Figure 1: If properly accounted for, logging related emissions would be one of the top sources of greenhouse gas emissions in several states. Source: Talberth and Carlson (2024).

Continued

No - Logging is NOT Climate Neutral

Secondly, high rates of logging cripple the ability of our forestlands to draw carbon out of the atmosphere at a time when climate action agendas are calling for ways to maximize this function. Compared to natural forests with a balanced distribution of young, mid-aged, and older stands that pull in far more carbon than they release, landscapes dominated by clearcuts, logging roads, and monoculture tree plantations reduce that natural rate of carbon sequestration to near zero. Part of the reason is that for ten to fifteen years after clearcutting, the land becomes a net source of emissions because the carbon released by decaying logging slash and disturbed soils outpaces any carbon captured by new seedlings.

Third, landscapes dominated by clearcuts and corporate tree plantations increase climate risks to rural communities. They are more susceptible to wildfires, flooding, insects, disease, wind damage, landslides and harmful algae blooms than the natural forests they’ve replaced. These stressors are already on the rise due to climate change – timber plantations make the effects so much worse.

The solution is nothing short of a 180-degree reversal of forest policies at the federal, state and local levels. Rather than subsidizing logging and marketing wood products as a climate solution, public agencies should be doing all they can to reduce demand and scale up use of less carbon intensive substitutes like carbon negative concrete and green steel for buildings and bamboo or hemp for paper and packaging. No net job loss should occur during this transition. 

Since all our legitimate wood products needs can be supplied from private lands, our national and state forests should be designated as forest carbon reserves and allowed to grow, big, tall and old in order to capture as much carbon as possible. This will free up lands now locked up for timber production to be available for a wide range of economically beneficial uses including ecotourism, recreation, non-timber forest products, research, and water supply. On private lands, climate smart forestry should be made the law, not the exception, by modernizing our state and private forest practices laws. Climate smart forestry entails alternatives to clearcutting and long rotations, which create more jobs and more income for forestland owners because bigger trees are more valuable timber. Solutions abound, but to kickstart this transition politicians who now embrace Big Timber’s deceptions need to be called out and replaced, wherever possible.

John Talberth, Ph.D., is President and Senior Economist for the Center for Sustainable Economy based in Port Townsend, Washington. He has published extensively on forest carbon accounting and forest-climate policy for the Forest Carbon Coalition and other NGOs. 

For key sources and further reading see:

Hudiburg, T.W., Law, B.E., Moomaw, W.E., Harmon, M.E., Stenzel, J.E., 2019. Meeting GHG reduction targets requires accounting for all forest sector emissions Environ. Res. Lett. 14: 095005.

Law, B.E., Hudiburg, T.W., Berner, L.T., Kent, J.J., Buotte, P.C., Harmon, M.E., 2018. Land use strategies to mitigate climate change in carbon dense temperate forests. PNAS April 3, 2018 115 (14) 3663-3668. 

Talberth, J., Carlson, E., 2024. Forest carbon tax and reward: regulating greenhouse gas emissions from industrial logging and deforestation in the US. Environ Dev Sustain (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-024-04523-7