Dogwood Alliance

You will probably delete this comment because of its validity and sound foundation in science. However, should one person read this and be enlightened, I will consider my efforts here to be not totally in vain.
Firstly I would like to express my appreciation for the underlying reason the Dogwood Alliance exists. I too am a lover of nature and I believe in practicing an sustainable, symbiotic approach to our co-exisence with, and as a part of, this amazing planet.
Secondly, I agree that GHGs comprise a problematic part of a situation created by man that must be repaired by man, lest it be his demise.
Thirdly, and chiefly, propoganda will not achieve the measures we need to accomplish in order to positively impact the environment and this is the result of two factors: 1. Humans are inherently self-centered and will not, as a whole, accept a unilateral mission to improve the earth for the long term when there is an easier short term option for their survival. 2. The points made in this report will only be deemed credible by those lacking even a basic understanding of the paper industry and science.
To illustrate, let me point out a thing or two about "industrial" reforestation versus natural forests:
Natural forests are often times pleasing to the eye.
Natural forests have sequestered much carbon over the years.
Natural forests die - either from natural causes or as a result of human activity.
Upon the death of a natural forest, or naturally grown tree for that matter, the carbon it has locked up is going somewhere - either lumber, paper or the air (if it lies on the ground and rots).
Natural forests typically live long after the productive, fast-growth stage of its member trees.
A tree's carbon-sequestration potential is equal to the current rate of growth of that tree (photosynthesis makes the plant material, keeping carbon and releasing O2 in the process).
Therefore, letting a forest reach "old-growth" stage is doing virtually nothing for the environment except presenting a carbon time bomb.
Planted pines, on the other hand, are done so at a rate of upwards of 600 trees per acre - the most that will allow for rapid growth (maximum carbon-capture) without overcrowding until the trees reach a size that can be utilized by paper/chip mills.
That size usually comes at an age between 12 and 16 years, and subsequent thinnings follow to keep the pines growing with vigor (remember that's what you guys really want!).
When a plantation reaches effective maturity (usually around 30-40) the best thing for the atmosphere is to take the-now-50 trees-per-acre and replace them with 600+ per acre that are in their fast-growth stage of life.

The sources in your press release are incestual and the statements made are generally biased to your agenda (e.g. the reporting of quantities of tons of CO2 that would be sequestered by a forest-acre over the period of 100 years - 220 tons. Why not tell the readers what it would be at 50 years? or 30 years? Is it because those numbers would be 212 tons and 200 tons, respectively? You get my point). The only problem I have with that is that your agenda targets people that are actually helping your proclaimed cause, as I have explained. And therefore your true cause is apparently to keep pretty, old-growth, natural forests from being cut - which, as I stated at the beginning, I don't like to see either, at least not from an emotional perspective. However, you know as well as I do that the oxygen produced by sustainable forest practices is as necessary to your existence as the income you receive from the poor, misguided subscribers to this vindictive tabloid which you use to prey on them by tugging at their heartstrings about all those pretty, innocent trees, offering only part of the truth about southern forestry, and fuelling ill-founded hatred. The followers of the Dogwood Alliance are the real victims. And so are you, if you can't see the forest...you know the rest.
Oh, and $10 says you are a hippy-wuss that won't post this.

-Timber Professional with a functioning brain. We exist. Votes: +1

Kurt,
Your explanation did enlighten me a great deal. I am an English professional; you are a timber professional. While you had two misspelled words, you did a great job getting the point across to me. I excuse your literary errors. I only hope you can extend to me similar leniency in regard to my ignorance. Thank you for your helpful input and best regards. Votes: +0

Hi Kurt,

Well it looks like your owe us $10 because we are planning on leaving your blog post up.

First, I am no climate expert, which is why we hired the experts at Climate for Ideas who produced their report “The Carbon Footprint of two virgin fiber paper packaging mills in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Ecosystem” that forms the basis for our “Sustaining our Defense” report..

Second, we face a climate crisis right now and science tells us we need to reduce our CO2 emission drastically in the next several decades.

At the heart of your comment is your disbelief that older, larger natural forests hold and sequester more carbon than young pine plantations. Certainly planted pines grow more quickly percentage wise than those older forests but in actual terms it is just a fact that the larger slower growing trees pull down more carbon in an absolute sense. A hundred years in the future those old forest may indeed fall over and die, but they will have hopefully helped us get through this climate crisis.

Also, the data shows that intensively managed short rotation plantations are a carbon negative – that is, the repeated short term cycle of planting, harvest, and in this example being turned into virgin fiber bleach board at the local mill emits more CO2 than if that original stand had just been left alone. That’s not just me talking; it is the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Remember also that in this case we are talking about the tons of wood harvested that go directly to the mill while only a small percentage of that tonnage comes out as the final paper product. The remainder of that wood is burned in the process with all that CO2 being released into the atmosphere.

Finally I am not sure why you refer to this website as a vindictive tabloid, but that of course is your prerogative.

P.S. you can just go ahead and send us the $10 by check.

Best,

Andrew
Votes: -1

Andrew, I am not that surprised at your resilience in attacking the paper industry. You obviously hail from a place very different than mine. Have you read all the studies on GHG emmissions/sequestration, or just the ones that start fights? THAT is why I referred to your site as a vindictive tabloid - because you are not reporting a fair and level argument because the truth is not as exciting to read unless it is warped and skewed to portray some ficticious scandal regardless of its misrepresentation of the facts. However, I too am a smartass, so I think we would probably get along fine under a different set of circumstances - as we both seem to have similar senses of humor. The reason I came to the defense of the paper/timber industry is because it was under attack by people who have more of a political agenda than they have a clue about the matter. See Andrew, that alone is what has placed us at odds. But we all know that you could never admit that your sources are biased, or that your data is inadmissable as scientific fact and unsoundly collected and reported, because this is what YOU do. And my defense of what I do included shooting holes in your article, on your site, at your business, where you earn your income to pay your own bills and put food on your own table. For that I do feel some remorse because I may have had some impact on your livelihood. That's what the paper industry is doing as well - providing jobs for families and doing it in a way that is sustainable for the environment as well as creating products that the world needs, not to mention all the children that are helped by the Log-A-Load-For-Kids programs and the countless other scholarships and charities funded by this industry. So before you defend your position, let's make it clear that it comes from a place not familiar with those you are attacking or the nature of the industry and it's interactions with the environment and community that go mostly unseen by passersby and those who read articles like those you post. Lash out all you want and place your hitmen on a pedestal. We both know why you do it and we both know you are hurting the innocent in the process. I would love to debate this further, but I have to walk out of this office and tend to hundreds of thousands of growing trees. You don't have to wear my boots, brush-pants, snake-chaps, and bug spray to make a positive difference. But you either don't know or don't care about the degree of damage you are doing in your loafers. Votes: +1

Kurt... thanks for the dialogue, but clearly we will have to agree to disagree and also think that we should agree to be cordial, which you are close to crossing the line on. I hate to say that you must be reading studies by the seven scientists in the world that are denying or put out false facts about climate change. Study after study is showing that it is real and that protecting and restoring our forests is the best defense we have in the battle against climate change.

I imagine if you see our blog as a tabloid than maybe you should find a new source of amusement or information because clearly you do not agree with us. Our data is admisable, defensable and comes from some of the best available sources, I am afraid you should take a closer look at your sources.

Dogwood Alliance is not interested in taking away jobs, we are interested in a truly sustainable forest industry. As things stand now the industry is taking steps in the right direction but the biggest laggards like International Paper are greatly delaying our progress which puts us all in jeopardy.

Please direct your passion to improving your industry as we could use more passionate folks like yourself improving practices in the forest and stewarding a move to the 21st Century.

Sincerely,

Scot Quaranda Votes: +0

I have read the full report, and am not impressed. Serious reports will document their allegations with peer-reviewed references. You make serious allegations, and continually asssert that "science" is on your side (the "overwhelming scientific consensus" in a post above).

Unfortunately, you fail to provide even one reference, much less a peer-reviewed reference, that supports any of the various allegations you are making. Those of us trained in the sciences expect and demand that allegations be supported by peer-reviewed literature.

Are we supposed to take your word on this? If so, WHY? People who are serious about such issues go to great pains to document what they are saying. That way, if there is a question about a particular issue, the reader can pull up the referenced article and judge for himself or herself the validity of the argument.

I will end noting that you again promote the FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) forest certification system and take swipes at SFI (Sustainable Forestry Initiative). TimesInc. is one of the largest users of paper worldwide and produces a Sustainability Report periodically. Quoting from their most recent report:
"While there is some contention that one standard is better than another, they are more similar that not. Rather than engage in unproductive quibbling about the superiority of one certification system over another, we encourage competition among the standards to drive
innovation and greater acceptance of forest certification globally." The Sustainability Report can be found at the folloiwng site:
http://www.timeinc.com/_assets/Time Inc.SustainabilityReport2009-2010.pdf

Disclaimer: I am a forester and am privileged to work with private landowners on a regular basis. Many of these people have been practicing sustainible forestry for more than 50 years. We live in the Piney Woods, a term coined long before reforestation was considered, and do not consider plantation forestry to be evil or destructive.

Votes: +1

Hi Glenn

It is a little unclear, and I apologize for it, but the Sustaining our Defense report is based on work by Climate for Ideas published in their report "The Carbon Footprint of two virgin fiber paper packaging
mills in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Ecosystem". It is posted on our site at http://www.dogwoodalliance.org...tprint.pdf and contains all of the sources for our data. I will be sure and add that to the report posted on our site to avoid undue confusion.

On the FSC and SFI forest management certification debate, we along with almost entire environmental non-profit community believe that FSC is the gold standard because of its limits on the conversion of natural forests to plantations, limits on clearcutting, protection of conservation values and rejection of genetically modified trees among other reasons.
For more information on that topic please check out http://credibleforestcertification.org/home/ from the Alliance for Credible Forest Certification.

Thanks for your interest.

Andrew Votes: -1

Andrew,

The original post stated: "This morning, in partnership with Climate for Ideas, an environmental research organization based in the UK, Dogwood Alliance released “Sustaining Our Defense: Southern Forests, Carbon, and the Fight Against Global Climate Change.”

The term "in partnership" implies that Dogwood Alliance and Climate for Ideas worked together to produce this report. But apparently not. Upon examining the web site for Climate for Ideas, they do not list Dogwood Alliance or the report in any news release, publication, or client relationship.

So for me and all of us out here, please indicate whether:
1. Dogwood Alliance partnered with Climate for Ideas on this report, or
2. Dogwood Allinace did not partner with Climate for Ideas.

I appreciate you providing the link to the single source you used. I've been unable to review it extensively, but will do so. I am perplexed why we have to go to UK to get a report of this nature on Southern forests. There is plenty of existing literature on the nexus of forests, climate change, and renewable energy. There is considerable discussion within the scientific community on this, and there is no "scientific concensus" considering the many factors involved.

As to forest certification, I believe that SFI has greater support than you indicate. Specific supporters include American Bird Conservancy, The American Chestnut Foundation, American Forests, Bat Conservation International, Inc., The Conservation Fund, Conservation International, Ducks Unlimited, Izaac Walton League of America, National Fisheries Institute, National Tree Trust, The Wildlife Society, the Wildlife Management Institute, and others. A complete list of SFI supporters is available at:
http://www.sfiprogram.org/sustainable-forestry-initiative/list-of-supporters.php Votes: +1

Hi Gregg

All information in Sustaining our Defense is based on the report "The Carbon Footprint of two
virgin fiber paper packaging mills in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Ecosystem" prepared by Climate for Ideas which was released simultaneously. So I would call it a partnership. You certainly might call it something else. But we are not trying to hide anything.

As to why we worked with Climate for Ideas, they are expert in understanding the forest carbon impacts of harvesting techniques using IPCC methodologies and industry data based on pulping techniques at the mill.

Thanks for your interest,

Andrew Votes: +0

...is Kurt a man of his word or not? Did he send the $10 donation since he lost the bet? Votes: +0

Since I would hate to destroy the world by writing a paper check, putting it in a paper envelope, sticking a paper-composite stamp on it (renewable resources), why don't I send it through your online donation system? That way, we can save the planet by mountaintop-removal coal mining that removes all topsoil and other suitable substrate for tree growth while it powers the data centers used for internet traffic hubs
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?...4c6ef
...aaaaand done. Votes: +0

http://www.pbs.org/mediashift/...nt090.html Votes: +0

The “Sustaining our Forests” document relied solely on a document prepared by Climate for Ideas on the carbon footprint of 2 mills, one in NC and a second in GA. There are several errors or assumptions which, as a forester, I feel cast significant question on the conclusions. As one who current works mostly on coastal plain forests, I will restrict my comments to the errors contained in the scenarios of the loblolly/shortleaf forests. I am not an expert at carbon footprint analysis. But I do know biological reality.

The publication examines mills that are 25 and 110 miles from the Atlantic Ocean for the Riegelwood, NC, and Augusta, GA sites, respectively. This is important due to hurricane activity and its impact on biomass resources. Virtually all of the wood obtained for the Riegelwood mill would be subject to hurricane activity. Hurricanes are less of a consideration for forests supplying the Augusta mill. My major objections are detailed below.

First, the document “grows” loblolly/shortleaf forests for 40 years, then adopts a no harvest strategy for the next 100 years. During this time the forest continues to accumulate biomass. The model completely ignores the reality of catastrophic events (major hurricanes) that will significantly reduce biomass in loblolly/shortleaf forests (or others for that matter). The National Weather Service has a tremendous amount of information on their web site pertaining to hurricane activity. This includes maps of hurricanes as well as interactive calculations of hurricane activity by region and county. For the NC site, major hurricanes (Category 3+) are anticipated once every 43 years. For coastal GA, major hurricanes are forecast every 79 years. It is unrealistic to expect to grow a forest to 140 years of age without losing significant carbon reserves when you experience a major hurricane every 43 years or so.

According to a NASA study published in Science magazine, forests destroyed by Hurricane Katrina will release into the atmosphere 60-100% of the amount of carbon stored by all US forests in a year. According to a NASA news release, “it is surprising to learn that one extreme event can release nearly as much carbon to the atmosphere as all U.S. forests can store in an average year."

I have lived through 2 major hurricanes that have directly impacted my state, each time being 60 miles from the coast. These were Hurricanes Camille and Katrina. These hurricanes devastated our forest resources. Hurricanes will continue to occur in the southeast US, and their impacts on forest resources will continue to be significant. Ignoring the reality of hurricane activity in this part of the world by assuming a continued accumulation in biomass over a 140 year period renders the conclusions, in a word, useless.

Second, other catastrophic events (tornados, wildfire, insect outbreaks) are likewise not factored in. While this is understandable in more short-term analyses, these events will occur over the 140 year projection period, particularly as trees get older and more susceptible to damaging events. Due to the unpredictable nature of such events, perhaps this was the reason, but the biological reality is that “stuff happens.” This could have been factored in to some degree in the sensitivity analysis.

(continued on next post)
Votes: +0

(this was too long; continued from above)

Third, the loblolly/shortleaf model grows the forest for 140 years, and apparently assumes no mortality from self-thinning. I do not have an idea of the initial conditions at age 40, other than 80 tons/acre. Expecting all trees alive at age 40 to live for the next 100 years is likewise unrealistic. Trees will die, and this biomass will then begin the process of being converted back as decomposers do their part of the nutrient cycle. I used an online growth and yield model, and at 140 years, even starting with a low density of trees, at the end of the 140 year period there were an excessive number of trees which would cause stress and predispose them to bark beetle attack. These things happen, and more frequently in older stands.

Last, thinning operations in forestry serve to compensate for the mortality that would naturally occur. We remove and use a portion of the trees, enabling the finite water, light, and soil resources to more adequately support the fewer trees remaining. The trees remaining respond by increasing growth rates, and the forest continues to accumulate carbon. Most of the wood delivered to pulp mills, at least in my area, come from thinnings and the tops of trees left over after a sawtimber sale. At least in my geographic area of south MS, the idea that vast tracts of forestland are clearcut for pulpwood is patently false.

In summary, the publication cited by Dogwood contained significant flaws to those of us with even a cursory understanding of forest ecology and management. Does it make interesting reading and support a cause? Probably. Is it based on sound science and the reality of what will likely happen in the future. Nope.
Votes: +0

Thanks for your comments Glenn.

Stochastic events like firebugs and hurricanes are certainly important forces that have their way with forests. As you said, "stuff happens" and forests - intensely managed or left alone can be impacted. I can't speak to how they impact the calculations in the report but I will work to get a response for you from the researcher. The same with the mortality issue.


Votes: +0

Andrew,

It has been more than 2 weeks since your above emamil in response to my concerns about the publication by Climate for Ideas.

Please updadte me on a response (if any) from the researcher.

Thanks,

Glenn. Votes: +0