@Dave, thanks for sharing this information, but I am wondering how much of the growth in carbon stocks on private lands is on non-industrial vs. industrial timberlands? There are lots of family forest landowners who take a very light touch – and many of these forests have been growing back in areas that were previously cleared for farming.
For example, in slide 12 of this presentation, Ecotrust’s David Diaz shows growth in carbon stocks on non-industry private lands in western Washington but not on industry lands, where they stayed flat. Note also that most of the growth was on federal public lands where there has been relatively little logging since the NW Forest Plan was put in place.
This presentation is one of the videos on the Knowledge Hub.
I also wonder how much of the % gains in carbon stocking on private vs. National Forests are due to the fact that carbon stocks on the latter are relatively stable – and high – because of less logging, while stocks are growing on private lands from levels that started lower because the forests were younger on average.
With statistics as with everything else, it seems like the devil is always in the details.
The bottom line for me is that however well or poorly private lands in the U.S. are being managed, we should be aiming higher given the gravity of the climate crisis and the need to remove as much carbon (and avoid as many new emissions) as possible. This is also why we need forest restoration – and also to protect the high carbon stocks in primary forests while allowing stocks to grow quickly through proforestation in some secondary forests to which protections should also be extended.
I believe we can do this while continuing to produce sufficient quantities of wood and fiber to meet society’s needs, and unless I’m mistaken, I think there is existing and forthcoming research that supports this view.
Except for the last point, which would be challenged in some circles, these views are shared across a significant swath of the environmental community – including the forest activists most opposed to the promotion of mass timber as a climate solution – not to mention some eminent scientists – and are elaborated in several videos and papers on the Knowledge Hub, including my own. For us, they are integral to the current draft of the Vision and crucial components of any future versions.