Carbon sequestration in Old growth vs 2nd growth/successive forests

[amdcpus]

https://www.sfgate.com/california-news/article/norcal-jackson-forest-redwood-logging-controversy-16530191.php

Dr. Steve Sillett brought up a good point in here that I did not think of; that while it's possible some 2nd growth forests can be growing more biomass each year than old growth, that heartwood development per year is far greater in old growth than in younger forests. Obviously heartwood is far more decay resistant than sapwood and thus will sequester carbon for much longer. Though there is also the question of the end use of lumber products, as sapwood in finished lumber products can last for centuries depending on the use case.

[MikeK]

This is funny you mention this because I just got an ad a week or so ago for this company:

https://www.foreverredwood.com/about/about-us

I only read about them minimally, but from what I can gather their business model seems to somewhat follow your last statement. I can't quite figure if it's BS or what. I'm not that close to Redwood forests.

[amdcpus]

Read quite a few articles on their site, seems like they truly care about sustainability and restoration of the forest. Most of their products appear to be outdoor based, like pagodas, pavilions and benches, which likely don't last nearly as long as indoor lumber products like walls or dining tables. Of course on the other hand, humans often dispose of just about anything far before its utility has been even close to extinguished. Logging will always be a large (and necessary) industry given that it's essentially free valuable resources, with the only true required input being time; seeing it managed in a minimally environmentally destructive and even perhaps beneficial way is good to see. The Rajala family in Minnesota is another timberland owner that seems to try and do what is right over immediate maximum profits: https://www.mprnews.org/story/2022/11/22/bringing-back-the-white-pine-a-foundational-american-tree

The founder of Forever Redwoods wrote a manual that essentially serves as their guiding principles, which I plan on reading: https://www.foreverredwood.com/media/pdf/restoration-forestry-and-global-cooling-manual.pdf

[MikeK]

Thanks for looking into that. I was quite skeptical, and often dismiss this kind of thing as a means to exploit rare trees while selling the tag of sustainability. In a sense, I still feel that way. I don't own any redwood product and I wouldn't buy any.

In fact, when I think about it, I don't have much need to buy any large scale timber products. My house was built in 1960 and I have no plans to renovate it or add on in such a way as to use any significant amount of lumber. I don't own any exotic wood furniture, and what I have that is wood I plan to keep in service for some time. I do own a very small bit of rare wood (mahogany) in guitars, but there are so many guitars already produced, buying new is not really on my radar for rare wood.

Sustainability, to me, means more than just how the wood was harvested, although that's a big deal. There are certain species, that to me, are too rare and have been historically over-harvested that I wouldn't buy unless they were used.


Not to drift you too much here - but if you want to look into another rather current travesty (that I personally just learned about), look into the harvesting of southern swamp woods to fuel former coal plants with wood pellets in Europe (and small parts of the US). This was, of course, all wrapped up being "green" and received significant government incentives by doing so. But really all it did was destroy a number of delicate ecosystems and add more carbon to the atmosphere.

[amdcpus]

I read his manual and was quite impressed, he really does seem to place a large emphasis on restoration of the significantly degraded land and forests from past logging. He emphasizes the importance of leaving snags, dead material and biomass from thinnings, stabilizations of eroded slopes and streams with strategic plantings, no use of herbicides/pesticides/fungicides or gasoline to kill competing vegetation, minimal use of heavy machinery, 15 year harvest intervals of significantly less lumber than the stand growth in that timeframe, leaving specific trees at a rate of approximately 5 per acre which will never be logged etc. The manual is written from a forestry/timber business based lens, which is the target audience. He talks often of the economics behind it and gives clear examples from his own experiences with hard numbers, which is quite uncommon in the business world. It's quite clear, and he acknowledges it as well, that it simply isn't feasible on the scale of large timberland companies, such as Weyerhauser. The amount of effort and money expended in the short term is far too much and the long term increase in economic benefit is simply not great enough to justify the additional investment. He recognizes this and makes it clear that one must have desires other than simply maximum financial return.

I've heard of those biomass facilities, from my understanding the only way they can operate is with enormous government "green energy" subsidies/payments. Doesn't make exceedingly logical sense to me.