Flying Finns
Posted May 21, 2009
Today, the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, chaired by California Democrat, Henry Waxman, rejected Oregon Congressman Greg Walden's attempt to amend so-called "Carbon Cap-and-Trade" legislation to include woody biomass removed from dead and dying federal forests.
On Senator Waxman's planet, biomass removed from federal lands is somehow inferior to that which is removed from other privately-owned forests. It thus does not qualify for the same federal incentives our government intends to offer to wind, solar and other renewable fuels.
This is just crazy.
Let's get serious here for a moment. The presumed goal of cap and trade legislation is to create a viable market for atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions, which are said to be the chief cause of climate change, aka, global warming.
Never mind that hundreds of climate scientists do not believe there is a link between rising CO2 levels and our warming planet. But for the moment, let's assume that rising CO2 levels are the principle reason why our planet is warming.
But wait; to make this leap of faith, we have to ignore a growing body of scientific data suggesting that our planet is actually entering a cooling period. The truth be told, these warming and cooling cycles are readily traceable through time using a wide variety of scientific tools.
But again, forget the fact that there is no scientific consensus as to whether our planet is warming or cooling or the reasons why. For the sake of discussion, let's just assume the planet is warming and rising atmospheric CO2 emissions are the main reason.
If these assumptions are true, why on earth would the House Energy and Commerce Committee want to exclude skyrocketing carbon emissions from federal forests from its proposed legislation? Silly me, I would think Congressman Waxman and his committee members would want to lead by example by first dealing with the underlying causes of rising carbon emissions from the public's forests.
The facts here are pretty difficult to sweep under the rug, try as Congressman Waxman's committee has.
Fact 1: Over the last 20 years, more than 105 million acres of U.S. forestland - that's more than 164,000 square miles - have been destroyed by wildfires. Why so much fire? Because our federal forests aren't getting the care they need.
And why aren't they getting the care they need? Because Congressman Waxman and his committee members have made yet another leap of faith for which there is no scientific evidence. They have assumed that if we leave the public's forests to nature, nature will take good care of them. This is bunk. Nature is indifferent to human need. If we want good things from our forests, like clean air and water, plus abundant fish and wildlife habitat and places to play year-round, there is only way to get them - and that is to first care for our forests, just as we would a vegetable garden. If we don't do weed the place pretty regularly, the weeds take over. It's that simple.
Fact 2: It has long been known that forests and the wood they produce are terrific carbon sinks, meaning that they are capable of storing carbon for hundreds of years. They do this through a natural process called photosynthesis which converts carbon dioxide into wood, a process that is miraculously driven by the free non-polluting energy of the sun.
Trees can store carbon in their wood long after they die, but as they age their ability to absorb new atmospheric carbon dioxide diminishes. This isn't to suggest big, old trees lose their environmental value. Far from it. They continue to reseed forests for as long as they live, to say nothing of the more intrinsic pleasures they provide for all of us.
Fact 3: The wildfire problem we have isn't with the old trees that are no longer the wonderful carbon sinks they once were. The problem is with the millions of new trees that are choking the life out of the old trees. You can see this problem is spades all over the west: millions of acres of public forestland that have grown so thick that neither man nor beast can walk through them.
These thickets - an excellent source of woody biomass energy - are fueling the most destructive wildfires our nation has ever seen, destroying the very forests we ought to be caring for, and annually adding billions of tons of carbon and other more toxic chemicals to our atmosphere.
Wouldn't it be much better if we had a federal forest policy in place that fueled biomass power plants instead of forest fires? Most Americans think so, but in Henry Waxman's America what most folks think apparently does not matter. I suspect that he thinks we are all too stupid to know what's best for our publicly-owned forests.
But I'll hazard a guess that most ordinary Americans think it makes a lot more sense to thin out these forests before disease and fire overtake them. Fortunately, the harvesting and wood processing infrastructure that is needed to do this good work is already in place in every western community that still has an operating sawmill and a few properly equipped loggers. The only missing ingredient is congressional will.
Fact 4: Environmental groups are deeply divided on the question of what to do about death and destruction in the nation's federal forests. Inside-the-Beltway hardliners favor letting nature take its course - meaning allowing the West's dead and dying forests to burn to the ground. They've taken this untenable position because what they fear more than anything else is that what is left of the West's timber industry will somehow find a way to rekindle the old federal timber sale program.
I seriously doubt this will ever happen. There is no public support for an ambitious timber harvesting program in national forests. Moreover, western sawmills that were once totally dependent on federal timber are no longer so dependent. Their owners have resized and retooled their mills to fit today's political realities, including the fact that the old federal timber sale program, with its focus on liquidating old forests, is gone for good.
But there are sawmilling companies still operating in the West that would be willing to invest their capital in a new government-sponsored program designed to reduce forest density in western federal forests. These companies, all of them family-owned, bring a wealth of experience and know-how to the table - knowledge that I would think our federal government would want to embrace as it struggles with the realities of public forests on the brink of ecological collapse.
The work that needs to be done could be both self-supporting [no federal subsidies needed] and perpetual - perpetual because forests continue to grow. In fact, thinning promotes growth in residual trees - meaning that the trees that are left behind will grow larger as time passes. But you have to maintain what foresters call "age class diversity," because if you don't you eventually lose your whole forest. Imagine a community in which everyone is 90 years old. What happens when the last person dies?
A great many western environmental organizations understand very well what is happening in the West's federal forests, which is why they are quietly attempting to convince the U.S. Senate that Mr. Waxman and his colleagues have made a very reckless decision that has no basis in science, to say nothing of its social and economic failings. The hope is to find sufficient bipartisan support in the world's greatest deliberative body to include federal woody biomass in the new energy standard.
I wish them well. We who live on the periphery of these once spectacular forests - and love them for many different reasons - are absolutely dumbfounded by Mr. Waxman's callous disregard for our environment; to say nothing of his having completely ignored the renewable energy potential dead and dying western federal forests hold.
We can only hope that the U.S. Senate will take a much more thoughtful approach at this problem and its solution. If we are serious about reducing carbon emissions from federal lands, while also significantly increasing their carbon storage capacity, federal biomass needs to be included in the government's new renewable energy portfolio.
_____________________________
To learn more about the ecological crisis unfolding in western federal forests, review the following "Best of Evergreen" reports:
"The Truth About America's Forests," Chart 4, a U.S. Forest Service map of forests and wildfire risks coast to coast. Note the definitions for forests in Condition Class 2 and 3.
"The New Pioneers," Summer 2002, contains many before and after photographs showing the results of thinning in Southwest forests. The issue tells the fascinating story of entrepreneurs who are trying to develop markets for small diameter trees that are being thinned from the regions at-risk federal forests.
"Should We Let Diseased National Forests Die and Burn?" Winter 2000
"Time Is Running Out for Southwest Forests," May 2003
"Siskiyou Showdown," July 2004
"What the Devil is Our Government's Forest Management Objective?" August 2003
Also, in our "Guest Columns" section, Mike Dubrasich's passionate and continuing series on our national forests and the necessity of management is must reading. So,too, are Jim Doran's columns. A credentialed environmentalist, Mr. Doran is passionate about restoration forestry and the necessity of thinning in overstocked and dying forests.
Finally, be sure to read Jim Petersen's most recent speech, "When You Are Up To Your Armpits In Elephants", posted in Speeches.
human need to use natural resources is fundamental to our continued presence on earth."