

The bill’s aim seems pretty straightforward. THPs go from three years to five years with two possible extensions granted with major provisions.

The stipulation of no new listed species discovered AND no significant physical changes to the harvest area (or adjacent areas) is not small potatoes. RPFs watch the threatened and endangered species lists the way stockbrokers watch the Dow.

The California Licensed Foresters’ Association (I’m a card-carrying member of CLFA) puts it this way:

Originally, a typical THP required a few days of an RPF’s time to conduct field work, prepare the standard form, maps and supporting documentation. At that time, a plan could be prepared in the spring of the year, approved and then completed before the fall rains. This process was simple and straightforward, yet provided a giant step forward in environmental protection and public disclosure over the previous forest practice rules.

As for “exacerbating” the boom/bust industry cycle as Ms. Sheehan contends, I’d like more information with analysis. Selling in a down market is not recommended by any of the economists I’ve read. As CLFA notes,

Today a THP can take a full year or more to prepare for submission, require months to pass through the review process and cost the landowner tens of thousands of dollars in preparation costs and fees. Market conditions can change significantly during this period, meaning that upon plan approval the owner’s economic prospects might be entirely different than originally expected.

Much has changed in the four decades of the Forest Practice Act’s existence. Certainly the requirements have lengthened, a Rule Book used to fit in my back pocket. The size of a standard THP has exploded over 1000%. A little more time to get the job done by the timber operator, the RPF, and the regulators provides breathing room. Rather than increasing, “the difficulty of THP reviewing,” as Ms. Sheehan says, additional time should lower the temperature and allow time for stakeholders review these complex (and tedious) documents and for Cal-Fire to assure compliance on the ground where it counts.

———————-

My thanks to the Board of the California Licensed Foresters Association (CLFA) for allowing me to quote liberally from their AB 1066 endorsement letter.

To read the full text of why CLFA supports AB 1066 you may find it here, under their What’s News link.

Green, Inc.

Fear motivates.

Fear was the reason I got into forestry. When I was in college (I grew up in the 1960s and graduated high school in 1969), Martin Litton’s iconinc picture of a boy looking out over a large clearcut of redwoods caused a number of us to take action.

The Photos Were a Snapshot in Time.

For most, their complete environmental education was that photo.

While Martin LItton hasn’t changed his views, I have. My forestry major allayed my fear of deforestation through timber cutting for lumber. Coast redwood (where Litton photographed) sprouts from the stump. The place the boy looked at should be covered with redwood 40-60 feet tall. Photos tell a story of a moment in time, not of all time.

Now concern revolves around deforestation and old growth. In April of 2000, President Clinton used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to create the 327,769-acre Giant Sequoia National Monument (GSNM). That nearly, 330,000 acres presumably protects less than 20,000 acres of sierra redwood (giant sequoia).

Removing 500 Square Miles of Second-Growth Forest From Further Harvests Hurts Untouched Rainforest.

According to The Illusion of Preservation (Harvard Press), for every twenty acres of previously harvested forest placed off-limits to logging, one acre of primary forest–virgin forest–somewhere else is logged. That totals:

Primary Forest Lost Due to the GSNM set aside – 16,400 ac

We get no free lunches, someone pays and the someone in this case, is the wildlife and unique flora in previously untouched wilderness. Once roads are placed in this 16,400 acres of primary forest, it is usually converted to agriculture; the wildlife is open to extirpation.

Green, Inc. Slogans Masquerading as Scientific Fact

Tom Knudson wrote in his 2001 series, Environment, Inc.:

[T]oday [environmental] groups prosper while the land does not. Competition for money and members is keen. Litigation is a blood sport. Crisis, real or not, is a commodity. And slogans and sound bites masquerade as scientific fact.

What are you going to believe, slogans or your lying eyes?

As the management of Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest proves, harvesting is not the end of the world. Yet, Green, Inc. is interested in zero timber cut from public lands, so they support moving the GSNM from the Forest Service to the Park Service, this is not only unnecessary, it is counter-productive to GSNM’s articulated goals.

Sequoia needs disturbance to regenerate. Such disturbance has historically come from fire. But the past 100 years of aggressive fire suppression, shade-tolerant white fir has seeded under the old-growth giant sequoia groves. And now fire is a problematic tool due to Clean Air Laws. Logging provides the needed bare mineral soil sequoia seedlings require. And logging can be done around giant sequoia without adverse affects. Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest (MHDSF) manages its land consistent with the recommendations in the GSNM’s management plan. One irony of the GSNM: most visitors don’t see any giant sequoia until they reach the State Forest’s boundary. MHDSF has incorporated logging its management since 1946.

Not allowing harvesting in GSNM will eventually require a name change to the White Fir National Monument.

If you’d like to use my petition to keep the GSNM in the Forest Service’s jurisdiction and not tie land managers’ hands, it’s here.

Paper or Plastic, why ereaders are not the right choice

I have seen in posts, comments, and letters to the editor statements that ebook readers will save trees. On a APM Marketplace segment, Kevin Pereira of cable TV’s G4 network, called the Amazon Kindle, “the savior to many, many forests in the future.”

What an Ebook Reader is

These handy electronic devices can display text and graphics in full sunlight because they use electrophoretic screens, known as electronic paper. Energy moves pixels into place on the e-paper. Once in place, images do not need the refreshing a liquid crystal display (LCD) does, giving the device very low energy needs.

What an Ebook Reader Does: Libraries in the Palm of Your Hand

Imagine a bookstore and library resting in the palm of your hand. Amazon’s e-book reader is perhaps the best known. Amazon describes its product, the Kindle, as a lightweight “wireless reading device” that allows you to “find, buy, and read” text instantly. It holds up to two hundred books, and even more when it’s equipped with a memory card.

Dead Tree Technology or 21st Century Electronics?

Should you buy an e-book reader or stick with paper-based three dimensional random-access devices—books? Paper or plastic? If you were considering buying an e-book reader in order to save trees, would you still buy one if its manufacture and reclamation caused more irreversible pollution than one thousand trees saved from logging?

I have written before about ereaders. Now here’s a parable to illustrate the consequences.

The Parable Of The Tree And The Swimming Pool

There once was a man who owned a fine house with beautiful yard and swimming pool. A stately tree shaded the swimming pool from the afternoon sun. The owner loved this tree, yet it dropped leaves into the pool that the man had to scoop out to keep the pool’s filter clean. He asked the local craftsman for help.

“Let me cut the tree down,” the craftsman said, “and use its wood to build a gazebo to shade you.”

The owner shook his head. “No. I love that tree.”

“I can plant another tree. It will grow but its leaves won’t fall into the pool because of the gazebo.”

“No,” the man said. “Do something else.”

“Very well, I’ll make the gazebo from metal and plastic.”

“That sounds wonderful. My family and I are going on a two-week vacation.”

“Your gazebo will be here when you return.”

When the man and his family returned from their vacation, there was a gleaming gazebo with posts of anodized aluminum and the roof the finest plastic. Beneath, the pool sparkled a refreshing blue. But, their landscaping was ruined: plants had been run over, ruts marred the ground, and oily pools reeked. Nearby was a large hole with a giant pile of rocks next to it.

The man found the craftsman standing near the pit. “What have you done to my yard?” he asked.

The craftsman wiped his hands on a rag. “It’s a beautiful gazebo don’t you think?”

“Well, yes, but my yard has oil puddles, ruts from heavy equipment—”

The owner’s son and daughter tugged at his shirt. “Dad, we’re going swimming in the pool. Okay?”

“Oh,” said the craftsman. “That’s not a good idea.”

“Why not?”

“Cyanide.” The craftsman shrugged. “Metal is leached from rock with cyanide, then it’s put into pools for storage. You can’t let it get back into the water table, you know.”

“Father, why did you let this happen?” asked the man’s daughter.

“I had no idea this would happen.”

“Oh you knew,” said the craftsman. “If it’s not grown, it has to be mined. Substitutes to wood they leave their mark too. That’s the tradeoff.”

“But—”

“But, it just hadn’t happened in your backyard before.”

If it is not grown; it has to be mined

If you think timber harvesting is ugly, imagine an open-pit mine two miles across and three-quarters of a mile deep. Within ten years, the cutover forest area will be covered with new growth, whereas Kennecott Copper’s Bennington Mine in Utah will still be visible from outer space one hundred years from today and everything in the periodic table will be in the waste tailings.

Amazon’s founder and CEO, Jeff Bezos, has become successful by recognizing what people want to buy. After all, Amazon.com is one of the few dotcoms to make money and survive the Internet business bubble. Since Kindle debuted, Amazon is selling more books. Bezos told attendees at BookExpo America, an annual bookseller’s tradeshow, “After purchasing Kindle, customers continue to purchase the same number of physical books that they bought before buying their Kindle, but altogether…their [Kindle plus physical] book purchases on Amazon increased by a factor of 2.6.”

What is to be done? Here are my thoughts.

A Five-Step Program

  1. Recognize: everything comes from somewhere and (when obsolete) everything goes somewhere.
    Everything we do, buy, use, and own carries consequences, not only from its use but its manufacture and disposal. If you decide to buy a digital e-book reader like Amazon’s Kindle, do it because it is a cool piece of technology, not because you are under the illusion that you are saving the environment. Bits and bytes may not fill up landfills, but out-dated consumer electronics can.
  2. Hang on to it longer.
    On average, Americans discard three cellular phones and more than one computer every second. The EPA says that a cellular phone’s life before discard is 18 months. We can save materials by increasing the average to 24 months.
  3. Buy and use products made from renewable sources.
    Use wood and other renewables whenever possible instead of plastics, metals, and other non-renewables. I know this also has consequences. Using corn and oil palm for ethanol and bio-diesel has caused problems. But consider gold, (just one of the metals needed for electronics) it generates nearly eighty tons of toxic waste for each refined ounce.
  4. Buy less packaging and/or product.
    Use products that have reduced the quantity and/or the toxicity of the material.
  5. Buy products easier to reuse.
    Some companies are making products with recycling and reusing in mind. An item’s price needs to include the cost of mining reclamation and First-World-quality recycling. Economists call the production of problems that everyone ends up dealing with due to another’s using a product, externalities. My thought (I’m no economist) is to incorporate the cost of disposal into the price of the item.

Those are my thoughts, what are yours?

To learn more about the Life Cycle Assessments of the things we buy, go to the Environmental Protection Agency’s website – http://www.epa.gov.

The Anthropocene Epoch

Stop Trying to Save the Planet is an interesting op-ed by Erle Ellis Ph.D., the director of the Laboratory for Anthropogenic Landscape Ecology.

“[Nature] was gone before you were born, before your parents were born, before the pilgrims arrived, before the pyramids were built. You are living on a used planet…We now live in the Anthropocene–a geological epoch in which [Earth has been] shaped primarily by human forces.“

The thesis reminds me of one of E.O. Wilson’s statement that (paraphrasing) humans have tipped everything out of balance since they emigrated from a particular plain in Africa.

You can find Ellis’s op-ed is on Wired Science.

Tree Planting

What’s wrong with this picture of two women planting a tree? Take a look and put your answer in the comment section.

Odwalla is donating $1 per click toward the purchase of trees for planting in a state parks in one of eleven states (including California). The promotion runs until the end of 2009. I just hope the trees aren’t planted the way the seedling has been in their promotional photo.

Get your facts first

and then you can distort them as much as you please.– Mark Twain


Are U.S. forestlands “currently being lost at a rate of 150-million acres annually”?

An RSS feed from the Pacific Forest Trust titled, “New Climate Research Supports Forest Protection, Reveals CO2 Storage Potential of Temperate Forests” caught my eye a few weeks back. The words “Forest Protection” always worry me. (Which forests might need protecting? If we are discussing second-growth forests, then I recommend continued harvesting because placing second-growth forests off-limits increases pressure on primary forests. See The Wisdom of Zero-Cut page.) I noted that the writer of the article had an advanced degree in forestry so I held off judgment.
In the post, he extolls the value of our temperate U.S. forests carbon storage capicity:

“Temperate U.S. forests currently sequester more than 884 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually…[and] are responsible for removing more than 10 percent of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions annually.”

So far so good. The number of metric tons sounds reasonable. The United States has 749 million acres of forest (Source: Forest Resources of the United States, 2002) and I know from my fire training that one acre of dry grass has about one ton of fuel (an English ton weighs close to a metric ton), one acre of trees should be able to fix a similar tonnage at least.

And as most writers would, he includes a warning before the call to action:

“U.S. forestlands are currently being lost at a rate of 150-million acres annually, along with their climate benefits.”

This would be very troubling if true. After all, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that deforestation contributes nearly 20% of the overall greenhouse gases (GHG) entering the atmosphere (see their news release).

It also constitutes a major acceleration in forest loss. From 1630-1900, approximately 300 million acres of US forestland were converted to other uses (source: Forest Resources of the United States, 2002). The rate given in the post would equal the change (300 million acres) in only two years.

Not According to the UN or the USDA.

No. Given that rate of loss, the 749 million acres of forestland in the U.S. will be lost in FIVE years. 150 million acres would be a wooded area the size of California and Washington states combined, that’s a lot of forest. We ought to be seeing smoke from wildfires in the air and logging trucks clogging the highways.

It’s possible that the writer picked up the figure from a non-peer reviewed report such as an environmental organization website or media outlet. The internet can act like an echo chamber with claims and counter-claims.

Tom Knudson wrote in his 2001 series, Environment, Inc.,

“Competition [by environmental groups] for money and members is keen…slogans and sound bites masquerade as scientific fact.”

Here are the facts:

Forest area of the United States, 1630-2002, "Forest Resources of the United States"
Forest area of the United States, 1630-2002, "Forest Resources of the United States"

U.S. forest land area has actually increased recently

from 747 to 749 million acres (0.3 percent) between 1997 and 2002, continuing a slight upward trend in area beginning in the late 1980s. (Source: Forest Resources of the United States, 2002)

I have emailed both the post’s author and the Pacific Forest Trust asking for the source material for this claim. I have yet to hear back from either one. It’s now been more than two weeks.

If I get a response, I’ll let you know and I’ll include a link to the research.

To read the report cited by the Pacific Forest Trust blog see the International Union of Forest Research Organizations’ report: Adaptation of Forests and People to Climate Change – A Global Assessment Report.

References:

  1. U.S., Department of Agriculture, Forest Resources of the United States, 2002: A Technical Document Supporting the USDA Forest Service 2005 Update of the RPA Assessment by W. Brad Smith, Patrick D. Miles, John S. Vissage, And Scott A. Pugh.
  2. United Nations, Food And Agriculture Organization, Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, 2006
  3. Forest Identity paper on the PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) website

To follow this question and other topics, please subscribe. It’s free. I won’t sell or give away your address.