By George Wuerthner, Livingston
Gifford Pinchot, first chief of the U.S. Forest Service, often said: “Conservation is the foresighted utilization, preservation and/or renewal of forests, waters, lands and minerals for the greatest good of the greatest number for the longest time.” It has become the agency’s motto.
Yet in the age of climate change, the Forest Service has failed to reevaluate what exactly constitutes the greatest good for society. One of the most significant costs to society resulting from Forest Service thinning and logging practices is the loss of carbon storage.
Forests are among our best and most passive means of keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. Primary forests store 30-70% more carbon than logged forests. Logging and thinning along with wood product production, contribute to 35% of the carbon emissions in Oregon, even topping transportation, which is 23%.
The percentage in other western states with less logging might not be so skewed towards logging emissions, but the general principle still applies—thinning and logging are reducing carbon storage.
Across the West, most carbon emissions (66%) results from logging, while wildfires contribute to about 15% of CO2 releases. Proponents of logging like to suggest that using wood products for houses stores carbon, however, only 16% of the original carbon in a harvested tree ends up in some wood product.
Plus, many wood products like wooden pallets, paper, and cardboard have a noticeably short shelf life. Thus, thinning and logging a forest guarantees immediate carbon loss and release into the atmosphere.
Ironically much of the Forest Service timber program is justified in the name of precluding wildfires. Yet nearly all massive wildfires are driven by drought, low humidity, high temperatures, and winds, not fuels.
And all these variables are increased by climate change. Logging the forest exacerbates and contributes to the factors that drive large wildfires. Even though wildfires do release some carbon, most carbon remains on site.
What burns in a forest fire are the fine fuels—needles, small branches, and shrubs, not trees. That is why you have snags after a fire. The bulk of all carbon in a tree is in the bole and roots, which remain after a fire and continue to store carbon. Any charcoal that results from a fire is a long-term carbon storage mechanism, that can hold carbon for thousands of years.
The economic value to society of keeping carbon in the forest vastly exceeds any financial return on wood products. Unfortunately, when the Forest Service does any economic analysis, it typically ignores or minimizes the non-monetary values. If we were to manage forests for their highest economic value, we would prioritize their ability to store carbon, not to mention other positive outcomes like preserving wildlife habitat, watershed protection, and scenic values.
The Forest Service timber practices are made more egregious because it loses money on nearly all logging projects. So, in addition to the environmental degradation to forest ecosystems resulting from logging, we also reduce the opportunity to preserve carbon in our forests. Given today’s realities, the greatest good for society is to leave natural forests intact.
George Wuerthner is an ecologist who has published several books on wildfire ecology including “Wildfire: A Century of Failed Forest Policy.”