Comments on: Climate change and the Timber Industry: Impacts and Solutions http://www.sbcouncil.org/forest-carbon/?p=133 highlights science and policy news surrounding forest carbon offsets and the carbon market Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:41:45 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Chrissy P http://www.sbcouncil.org/forest-carbon/?p=133&cpage=1#comment-71 Chrissy P Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:24:44 +0000 http://www.sbcouncil.org/forest-carbon/?p=133#comment-71 Thank you for your comment Arlie. It is a major concern that prescribed burns release carbon emissions into the atmosphere, but we can look at this a number of ways: First, we must remember that if a fire were to occur on untreated forestlands, the effect may be catastrophic and the amount of carbon released would be much higher then that released in the prescribed burning process. Now this isn't necessarily the solution. As you'll see in previous blog posts, biomass utilization (the use of woody debris from fuels treatment) used for energy production is one innovative solution that SBC supports. Unfortunately, it is cheaper to leave the fuels in the forest and burn them on the ground then it is to pull the fuels out and truck them to a biomass plant. The conundrum continues when you realize that our biomass facilities are closing one by one due to the costs of running the plant compared to revenue generated by the use of the biomass. Long story short, our region needs policies that provide incentives for the use of biomass (see blog post on Biomass below), creating a sustainable way to manage our forests, reduce our emissions, and create good local jobs. Thank you for your comment Arlie. It is a major concern that prescribed burns release carbon emissions into the atmosphere, but we can look at this a number of ways:

First, we must remember that if a fire were to occur on untreated forestlands, the effect may be catastrophic and the amount of carbon released would be much higher then that released in the prescribed burning process. Now this isn’t necessarily the solution. As you’ll see in previous blog posts, biomass utilization (the use of woody debris from fuels treatment) used for energy production is one innovative solution that SBC supports. Unfortunately, it is cheaper to leave the fuels in the forest and burn them on the ground then it is to pull the fuels out and truck them to a biomass plant. The conundrum continues when you realize that our biomass facilities are closing one by one due to the costs of running the plant compared to revenue generated by the use of the biomass.

Long story short, our region needs policies that provide incentives for the use of biomass (see blog post on Biomass below), creating a sustainable way to manage our forests, reduce our emissions, and create good local jobs.

]]> By: Arlie http://www.sbcouncil.org/forest-carbon/?p=133&cpage=1#comment-70 Arlie Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:14:50 +0000 http://www.sbcouncil.org/forest-carbon/?p=133#comment-70 I have concerns with the continued prescribed burning being done on Forest Service and BLM land. How much is the burning adding to the atmospheric carbon? An anouncement today that the Forest Service is now doing a 5,000 acre burn in the Sierra Forest and the smoke is now coming over into the Eastern Sierra. This is purposely adding more carbon. Isn't there a better way to clean up the forest without this massive amount of carbon that the taxpayers will have to pay to clean up? This is the third year the valley has been blanketed with smoke, you can not see the mountains and hangs in the valley days on end. The number of residents with lung problems has increase due to breathing smoke. It is counter productive to clean up the Owens Lake dust problem and purposely add a new pollution problem with the smoke. Is this environmentally correct? I have concerns with the continued prescribed burning being done on Forest Service and BLM land. How much is the burning adding to the atmospheric carbon? An anouncement today that the Forest Service is now doing a 5,000 acre burn in the Sierra Forest and the smoke is now coming over into the Eastern Sierra. This is purposely adding more carbon. Isn’t there a better way to clean up the forest without this massive amount of carbon that the taxpayers will have to pay to clean up? This is the third year the valley has been blanketed with smoke, you can not see the mountains and hangs in the valley days on end. The number of residents with lung problems has increase due to breathing smoke. It is counter productive to clean up the Owens Lake dust problem and purposely add a new pollution problem with the smoke. Is this environmentally correct?

]]>