When we plant trees to replace those removed we start the process over and continue to sequester carbon. Carbon offset reforestation should be our aim.
Hi Kevin. This article repeats numerous debunked talking points developed the timber industry to confuse the role logging plays in climate change. The wood products industry creates much higher carbon emissions than forest fires. Logging and replanting forests does not remove more carbon from the atmosphere than leaving trees to grow (here is a great short video from PBS explaining this by Dr Bev Law from Oregon State University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdKOmvIKyg). Fun fact, it takes 30 years for a forest in Oregon to return to sequestration after logging. And the notion that logging "locks up" carbon misses the fact that only a small percentage of a harvested tree ends up in a building, and of that, the lifecycle of your average piece of wood in a structure is nothing compared to a tree left standing in the forest, even after a high intensity fire. This article, while apparently well intentioned, unfortunately creates more confusion about the role Oregon's forests can provide for carbon sequestration and climate change resiliency.
Hi Kevin. This article repeats numerous debunked talking points developed the timber industry to confuse the role logging plays in climate change. The wood products industry creates much higher carbon emissions than forest fires. Logging and replanting forests does not remove more carbon from the atmosphere than leaving trees to grow (here is a great short video from PBS explaining this by Dr Bev Law from Oregon State University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDdKOmvIKyg). Fun fact, it takes 30 years for a forest in Oregon to return to sequestration after logging. And the notion that logging "locks up" carbon misses the fact that only a small percentage of a harvested tree ends up in a building, and of that, the lifecycle of your average piece of wood in a structure is nothing compared to a tree left standing in the forest, even after a high intensity fire. This article, while apparently well intentioned, unfortunately creates more confusion about the role Oregon's forests can provide for carbon sequestration and climate change resiliency.
Tried to leave a comment, but 360 seems to have erased it. This Estep commentary contains multiple factual misstatements and misinterpretations.