ALERT UPDATE *********************************************** FOREST CONSERVATION NEWS TODAY Untouched Natural Forests Store Three Times More Carbon *********************************************** Forests.org and Climate Ark projects of Ecological Internet, Inc. http://www.climateark.org/ -- Climate Ark, Climate Change Portal http://forests.org/ -- Forests.org
August 4, 2008 OVERVIEW & COMMENTARY by Dr. Glen Barry, Ecological Internet An important new Australian study finds that "untouched natural forests store three times more carbon dioxide than previously estimated and 60 percent more than plantation forests" and that first-time "logging resulted in more than a 40 percent reduction in long-term carbon compared with unlogged forests." They conclude that "in Australia and probably globally the carbon carrying capacity of natural forests is underestimated and therefore misrepresented in economic valuations and in policy options." This resoundingly confirms Ecological Internet's forest campaign's key principle: sustaining intact ancient primary forests, by virtue of their holding of carbon and species, is a requirement for global ecological sustainability. This Earth Action Network's shared commitment to ending ancient primary and old-growth forest logging has been validated by the emerging ecological science. And we hope this motivates you to continue taking action at http://www.ecoearth.info/alerts/ and to participate regularly in future email protest campaigns. What does this mean for the forest and climate protection movement? It means if you -- like Greenpeace and WWF -- support first-time Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) industrial logging of ancient, primary forests and establishment of mono- culture plantations that replace regenerating natural forests; you are aiding and abetting the destruction of the Earth's climate and biodiversity. It means that if you are working for avoided deforestation and forests' inclusion in carbon markets, and not specifying payments will be made only for strict forest protections and not for first-time industrial management, you are failing both the climate and ancient forests. Or if you work to set-up a carbon market while you allow your own ancient forests to be logged -- as Australia does -- you will not succeed in reducing emissions. Each of these activities has been the target of recent Ecological Internet campaigns. Or perhaps most troublingly, if like Rainforest Action Network and ForestEthics, you continually negotiate away large primary forests to industrial forestry for vague promises of protection elsewhere -- as was done in Canada's Great Bear Rainforest and most recently with the sell-out of 50% of Ontario's Boreal forests -- you are greenwashing the destruction of the Earth and all her life. Years after the Great Bear sell-out, senior RAN management thought they had achieved FSC certification, when in fact it was just vague promises of "ecosystem based management". Such ecological ignorance cannot be tolerated by these self-appointed representatives of ancient forests and the Earth. The era of first-time industrial logging of ancient primary forests is over. This is the motivation of our most recent Clayoquot Sound alert at: http://forests.org/shared/alerts/send.aspx?id=canada_clayoquot_logging There 93% of Vancouver Island's ancient primary temperate rainforests have been destroyed, yet FSC apologists such as EcoTrust and ForestEthics work for "certified logging" of the rest, which we now know releases huge amounts of carbon. Most of the mainstream and even "radical" environmental movement simply have their ecological science wrong. They have falsely accepted the comforting yet unproven notion that achieving environmentally advantageous industrial forest management in primary forests is possible, and is a better climate and forest conservation campaign strategy than working for full, complete protection of all remaining primary forests from industrial forestry. Ecological Internet has concluded quite the opposite -- that it is better to work for what is needed and sufficient, even if we risk failure, than to accept what is insufficient and actually enables the ecological damage, even if achieved. As the science continues to crystallize that all industrial logging of primary forests releases huge amounts of carbon and thus the purported environmental benefits are a myth, Ecological Internet will continue our campaign targeting FSC logging apologists including those previously named. Their putrid efforts to legitimize continued ancient forest logging is shameful -- particularly in the face of impassioned yet reasoned, ecological science based opposition -- and they must stop, and work to end ancient forest logging while restoring natural forests with old-growth characteristics. Or they are the forest and climate crises. We expect those in the environmental movement that support FSC certified logging to immediately respond to the ecological science, and justify their continued apologist behavior for loss of primary forests, and its impact upon climate. Failure to do so will mean continued campaigns including disruption of the forest liars' self-congratulatory campaigns and events. g.b. TO COMMENT: http://forests.org/blog/2008/08/untouched-natural-forests-stor.asp ******************************* RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE: Title: Untouched forests store 3 times more carbon- study Source: Copyright 2008, Reuters Date: August 4, 2008 Byline: Michael Perry Untouched natural forests store three times more carbon dioxide than previously estimated and 60 percent more than plantation forests, said a new Australian study of "green carbon" and its role in climate change. Green carbon occurs in natural forests, brown carbon is found in industrialised forests or plantations, grey carbon in fossil fuels and blue carbon in oceans. Australian National University (ANU) scientists said that the role of untouched forests, and their biomass of green carbon, had been underestimated in the fight against global warming. The scientists said the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Kyoto Protocol did not distinguish between the carbon capacity of plantation forests and untouched forests. Yet untouched forests can carry three times the carbon presently estimated, if their biomass of carbon stock was included, said the ANU report released on Tuesday. Currently, forest carbon storage capacity is based on plantation forest estimates. The report "Green Carbon, the role of natural forests in carbon storage" said a difference in the definition of a forest was also underestimating the carbon stock in old-growth forests. The IPCC defines a forest as trees taller than 2 metres (six feet) and a canopy cover greater than 10 percent, but in Australia a forest was defined as having trees taller than 10 metres (33 feet) and a canopy cover greater than 30 percent. The report said southeast Australia's unlogged forests could store about 640 tonnes per hectare (1,600 tonnes per acre), yet the IPCC estimate put it at only around 217 tonnes of carbon per hectare. The scientists estimated that around 9.3 billion tonnes of carbon can be stored in the 14.5 million hectares of eucalypt forests in southeast Australia if they are left undisturbed. The IPCC estimates only one third of this capacity and only 27 percent of the forests' biomass carbon stock. "MORE RESILIENT" Not only did natural forests store more carbon but because they remained untouched, they stored the carbon for longer than plantation forests which were cut down on a rotation basis. The report found that "natural forests are more resilient to climate change and disturbances than plantations". Co-author of the report Brendan Mackey said protecting natural forests served two purposes: it maintained a large carbon sink and stopped the release of the forest's stored carbon. "Protecting the carbon in natural forests is preventing an additional emission of carbon from what we get from burning fossil fuel," Mackey told Reuters. The carbon stored in the world's biomass and soil was approximately three times the amount in the atmosphere, said the report. About 35 percent of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a result of past deforestation and 18 percent of annual global emissions is from continued deforestation. The report said logging resulted in more than a 40 percent reduction in long-term carbon compared with unlogged forests. "The majority of biomass carbon in natural forests resides in the woody biomass of large old trees. Commercial logging changes the age structure of forests so that the average age of trees is much younger," it said. "The carbon stock of forests subject to commercial logging, and of monoculture plantations in particular, will therefore always be significantly less on average than the carbon stock of natural, undisturbed forests." The scientists said preventing further deforestation of southeast Australia's eucalypt forests was the equivalent of preventing emissions of 460 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year for the next 100 years. Allowing logged forests to regrow to their natural carbon storage capacity would avoid emissions of 136 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year for the next 100 years -- about 25 percent of Australia's total emissions in 2005. "In Australia and probably globally the carbon carrying capacity of natural forests is underestimated and therefore misrepresented in economic valuations and in policy options," said the report. --- You are subscribed to ecological_internet as [EMAIL PROTECTED] Before unsubscribing, please consider modifying your list profile at: http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/subscribe/[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or click here: http://email.ecoearth.info:81/u?id=84041H&n=T&c=F&l=ecological_internet To subscribe visit: http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/subscribe/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
