Studies Foresee Dilemma Over Forest Carbon Storage

Comment

Posted: July 8, 2009

The study suggested that forests where carbon storage is the primary purpose should not be thinned over the next 100 years.

"If we have to protect housing and infrastructures, by all means do (thinning). It isn't about carbon stores," Harmon said.

One way to reduce the carbon gap is to use the trees and brush thinned out of forests as biofuel to produce energy, but it would take decades to make up the difference, because trees burned as biofuel produce one-third the energy of fossil fuels for an equal amount of carbon released, Harmon said.

Comment

Carbon storage after fire

An article by Kashian et.al. (2006 Bioscience 56:598-606) shows a trend for carbon storage after fire much different than stated by Harmon. The authors estimate that forests in the Yellowstone ecosystem produced a net loss of C to the atmosphere for 40 years following the 1988 fires. Even after becoming a net sink for C, they estimate it will take the forests 200+ years to gain back all the C lost during the fire and the following 40 years.
It's true that fires do not consume forests, but they do kill them; and after death comes decay and carbon release to the atmosphere. When assessing carbon payoff for an investment in fire prevention, you must look at a long timeframe and consider carbon losses after the fire.

Bruce Meneghin of CO @ Jul 10, 2009 12:37:49 PM

Add Your Thoughts Title Comment 3000 characters left

About You Name Email State