Correct, and there are also no band-aids big enough to cover the bullet wounds we continue to inflict on the planet.

Well the title of the video doesn't help.

@@CMZneu made you watch, didn’t it?

Yes

The video is very correctly points out that the "cut it we just gonna replant it anyway" and the "we can emit x gigaton as an industry if we plant y thousand trees there" type of mentality is not at all as enviromentally sustainbale as the beneficiaries of such industries would like you to belive.

Could humans artificially close the canopy?

I live in N Idaho in an area that has just had a logging project come through. On the hillside, seed trees of mainly white pine and tamarack were left and every strong wind that comes through takes more of them down because they are used to growing close together. Down lower, there is still a canopy growing closer together without the same wind damage. How much CO2 gets burned up in slash piles and would it not be better to chip it or make Huegel culture?

@@slotho122 Trees starting in shade grow very slowly. You want light to get to them to grow. The ideal would be to thin to 12 to 15 foot apart and then let the existing trees fill in.

How about if they tackle weather and climate engineering, that would be good.

Leave nature alone.

Also our oceans' forests and grasslands

And about bogs and the tundra which can store massive amounts of CO2.

@@Ninjaananas they are burning vast amounts of peat bogs in south America of all places! a lot burned to grow sugar. when burned the bogs release up to 1000 + years of stored carbon

Yes! Grasslands actually store MORE carbon than forests do, both in absolute and relative quantity, yet somehow they are never even mentioned as carbon sinks. Grasslands are also among the most biodiverse ecosystems on the planet, and for example in Europe so called semi-natural grasslands easily surpass old growth forests in terms of both species density and quantity. If we cover them with forests we lose potential or active carbon sinks, and a lot of biodiversity. But in the end wood is profitable, I guess that's why everybody is talking about forests.

@@htopherollem649 I thought that was in Oceania and Southeast Asia for palm plantations.

we could, e.g., run into the same problem that the Cavendish Banana is having, vs. a Healthy Forest EcoSystem.

That is true. However, these high latitude forests usually have a very low tree diversity anyway. Huge areas of two or tree arboreal species.

Then how big is your polyculture orchard. If not big enough, plant using our Climate ACTION.

@@joshuachristofferson9227 one million percent truth. This is what I see in Oregon. I call them "dead forests" there are no birds in the monocrop forests and they are not right feeling.

Not to mention most of the time they plant male trees only.... go into any old growth forest and you see a plethora of typed of trees and they all work in biomimicry with one another through interaction with mycelium. You don't find the same type of mushrooms in the "fake forests" that you do in the old growth.

exactly, bare soil is the enemy.

They give us humans the 02 that we need to survive in this world !

They’re not saying trees are bad, but without this knowledge you may cut the newly grown trees too early. Which ruins the whole point of having the tree be a carbon sink.

@@neurophilosophers994 The carbon will make a lot of trees and forests and ecosystems.

So during the Jurassic period which was some 8 degrees hotter than today, no polar ice caps and tropical forests on both poles, the trees kept it cooler?

Funickfy, they are re building the Wester Flyer, Steinbecks trawler he used in the 60's.. They are buying mature white oak from a Menominee forest in Kentucky.. they use horse teams and they don't rip up the undergrowth when pulling selected logs out.. Very cool seeing how little they destroy the surrounding fauna when hauling tons of wood, maybe our ancestors were on to something.. even the manure had a net positive effect..

Norway ,Sweden and Denmark have the best control over their forest practices

@@planegaper wow cool! Steinbeck's "Log from the Sea of Cortez" is my favorite of his books. Nonfiction. I don't recal if that's the boat he used though.

@@chertfoot1500 It is in deed , Western Flyer was the boat, they are re building her to new through a boat building school in Washington.. here's the link kzfaq.info/love/XIlPuc45MBAHorIYCft-WQ all done in white oak, and purple heart.. considering it's lineage that boat will be worth unseen money..

@@planegaper That comment about the manure is BS!!! LOL.

Yes! Totally agreed.

I ain’t a scientist, but I think it would be interesting to see all of the 154 national forests and how each of them stack up, and how much carbon each stores. I live in Arkansas, and we have two national forests. The Ouachita and the Ozark-St Francis, so it’d be cool to see how much carbon they hold. I know the Ozark-St Francis won’t hold that much, considering that it only encompasses a few chunks of the Ozarks and the Boston mountains. I wish it was more like the Ouachita National Forest is a large chunk of the Ouachita Mountains. Though that could be because of all the Quartz. Lol

@@tuckeriacobacci Bev has done some of that and has a paper coming out soon in Nature about it. It's still unpublished but stay tuned!

I agree. Several years ago I watched a documentary about Pleistocene Park in Siberia. There is a Russian scientist named Sergey Zimov that proved that trees growing in the north of Siberia also contribute to climate change. First I was in disbelief but he made some excellent points and could prove it. Because the trees are darker than snow they take up a little more heat of the sun. This heat is than transfered by the roots to the underground. This than causes the permafrost to melt a lot faster during the summer. Melting of permafrost releases methane and other gasses that contribute to global warming. Thousands of years ago Siberia was not full of trees but they where huge steppes with grazing animals. But those animals died of (probably by human overhunting) and this gave room for the trees to grow and the rest you can guess.

Agreed. Very interesting but left me wanting to know more. For example, if new forests are net carbon sources for the first twenty years, how does that compare to adjacent treeless areas where trees aren't planted? Are the planted areas at least smaller sources in the short term than areas left unplanted?

All the crap to shoehorning the use of wood for burning...please MIGRATE TO INHABITABLE CLIMATE and the sun will cook your food

Yes

hahaha you thought the tree planting contracts were made out of altruism ? ..it's a long term investment for politicians, that can rake in millions in lumber revenue in 30 or so years.. Otherwise they'd be planting different species.. Please go and bid on a tree planting contract in B.C...or any other big "green' project. See how fast the door gets shut in your face.. ask to see the bidding process, and you might get thrown in jail for trespassing..

@@SungazerDNB i think bamboo is the best due to its robust nature

how about making terra preta type charcoal soil?

They obviously didn't have time to cover everything. They did say that the forests of the Pacific Northwest are the MOST kick-ass carbon-wise and should be strategically preserved. I think: "how?" next, is maybe the most important thought. We need alternate building materials to all that Northwest Timber. Certainly Bamboo, but also Cannabis/Hemp for insulation and structure are part of that. Mud/cement brick type things. Did you know that Aircrete, a fantastic insulating version of concrete used world wide, is more or less illegal in California because it "needs to be tested for earthquake safety" even though it has earthquake safe versions with good track records already used in places like Japan and Brasil that also have earthquakes. It's almost worst than Newpaper guy Hearst helping make cannabis illegal so they would use his trees for paper instead. Similar, anyway.

I'm so confused by all that. How can a forest accumulate carbon indefinitely without the fossilisation processes that used to occur at the carboniferous era? Shouldn't the biomass of a forest be limited, among other things, by the available solar power which is, on average, a constant? Wouldn't it lead to some kind of asymptotic growth? Isn't the biomass of a twenty years old forest greater than a zero years old forest? If that is the case, how could the forest be releasing carbon all this time? Where did the carbon come from during these initial 20 years?

@@marcoskunrath5914 This was indeed not a very clear video. As far as I understand, the "carbon positive" young forest is that of the producers' homeland, the USA, where clear-cutting old forest is a common practice. Then net-positive carbon emission comes from microbial respiration in organic material accumulated on the former forest floor by trees now gone (their dead leaves etc). It takes time for newly planted saplings to start growing fast enough that their carbon accumulation outpaces this respiration. Solar power limits the total rate of photosynthesis, that is, accumulation of organic carbon. Initially most of it is in live biomass, but with time more and more of it accumulates in soil from various kinds of tree detritus. That said, there are environments (e.g. Amazon forest) where growth is limited by inorganic nutrients in very poor soil. Those forests are more or less closed circle. Look up "Soil carbon sequestration" - there are various ways to increase the content of organic carbon in soil, making it both more productive and turning it into a carbon sink. But, as all similar measures, its effectiveness if the big picture of climate change is limited: the only real long term solution id drastically limiting emission. We do have the technology to do that in all sectors: transport, energy production, manufacture of steel and cement, agriculture. What is missing is the will of entrenched financial interests to relinquish their position.

@@bazoo513 I just read some of Dr. Law’s and others papers and they are much clearer than the video. I think I get her point now. Forests take much much longer to reach equilibrium than we previously thought. Thanks for the heads up on Soil carbon sequestration. That hasn't crossed my mind.

@@bazoo513 Thanks for the explanation of the carbon flows! In the USA today it is unusual to cut old growth forest, since we already cut most of it. Remaining old growth is often protected, or in hard to reach places. In my area of New Mexico much of the forest was cut in the late 1800s when the railroad came through.

@@bazoo513 we all use a huge amount of carbon based energy. blaming producers is like a city person blaming a farmer because he uses more energy to make a living. i am quite sure the big energy users switch to more effiecent systems when it pays to do it. after all it affects their bottom line much more than a office .

You think Oklahoma had vast forests that were cut down? Places like Scotland are missing forests. Central mexico

Oklahoma and the Midwest area in general turned into a dustbowl because the mega herds of bison were all killed off. It is explained really well in A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, particularly the section called The Land Ethic

That, actually, is the best approach, if the wood harvested is used in a way that does not return the carbon in the atmosphere (e.g. as building material).

That also aids in a bigger and faster traffeling forrest fire once they catch on fire. There is a good medium. How about we just copy a healthy older Forrest?

@@CHMichael My post has the intention to find a way to replicate the results faster than the natural development of an area to an old forest, that may take decades to happen. Anyway, I don't mean row thinning, just removing one tree when two or more are too close together and they are starting to show signs of hindered growth.

Stop cutting down trees... use alternative building methods...

@@user-rb7ns9yj5y Actually, if you cut trees for timber and use the rest for paper or something, and cut only mature trees near the end of their life, you sequester their carbon for centuries and leave room for young trees to soak up some more from the atmosphere. But clear-cutting and leaving most of the biomass to rot is the worst. Cement, brick and steel production are all very energy intensive. Cement, in addition, release more CO2 during production. However, for all three there are new low-carbon technologies, especially if using clean energy (renewables or nuclear).

Have you ever fracked? Did you know that old mining sites are being re-established by lavender crops?

At the scale these things are now occurring, we already know the answer is yes.

Mass extinction and the end of mammals will open many opportunities for life to evolve into. Humans are a temporary problem. Life will go on without us.

Yes, they hurt the surface, the water, the atmosphere and sometimes have effects below ground. In southwestern Pennsylvania where I live the fracking is fairly intense. Just this past year an old natural gas well was repurposed as fracking waste water injection well. It is on a hilltop about a mile from us and is near a stream that joins the Allegheny River. The intake for our municipal water plant is a short distance downstream, When an accident inevitably happens it will be a real mess. Pittsburgh also gets its water from the river downstream. Just my two-cents but this doesn’t have to be this way. Renewable energy is mostly pollution free including all kinds of greenhouse gases.

@@Sara-bb2qg "Net zero for many windmills is at least 20 year of use." Eh, modern wind turbines take around 6 months to become net zero. Of course the answer depends on where you are and what is being replaced, but 20 years is way off. Another way of looking at it is the GHG intensity of wind electricity. This is generally between 10-50 g CO2 per kWh (you can check NREL if you are looking for a source on this). It's an order of magnitude lower than electricity from natural gas (the cleanest fossil fuel). The mining effort required is significant, and there will definitely be supply chain problems. But what is the alternative? Just burning fossil stuff and pretend the effects are manageable?

It is still happening in many parts of the world where "economic development" is still needed for the sake of GDP.Brazil,Indonesia,Chile...

@@botany3212 climate people also do not like Climax forests

What's the area called? We're from Portland and always looking for good old growth to see.

@@ElementalWildfire sorry I don't remember what it is called . But it is on the North Bank of the river .

Interesting, I wonder what the growing conditions are? There are some very long rotation harvest experiments in Oregon that do store lots of carbon for generations but still yield significant harvest.

Thanks, very interesting local methods!

Greed

How many trees have you planted?

@@caesars7hills892 lots

@@caesars7hills892 Your comment is not relevant to the original post or very friendly. Why did you comment? Are you against environmental education? Do you believe those who want environmental education should also actively provide environmental remediation in the areas they teach about? Should someone who wants more education about fisheries management *also* be required to maintain quotas and enforce bycatch laws? OR ARE YOU JUST A TROLL?

& here we are 30 years later & it still hasn’t happened all the horror stories the media spread about global warming is complete garbage!

Did you run, The Late Show with David Letterman band, and also others? Good to know, that you have been giving voice to this. The trees need spokespersons. Trees tend to be all bark, and no bite.

Exactly, you hit the nail on the head. This video is moronic click bait.

I think it's a matter of volumes. Old growth forest has a greater volume for carbon-capturing processes (plus stored carbon) compared to the volume of the adjacent soil that is respiring (devouring fallen carbon). New growth has a small volume compared to adjacent soil.

@@compassroses the carbon released by the soil is carbon that's been stored there by the forest that's been cut, not the young seedlings. Trees, however young, will be a net carbon sink as long as they're alive and healthy.

I believe their point is to show that preserving old forests is much more important than planting new ones right now. I don't think they intended to picture planting trees as a bad thing. (Ok, the title is a bit clickbaity...)

@@nisnber5760 It’s not click bait and it’s not moronic. It needs more science done to it. Conservatives always look for the easy way out. And they’re always stuck on the “Lost Cause”.

Great plains?

Ironic because in fact the area described was a grassland the forest I belive stoped around the 100 longitude line. When the grasses were over grazed and fires controlled much became brush covered the great forest pre-Columbian did not cover the great plains because fires burnt back the brush and huge Buffalo herds trampled brush and fertilized grassland see mr savory's video on holistic range management

@@Geo.StoryMaps ?

Hemp can replace 90% of all wood needs and has better results in every category for the win too.

In Brazil it' being done and we call it "Forest Management" It's a similar concept but numbers came from development-based equations for each single area/species

Just what I was thinking :)

Also, plant undergrowth and ground cover so soil doesn't sit bare in between trees

After doing a little research about new growth, it appears (I am not a "tree scientist") that the current thinking is that new growth IS a carbon sink. Like almost any issue related to CC, it's complicated and this video seems to imply that the research is done only in a small area in the PNW. And what's wrong with cutting and releasing the C over a period of 30 years? Seems like a rather long time to me. I also wrote a comment above asking if the creation of new soil, forest litter, etc. does not also sink carbon in the little critters and bacteria that grow and feed on this stuff. BTW, just because something is funded by "something" does not mean it CANNOT be objective or add to the body of knowledge. You just need to keep in mind that today, most "science" is backing one agenda or another. Einstein, Heisenberg, and the Curies would be appalled, but what can you do?

@@dangoerke51 Releasing C over 30 years is still putting it into the atmosphere. There is some work in sequestration by increasing the organic fraction of soil. Not an expert on this. What I’ve seen suggests that it has a potentially big capacity (tons per acre) but longevity is unknown, just like the forests. Natural systems have evolved to cycle carbon, so it shouldn’t be surprising that there aren’t a lot of long term sinks out there.

"On dry climates, please start composting..." How do we do that? Any source of info you can recommend?

There is no way to widely compost wood in a large dense forest. Any effort to put out any (naturally occuring) forest fires makes forests more dense then they would otherwise naturally be if left to burn normally. It's quite a difficult problem to solve. We'd basically need massive acres of rotating, regular, calibrated controlled burns in order to fix the forest overdensity problem. Doable but not easy, and not great for air quality

@@weareallbornmad410 a few channels I’d recommend are: Shamus O’Leary, Geoff Lawton- Greening the desert, California gardening/ next level gardening or whatever his channel is called now, and Andrew Millison- India’s Water Revolution.

@@oakinwol true, but a lot of people have “woods” at the back of their yard. That’s a good point about rotation burning. It’s a much better solution than what’s going on in arid climates now…

Every tree and plant plays a role in the ecosystem. Planting them in a way they can all work together is the problem we need to focus on.

Also a lot of pointless stuff being built, and too big or too many.

It's even worse when you consider that this is one of our smaller problems.

@@Num6er47 Don't make me cry!

Thanks Rick! Re: old growth the definition of the term does seem to be a bit subjective but I'm not going to argue with Bev when she calls it old growth. And, as the producer of Weathered I reeeeally want to produce more on this subject. The more views it gets, the more likely that is so please share the video with your networks!

@@Num6er47 welp there's no question that fossil fuels release more carbon dioxide than land use like logging, but according to the IPCCC land use is the second largest contributor to climate change so it's not nothing.

@@ElementalWildfire Yeah, I forgot to send links to this video yesterday, I'll get on that. Please do produce more of this content, there are a ton of questions that need to be answered - and we all have to pitch in and fix this situation. Cheers!

All forms of agriculture will emit more than it sequesters. Also, once the food is eaten, it will turn into more gas so 🤷🏽‍♂️

@@Zaihanisme according to Dr Koonin in his book "Unsettled" most of the emissions from animals comes from fermentation (the front end) not the back end (cow farts). So humans and animals that don't ferment wouldn't contribute much.

@@Jo-xf4nt breath of humans is 10% of emissions

Yeah, but the notion that timber harvest is going to stop in the PNW anytime soon defies the pushback that would happen. The best way to stop tree harvest is consumer driven purchases like bamboo and hemp alternatives for paper. Alternative building materials need to be developed to attain the structural integrity of tree wood. I hope we can advance in that area. Would be a boon to agriculture, too.

It used to be cool in Federal Way Washington, until a lot of the trees were cut down. Now I get to see it happen to Wilmington NC

Once a forest has a canopy, it pulls more carbon. Trees + canopy + soil = high biodiversity = carbon sink. She doesn't get into detail about the canopy, but canopies can offer extensive biodiversity. The canopy also helps the soil maintain moisture. Moist soil increases the bio diversity in the soil. Trees - soil = low biodiversity = carbon producer. If a forest doesn't have a canopy (tree tops that touch), the carbon release mechanisms in the soil beat what's the carbon sink mechanisms of the trees. Not all the info is in this standalone episode, but knowing about canopies & moist soil made it very clear to me.

@@richardmanuel3072 Then, what they referred to as a "dry forest" is not merely a matter of climatic zone, but of shading/exposure of the soil? Shading, if I understand you correctly, helps to maintain soil moisture and to reduce carbon loss from the soil.

This is what I was thinking would also play a part on total carbon sequestration of trees. But I would suspect surface area over volume since the inside of a tree is deadwood. It's only the outer layers that are actively processing carbon, with the bark being most active.

@@richardmanuel3072 I'm pretty sure that the researchers said they examined different densities of new growth. Are talking about the forest or the trees? Individually, it would make sense that a tree has to reach a certain size before it has a net negative carbon footprint. And that would be independent of the surrounding trees. It would also make sense that the sum of the trees would be greater than individual trees. That they would increase the carbon sequestration as they combine efforts.

@@briand8090 True, but the total area (volume actually) of active tissue and leaves is greater in higher volume trees -- taller, greater circumference, larger crown, larger roots. It's a while since I did botany, but I thought that photosynthesis occurs in the leaves and that phloem, xylem, and cambium, not protective bark, are responsible for transporting water and nutrients, and for providing cells for growth.

This video has an agenda. Old forest have to be stagnant. This video makes no sense.

The question wasn't so much skipped over as briefly touched on. They mention that the young growth forests respire about 80% of the carbon back into the air, meaning there is a slight reduction in carbon output from the land, but the young growth forest is nevertheless a carbon source. She also says "There's nothing wrong with young forests." and that they're a long-term valuable tool to efficiently reducing carbon, but I think the point from this video is that we need to rethink the conventional "wisdom" that it's okay to clear cut older forests because we can just replace them with what we thought were efficient carbon capturing young forests.

Hi! Lots of the production crew if Weathered is from Oregon. We live in Portland and spend most of our time on the rainy west side but loooooove to visit the dry eat side.

Yea i was guessing eastern OR/WA as well, i have lived up and down the PNW.

How's life there? Huge antifa infestation there, I hear.

@@utuberme1 do you know what antifa means?

@@utuberme1 How to say you're a Fascist without saying you're a Fascist.

Mine too! Totally agree.

and it's funny they talk only about pines, but what about more efficient C4 species like bamboo, or trees like Paulownia sp.?

@@user-pi4cf6fj7b I didn't know Paulonia is c4! Have a couple for shade

She's talk about pine & lumber... fruit trees are different leaf structures.

Yes. I started a related aspect with soil... for broader purpose.

Can someone explain as how the young forest are still being called “source of carbon”. The net carbon increase in area would be when NEW carbon is released in the atmosphere. (By carbon I mean CO2). So, let’s says, we start with a completely empty land. The net carbon released is 0 cause nothing is making CO2. Now we put in new young trees there. They start absorbing CO2 to make their 95% of mass. So, they are absorbing Co2. Then the animals and microbes eat the dead parts of those trees and release the CO2 back into the atmosphere. So, how can you say the new forrest is source of carbon? You started from a neutral source (empty land) to a carbon cycle where new trees absorb and microbes release. At best this new forrest would be neutral source of carbon, not a positive source of carbon. So, I think the scientist here has misrepresented that information. It’s not like more CO2 is being released by the newer forrest. You are using the same amount of Carbon from atmosphere, converting into trees and then converting into animals and microbes and releasing the same amount (at best) to the atmosphere. Better way fo saying would be that new forrest are near 0 % efficient at capturing carbon while older forrest at at some high percent say (70 or above %) efficient at capturing carbon. So, What am I missing here?

Carbon is one part of the picture and can't be looked at in isolation without the atmosphere, water cycle and soil. There is a biotic pump effect that draws moisture inland cooling and moderating weather. Also from some trees stomata there is a hydroscopic bacteria cloud condensing nuclei responsible for Most of the world's rain. These aspects are little know but very important as water influences 95% of the earth's heat dynamic. To learn more: soil microbiologist Walter Jehne, hydrologist Dr Michal Kravcik or journalist Judith D Swartz are great resources!

@@sureshkrjsl Just guessing here, but for this specific forest type with these tree species (that can really only become a new tree from a seed-they will not readily regenerate from a stump, basal, or copice sprout as some tree species will when they are younger), my hunch is that the now dead stumps, roots, and leaf/needle litter of the mature harvested trees are breaking down, releasing carbon, while the new trees are begining to grow. So, maybe if the video authors see this comment they could weigh-in, I do not think these experiments start from a pure "bare land" condition that is completely absent of past vegetation due to the fact that trees require a certain annual precipitation threshold to survive and grow well, so these experiments must be performed in a climate that can support a forest-certainly within a landscape that supported a forest in the past. The type of soil these experiments are conducted upon could also probably play a huge role in the variation of potential carbon storage outcomes through time as well. Anyway, so, at some point the carbon being released by those harvested tree stumps and roots probably reach equilibrium and are overtaken with the growth of the new forest, causing this observed 20ish year decline in the total carbon stored after harvesting while the new forest growth begins. Forest types that are adapted to disturbances like tornadoes and derechos, i.e. the eastern hardwood forests of the US, may have a slightly different time or capacity profile of carbon storage/release after logging or weather events due to their cool forest disturbance adaptations. I would very much like to see this experiment replicated and presented from the standpoint of different forest types and at different ages within these forest types to satisfy my curiousity (and in different soil types too!). Check out the oak-hickory forest type (as a broad example) to see what I'm referring to if you aren't already familiar.

Yep, in any management decision we really have to follow the science. Areas that are no longer forested but were generations ago could be planted for some benefit which is called afforestation. But if we're cutting old forest and replanting young forest, the science is pretty clear, thanks to Dr. Law's work. That is what we frequently see happening.

yeah, cap and trade is a scam... straight carbon tax to be preferred... even better - perhaps? - accessing alternate sources, e.g. hemp etc...

Why haven’t they been planted back? I have wondered about that for years.

This is a great point and one that is extremely briefly mentioned in the film... I wish we had time to go deeper! Bev has done similar work in plantations and found about the same numbers. Although they are densely planted, there's still a lot more soil respiration than sequestration by the forest. Some fast growing forests like on the west side of Oregon can become carbon sinks in less than 20 years but globally, she told us that 10-20 years is just how long it takes. Interestingly, plantations and private forests managed for timber production or carbon sequestration do a better job of sequestering carbon with longer rotations. She found that a 90-year rotation rather than a 40 to 60-year rotation could yield similar production but sequester way more carbon.

@@ElementalWildfire Thanks for your reply. I own some farmland in New Zealand which has recently yielded around 900 tonnes per hectare of radiata pine after a 25 year rotation which will give you some idea of the *gross* carbon uptake. However you may be interested to know that I haven't replanted pines and I'm actively returning the land to native forest on a permanent basis.

Wow, that's very interesting. What made you decide to make the change? And will you still harvest wood from the native forest in the future? There are some very cool selective harvest 'ecoforestry' operating in Oregon when I live that do get significant yield with very long rotations. Often longer than a human lifetime for certain trees.

@@ElementalWildfire Thanks for your interest; The radiata pine had been planted on marginal (steep and eroded) pasture adjacent to small patches of native 'bush' and fairly soon after I acquired the young plantation I decided that once the pines were mature and harvested I'd encourage the native plants to re-establish themselves. The interesting thing is, until they close the canopy and out-compete the natives, the pines are actually quite good primary cover provided you actively thin them out. The reason why I'm doing this is because like you, I love nature in its natural balanced state and this is my pathetic attempt to right that balance. To answer your other question, no I don't want selective logging to take place because it appears to be a very energy intensive process; apart from which I'll be long dead before it's viable.

@@chrissscottt You seems to be a good guy, thinking in terms of ecology instead of economy, we need more of this.

Of course, but the most important takeaway any of us should have is to STOP CUTTING DOWN OUR FORESTS. Leave the old growth ones alone, especially, and.instead grow newer forests to cut down if truly necessary.

“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now”

@@Zaihanisme exactly

Shhhhhh you're not supposed to ask real questions.

I take it that unforested means grassland. To me, the point of this video is asking if logging and using wood products can have a net zero carbon footprint if there is replantation. It's not about turning grass land into forests. Forests have the problem or fire releasing carbon and the use of wood products releas carbon. Grassland has the problem of grazing animals releasing it as methane which is a more potent green house gas and cutting grass releases the carbon. Grassland is also more prone to erosion. As far as I can tell, as carbon sinks, old forests > grasslands > young forests > barren land. Don't know If you watched the whole video but they said young forests aren't a good carbon sink because they don't recapture released carbon. Old forests do because the canopy is large enough to stop the co2 leaving the area.

The measuremenst show that the young forests were carbon sources, and old ones were carbon sinks.

But, to get the full benefit, the soil must be wet & ideally the tops touch (a canopy). From planting, that takes 20 years.

Although, clearcutting old growth and then planting may hurt.

@@chertfoot1500 I don't think they do much CC anymore, at least not like in the bad ole days.

@@dangoerke51 yeah the industry has changed a lot, partly because the old growth is mostly gone in the US

@@chertfoot1500 I was not referring to CCing old growth, but rather to CCing in general. While I believe they still cut large parcels, it is more like in a checkerboard pattern, to reduce the problems of regrowth (lots of new trees coming naturally from more mature trees on the perimeter), soil erosion (soils are caught by surrounding forested areas, habitat disruption, etc. The idea now (I think) is that if you need to cut 100 acres of trees, do it in 10 acre small parcels, not a 100-acre parcel that become VERY problematic. You get the same amount of lumber and costs will be slightly higher, but you don't have anywhere near the same environmental impact. Not sure about all this. If I am wrong, someone please let me know. (But know that if you do respond without references, I will likely Google to find out REAL information. Thus, most "Twitter meme" responses will be ignored.

old trees rot while still alive.

I think it's a salvage cut in a burned area, look at all the snags and red deads in the background. Clear cuts arent very common on national forest land but are used in burns. Either way you're hitting the nail on the head, once again logging is unfairly painted as all bad.

water=speed

I think it's 80% of the oxygen is made by algae

@@DSAK55 And where to you think algae gets its O2 from? It's from (to a very large extent) the absorption of CO2 in the atmosphere. Another example, I guess, of teaching recycling and not math or science in school nowadays.

Yes. Oceanographer Jim Massa has done a video about this on his channel "Science Talk."

@@dangoerke51 except algae doesn't have the long life cycle that reefs and trees do. They don't really hold onto the carbon very long.

@@Tengokuchi You are attributing to me a statement that I did not make. I merely commented on the lack of understanding about (if I am not misinterpreting Dak's comment) a simple matter of chemistry/science. As for your algae, reefs, and trees idea, I "guess" you are correct, but only in this regard: since algae have a short lifespan and trees have a long one (I assume your "reef" comment related to the non-living, stony structure for coral), the dead algae ITSELF will not retain the C. I would like to see some real scientific data, though, if you think this is a major point, since.... ...even after the algae die, I suspect LOTS of the carbon of their bodies is consumed by other microbial life, either shortly after death or on the ocean's floor. It seems to me then that the question of how much of the algae's original C remains sequestered is not a matter amenable to a simple answer.

Clear cut is for economuc efficiency. If you take only a few trees from forest, you spend as much work hours with small machines and human labours as clear cuttin and collecting all trees with big machines.

@@juhajuntunen7866 I guessed as much, what i am but more interested in is if that practise is environmentaly less or more beneficial. If we can put in some more work, have therefor jobs in that sector, but also the benefits of an on avverage older forrest as described here in this vid. Shouldn't we try to do it that way then? It is said nearly 50% of all jobs will fall away in the next 20 to 30 years due to the impact of AI systems, this could be one way to gain some jobs again and have a positive impact on climate change.

@@kinngrimm Wjere I live in Canada, clear cutting happens quite a bit. They do plant trees where they cut, but it is typically just the preferred species that is planted. It's a very weird feeling when you drive past a section of forest that has been there your entire life only to find an empty field.

@@Briggsian from steroetypes out of american movies the canadian is often painted as the wood cutter with the typical flanell shirts :) Is there any truth to that? Another more important question though, what about erosion? Aren't areas which are clear cut especially endangered to erosion if not even complet mount sides being washed away? While there are the longtermclimate change relatevant impacts, i guess in comparison rather short term negativ environmental impacts still could be relevant too, right?

@@kinngrimm In my areas, it's not so much erosion that's the concern from clear cutting, it's flooding. Trees help to keep snow and ice from melting too quickly when there is a thaw during the spring. When areas are clear cut, all that frozen water melts and can quickly overflow waterways which is a big problem in a province where the majority of people live along rivers. Hydroelectric dams can control the flow to an extent, but at a certain point it just gets out of hand.

the measurements accounted for all of that. that is why they put towers on critical locations.

exactly! the soil microbiome doesn't just respire the organic carbon, it also uses it to grow their mass and that biomass is stored carbon🦠

That’s why they had a tower that was at different heights and also had ground monitoring to address this. It’s almost like you disregarded the video

Love how vacuous women are possessed by carbon. Everything in life is carbon including humans!!

That was a huge oversight. They used plantations as part of their study, with chemical fertilizers and that affects carbon sequestration. That will certainly skew results.

Meaning that we need groundcovers but corporate logging would rather they were gone.

Simple answer might be it would be bad for you but good for your children.

Same questiom here - I don't get how growing even a single tree, harvesting it at a young stage and storing it's C-rich biomass as lumber is net positive🤔

@@user-pi4cf6fj7b If I got your question correctly, what you are wondering is if it's going to turn into lumber, how it is net positive. If that is the case, the answer is, it is not. If you take pains to grow a tree and wait for 10-20 years, you leave it be. If you want lumber then, you use young trees. It will still not be net zero but that will not release that huge amount by cutting older trees. Would love to know if you have other interpretation.

@@neelroy2918 I don't get what role the age of the plant plays in the equation😳 To my understanding, even a young tree, harvested and used as furniture or construction material represents C taken from the air and stored in biomass - how can this process release more carbon then stored? I mean, respiration, be it of plants or microbial, oxidises the C that was fixed and not some fossil stuff like we do, and even if only a small part is used for building biomass - this small part makes the process already net-negative, doesn't it?

@@user-pi4cf6fj7b releasing _more_ carbon than stored would violate first law of thermodynamics. So that's not a possibility:) - young trees would release more co2 than older trees for first 10-20 years. So whatever you do, it may as well tally. - the problem they proved is when you do that to older trees. Because they release less co2, because they are all grown up, if you use them instead then, planting ne trees would not being as much benefit. So, we need to leave old trees alone. Felling newer trees is better option because they have not reached to a place where c to o ratio is beneficial to us. Does that make sense?

They dont have the ash beetle borer down there?

You're forgetting the role a diverse, synth chem free forest has, and that this video is omitting that.

I'm certain it IS beyond your understanding.

No. The professor is saying that old growth forests in the PNW store more carbon *per acre* than the Amazon.

@@nisnber5760 some people don't understand but go all in with an argument just to "be right", you know?

@@nisnber5760 of course but that does not mean they produce more on a annul basis.

They said that people tried it all over the world in different settings. DId you watch the video?

@@chertfoot1500 do u see the landscape of the study they’re directly referencing?

@@J-berg They show one site, and say many sites have been studied. Is that incomplete, in some bad way? Science is always incomplete, we don't know everything. The title is kinda clickbait though. They should put more links in the description, but they put this one in a comment, and it covers your objection, perhaps: "Ecosystem carbon dioxide fluxes after disturbance in forests of North America" Amiro et al 2010

Haha, riiiiight? Seems like we are - in some ways - always going to be relearning ecological concepts that challenge the story we believe about the world. In what class/major/department did you learn about forest carbon???

There is no one solution, so just because something doesn't entirely fix everything doesn't mean it's not worthwhile.

It goes against dogma. Plus, pro-logging individuals always try to infiltrate those groups. They want to put the responsibility back on us, instead of us seeking out logging bans. A little manipulation helps them to avoid hurtles to contracts to logging contracts.

It goes against dogma. Plus, pro-logging individuals always try to infiltrate those groups. They want to put the responsibility back on us, instead of us seeking out logging bans. A little manipulation helps them to avoid hurtles to logging contracts.

@@rustyschackleford5800 That was literally my point, they were mocking the idea that we might want to pursue other methods of removing carbon from the atmosphere in addition to planting trees.

Boycott Facebook

What you are asking for is simply called routine maintenance. Don't just plant and go, but maintain. This can be done manually with a lot of labor cost, or by controlled burning as was done by Native Americans. For maximum carbon storage, chip the waste and leave as a layer on the ground. 12" (30cm) of chips stores water well into summer.

@@markgrayson7514 Hi Mark, thanks for that. This of course would be extremely beneficial, but the funds keep getting cut for this type of management. Hopefully that will change. Just found some info on "accelerated forest succession." This is an attempt to revive eco systems and perhaps avoid some of the costs of future management. Just started looking into this, it may make for some good YT content. Cheers!

You should also plant mushrooms to help establish the mycelium network of the forest.

@@viperswhip Yeah, I agree with that.

there are agroforestry research institutions testing everything. apparently there are no generalizable straight forward solutions yet. leaving a place alone for 20 years or sporadic but selective planting of local trees and bushes might do it. Grasses are doomed where water is not abundant.

Preserving existing old growth saves a lot of carbon. It's a big deal. It's not like a drop in the bucket, more like a cup in the bucket.

Microbes in the soul breaking down biomass and tree respiration

@@fuq1nutube If there is no forest planted there however, the soil will still respirate right? (even more likely, as zero shade from young trees), So the trees themselves are still sequestering carbon AND growing to protect that soil more... Right? Best way to do it I believe is with strong fast growing pioneer trees(and shrubs even) that will create canopies fast

@@woblobsterbeatboxer5124 That souds reasonable. Icould say for certain, this isn't something I have looked into. My previous response was based off info from the video.

Keeping old growth forests and planting new forests helps wildlife. Here in North Carolina, European "green" funds are being used to clear cut forests to make biomass pellets for Europe. Pretty hopeless situation when "green" funds are being abused. Sadly, temperature rise is already "baked" in. I don't know the time line but this will occur: Permafrost/methane hydrate will cause temps to rise too high causing wildfires etc. and phytoplankton will stop making oxygen as the Oceans warm. These two effects in either order will cause oxygen in the atmosphere to drop to 11% starting at high altitudes. Small fauna and some flora will survive at 11% oxygen. New normal 5-10 million years.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ndmVZbaDyNeqdH0.html

That's dumb. What method captures more carbon than the energy it needs to function? How can a logger hope to offset the lost forest and how would the consumer afford that product if they did? Leave the forests alone. Use farmed wood and urban wood. Why are arborists paying to dump high value wood into landfills? There are solutions to be found within our waste but the solution is not to lay waste to our forests and planet whilst patting ourselves on the back for our clever accounting.

It's an entire chain jeremy.... quit placing blame on the "logger", maybe hold humanity accountable.

The idea is to force companies to be accountable at the cost of some figure recommended by scientists and manipulated by Congress. The cost will get passed down to the consumer and demand for reclaimed wood will rise, creating new opportunities in the marketplace. That is Capitalism, and it is not going anywhere, so you have to work within it.

Sounds like a great idea for a study!

few require fire. the trees that are present in those locations just adapted to fires and those could not died out

Right! For exampe, old growth ponderosa in the SW. It needs fire every few years. Fire was provided by people until about a hundred years ago.

also mangrove is said to be better than onland forests

Fire in an old growth forest does not release much forest carbon. The above ground carbon in a post fire snag forest remains. There have been recent OSU detailed studies of post fire carbon quantity and I believe the numbers are around 90% of carbon remains post fire.

@@chuckwiller1638 fascinating and counter-intuitive!

@@liwoszarchaeologist I agree, It is on first thought counter intuitive. But when I thought about it, after hearing about the research, it made sense. I'll note, on a recent field show-and-tell site visit in the Siuslaw NF, the district silviculturalist brought up fire as a threat to carbon sequestration. He said something like "see it all go up in flames." Not what in fact happens apparently.

@@chuckwiller1638 Depends on the intensity of the fire, right? You can't say fire does this or that in old growth without qualifying what type of fire you are talking about.