Thanks for the Laughter

This was an open letter to Hon. David Ramsay in March 2007.  ABSTRACT or point of this whole letter:

According to current IPCC 2003 methodology, emissions from forest management comprise all the C02 contained in harvested roundwood and harvest residues.  All carbon transferred out of managed forests as wood products is deemed an immediate emission."

Now read the whole:

ONTARIO LOGGERS SUPPORTED BY RAMSAY

Wednesday, March 14, 2007 (CP) Toronto: David Ramsay - "We have a vast region of nothing with as few trucks running and a few harvesters in the bush, it's not an issue at all....You're talking about a few machines in hundreds of thousands of square mile surrounded by vigorous growing trees that suck up carbon dioxide."

These were comments made following publication of "Robbing the Carbon Bank: Global Warming and Ontario's Forests" by ForestEthics, March 13, 2007.

What's to clarify, Sir? I know and  now likely you do too, that ForestEthics did not mean a few machines in the bush.  You knocked the old growth pins right out from under them with that statement - vigorous growing trees that suck up carbon dioxide.

That's just what the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy - Boreal Futures: Governance, Conservation and Development in Canada's Boreal, said in, and I quote from Section 2,2 "Boreal ecosystems can act as a carbon sink because of the potential for forests (particularly younger trees) to sequester to take up carbon in their above and below ground biomass and soils. ...the Boreal also has the potential to become a major source of GHF's, as the result of larger more frequent fires, infestations and tree-kill by pests, and loss of peatlands." End quote.  Since living peatlands are a major source of the Greenhouse Gas Methane, I am not sure why they have included the loss of them unless they're burning.  Global warming thawing peatlands in the Arctic and Siberia has restarted their Methane production.

I'll give you a quote from magazine.audubon.org/features0509/forests.html this could be what ForestEthics was alluding to:  "A degraded boreal loses its carbon sequestration ability , too.  Logging obviously decreases carbon-sucking biomass in the form of trees; in the boreal, clearcuts also allow sunlight to kill off the ground cover of mosses and lichens, spurring soil decomposition and releasing enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere." End quote.  The same article sites McGill University's School of Environment studies showing 150 billion tons of carbon in our peatlands, equal to 500 years of our GHG emissions.  Hey, and that only tool eight to ten thousand years to do.

Our Northern Ontario forests don't live forever and won't live forever. But, if you cut them they will grow back sequestering carbon for another fifty to a hundred years before they become too old and remain carbon neutral until they rot or burn.  If you cut them you hold that multi ton of carbon sequestered in your wood/paper product until it rots or burns.  I don't believe ForestEthics considers the carbon storage in wood and wood products/paper when a tree is cut.  They do not see the potential for cutting and storing a carbon sink in our homes of wood and our libraries of paper.  They don't want us using wood/paper at all from our growing forests.  They want to keep the half dead old growth that is not breathing any more in place of robust young growth that is the true home to the migratory birds and the operating carbon sink.

OUR LOGGERS HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY CANADA

The following day, March 15, 2007 I downloaded and read the complete report , "Robbing the Carbon Bank..." I was right when I thought ForestEthics did not believe in Carbon sequestering in wood/paper products.  I was wrong in considering it their idea.

The footnote (26) clearly places it in the laps of Kurtz and Apps, 2006; Developing Canada's National Forest Carbon Monitoring Accounting and Reporting System to Meet the Reporting Requirements of the Kyoto Protocol." Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. "UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reporting requirements for the first commitment period assume that the carbon contained in harvested wood products is at a steady state and that additions merely replace losses from existing carbon stocks.  For the first commitment period, and in accordance with the reporting guidelines, it is assumed that carbon in harvested biomass is released when the trees are removed from the ecosystem." (26) end quote.

Assumed?  Make Believe!

Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol stipulates that countries identify those areas affected by afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, and then quantify the carbon stock changes (and non-C02 emissions) on these areas during five-year commitment periods. (2008-2012) Article 3.4 of the K.P. states those countries that include forest management in their accounts must identify the areas subject to forest management since 1990 and then account for the C stock changes (and non-C02 emissions) on these areas during the commitment periods.

OUR LOGGERS HAVE BEEN BETRAYED BY ENVIRONMENT CANADA.

Environment Canada, 2006, National Inventory Report: Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada 1990-2004.  Submission to the United Framework Convention on Climate Change, April 2006: Logging in Canada...According to current IPCC 2003 methodology, emissions from forest management comprise all the C02 contained in harvested roundwood and harvest residues.  All carbon transferred out of managed forests as wood products is deemed an immediate emission."

Deemed is not a scientific statement.

In 2005-2006 at least 44 mills closed across Canada. Those mills yearly produced one million, one hundred and seventeen thousand, one hundred and fifty MBF (million board feet) of lumber, and two million, six hundred and seventy-five thousand Tons of pulp and paper. Together with our operating mills we manufactured: doors and window frames; framing products; prefabricated buildings; mobile homes; softwood lumber; newsprint; wood pulp; wood panels, waferboard, plywood, fibreboard, veneer, particleboard; other paper and paperboard.  I submit you will find very few carbon atoms orbiting earth from these products today.  Certainly not the 19.5 tonnes of carbon per hectare logged deemed an immediate emission.  I live in a house of wood.  I have books in my house published over one hundred years ago. Canada's trailer parks are not as prone to tornado damage as their U.S.A. counterparts.  The national and international denial of the sequestering of carbon in wood and wood products by the Kyoto Accord must be revisited.

We, as Canadians, should DEMAND that  our government provide true accounting of our forestry carbon releases, or, like our estimated hydro bills, we can not divine our true usage.

If we, as Canadians, are going to be lumped with carbon taxes, we should DEMAND that true scientific accounting be done for those products or we will end up like our Ontario Hydro bill - paying for imaginary hydro lost in transmission.

We, as Canadians, should DEMAND that our industries be allowed to buy and sell Canadian carbon emission credits...not be forced to use international credits thus removing money from our economy.

ALL ONTARIO FORESTRY OPERATIONS CONTINUE TO BE HARASSED BY FORESTETHICS

March 13, 2007: ForestEthics recommends Ontario freeze new logging operations until a forest protection plan is in place.

University of Ottawa professor of Environmental Law vets report: " This does not mean we should stop cutting our forests, " he says.

(Sure could have fooled me. This freeze recommendation comes as annual work schedules expire March 31st and new work schedules come into place April 1st. All logging operations are really new operations every day.)

March 13, 2007: ForestEthics recommends Ontario reduce the area harvested.

University of Ottawa professor of Environmental Law vets report:  "We need wood.  But we should get more use out of the trees we cut," he says.

(I see that old slogan, Less is More, is getting recycled.)

March 13, 2007: ForestEthics recommends Ontario require logging practices that reduce damage to remaining trees and soil.

University of Ottawa professor of Environmental Law vets report: "Forest loss is about one-quarter of the climate change problem, " he says.

(The person who made up that recommendation sure is out of touch with our forest practices that have been enforced for decades. This is likely their way of going gung-ho for soil carbon sequestering.)

March 13, 2007: ForestEthics recommends Ontario promote recycling and use of alternative fibres to decrease demand for virgin timber.

(Well, Red Rock tried recycling and that mill closed and is now being scrapped in 2011.)