Re: Important article on logging and Carbon storage

[Joseph Zorzin]

I'm sure by now you've all read that report by Bill Keeton and Jared Nunery. In Chris' email below he quotes that report which says "that reserve-based approaches will have significant carbon storage value". That they will store 39 to 118% more than any sort of management.

 

Thinking about that got me thinking about our discussion of values early in this vision process.

 

For Chapter 61 lands, the state has come up with dollar values for managed forests. The claim is that forests west of the CT River are "worth" as "productive woodland" an average $98/acre. East of the river the value is $67, on average. (I don't agree with the logic and conclusions that the state came up with but that's for another day).

 

So, if the state can come up with the value of forest for management purposes for Chapter 61, I'd like to see what the state thinks an acre of reserves is worth. Presumably, the value of state forest land for mgt. has similar values as for  Ch. 61.

 

Then we'd have to conclude that after assigning a certain number of acres for reserves, the "marginal value" of the next acre for reserves drops below the value of the land for silvicultural purposes.

 

Yet, if and when the state buys more land - much of which will probably be put into reserves if the promises are real- they'll certainly be paying thousands of dollars per acre.

 

In conclusion, the state .... er, uh... no, the TSC has concluded that over 100,000 acres are more valuable as woodland than reserves- and we know that woodland is only worth from $67 to $98 per acre as woodland- but the state will in the future pay thousands of dollars per acre to get more reserves- when they could get more reserves right now at a fraction of the cost- all the while most private land is not managed.

 

As the human population on this planet continues to go soar- and much/most existing forest gets hammered and or destroyed- and the climate deteriorates further- the value of reserves for carbon sequestration will continue to go up and probably very rapidly. A visionary paradigm change for the "management" of state lands should be that almost all of it be in reserves in the interest of humanity and the health of the entire planet. Doing this will not shortchange the wood industry since there are millions of acres of unmanaged forest right here in this state.

 

I fully understand that everything government does is about politics which means "balancing" the special interests- but doing so should not give it a claim that its work is visionary and a paradigm change unless it really is.

 

The TSC report is all about special interest balance and not about science, vision or paradigms.

 

Joe

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Joseph Zorzin

To: TSC ; ForestFutur...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:01 PM

Subject: Fw: Important article on logging and Carbon storage

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Chris Matera

To: Chris

Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:17 PM

Subject: Important article on logging and Carbon storage

At the following link is a just released article on logging and carbon storage in forests from the University of Vermont.

 

http://www.maforests.org/Keeton.pdf

 

As common sense would suggest and that which the report confirms...

 

1.  No logging will produce the most carbon sequestration

2.  The next best option is single tree selective logging

3.  The worst carbon storage option is clearcutting

 

See figure 3 on page 8 for comparisons of different management regimes.....

 

According to the report:

 

"even with consideration of Carbon sequestered in harvested wood products, unmanaged northern hardwood forests will sequester 39 to 118% more C than any of the active management options evaluated. This finding suggests that reserve-based approaches will have significant Carbon storage value.”

Chris

 

Massachusetts Forest Watch
www.maforests.org
www.maforests.org/Biomess.ppt
413-341-3878
Speak Up For The Trees!

[Joseph Zorzin]

yes Fred, I understand- but those are the numbers that used AS IF THEY REPRESENT THE VALUES for the purposes of Chapter 61- of course they don't represent the true values for mgt. purposes because the true values have a tremendous diversity- and separating them by the CT Rivers is absurd- much of the higher ground in the Berkshires is far less valuable for forest mgt. purposes than the average pine/oak stands in central/eastern MA

 

likewise, determining a value of land for reserves is also an abstraction

 

it's all abstract- if it wasn't this would be a lot easier

 

ergo, I'm not mixing concepts

 

and, no visionary change is science, by definition- it's not about science, it's not about politics- it's about vision, a subject not well understood...

 

Joe

----- Original Message -----

From: Fred Heyes

To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com ; 'TSC'

Cc: 'David Cash' ; 'Rick Sullivan'

Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:03 PM

Subject: RE: Important article on logging and Carbon storage

Joe,

 

I am involved in working up the woodland values for chapterland.

that is not the value of the land, joe.

 

it is an extractive number based on the growth per acre per year capitalized....

 

you are mixing concepts....

 

your visionary change is not science either....

 

 

fred

---

From: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forestfutur...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Zorzin
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 12:18 PM
To: ForestFutur...@googlegroups.com; TSC
Cc: David Cash; Rick Sullivan
Subject: Re: Important article on logging and Carbon storage

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2675 - Release Date: 02/11/10 07:35:00

[Joseph Zorzin]

yes Fred, I understand- I'm way ahead of you Fred- and I did take forestry economics in forestry school, did you? (and I got an "A" in it too)

Joe

----- Original Message -----

From: Fred Heyes

To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com ; 'TSC'

Cc: 'David Cash' ; 'Rick Sullivan'

Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:30 PM

Subject: RE: Important article on logging and Carbon storage

joe,

they do not represent land value.

they represent the recommended assessed value for a production based statute.

 

fred

 

 

---

From: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com [mailto:forestfutur...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Joseph Zorzin

Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 1:13 PM

To: forestfutur...@googlegroups.com; 'TSC'
Cc: 'David Cash'; 'Rick Sullivan'