Jump to content

Yudel

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Gallery

Blogs

Events

Journalism: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Journalism: Loss of forest-related employment

Journalism: The need to expedite final treaties with First Nations

Journalism: Loss of primary forest

Journalism: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Other notable forest-related writing and reports

Noteworthy writing and reports from the forest-industrial complex

Forest News

Library: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Loss of primary forest

Library: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Make conservation of the hydrological function of forests a higher priority than timber extraction

Library: Loss of forest-related employment

Library: The need to expedite final treaties with First Nations

Transition from clearcut logging to selection logging

Library: Increase in forest fire hazard

Journalism: End public subsidization of BC's forest industry

Library: End public subsidization of BC's forest industry

Library: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Journalism: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Library: Creating a new vision for BC forests

Forest industry public subsidy calculator

Manufacturing and processing facilities

Forest Trends

Investigations

Community Forest Mapping Projects

Area-based calculations of carbon released from clearcut logging

Journalism: The increase in forest carbon emissions

Library: Increase in forest carbon emissions

To protect biodiversity, transition away from clearcut logging

Peachland Watershed Protection Alliance

Library: Loss of future employment resulting from exporting raw logs

Mapping old forest on Vancouver Island

Mapping old forest in Omineca Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Skeena Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Northeastern Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Cariboo Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in South Coast Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Thompson-Okanagan Natural Resource Region

Mapping old forest in Kootenay-Boundary Natural Resource Region

Forest Conservation Organizations

Mapping old forest on Haida Gwaii

Mapping old forest on the central coast

Library: Ecologically damaging practices

Journalism: Ecologically damaging practices

Critical Issues

Analysis

Comment

Listed species: Cascades Natural Resource District

Listed species: 100 Mile House Natural Resource District

Listed species: Campbell River Natural Resource District

Listed species: Cariboo-Chilcotin Natural Resource District

Listed species: Chilliwack River Natural Resource District

Listed species: Fort Nelson Natural Resource District

Listed species: Haida Gwaii Natural Resource District

Listed species: Mackenzie Natural Resource District

Listed species: Nadina Natural Resource District

Listed species: North Island Natural Resource District

Listed species: Peace Natural Resource District

Listed species: Prince George Natural Resource District

Listed species: Quesnel Natural Resource District

Listed species: Rocky Mountain Natural Resource District

Listed species: Sea-to-Sky Natural Resource District

Listed species: Selkirk Natural Resource District

Listed species: Skeena Natural Resource District

Listed species: South Island Natural Resource District

Listed species: Stuart-Nechako Natural Resource District

Listed species: Sunshine Coast Natural Resource District

Listed species: Thompson Rivers Natural Resource District

Listed species: Coast Mountains Natural Resource District

Action Group: Divestment from forest-removal companies

Fact-checking mindustry myths

First Nations Agreements

Monitor: BC Timber Sales Auctions

BC Timber Sales auction of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island

Monitoring of forest fires in clearcuts and plantations: 2021

Library: End public subsidization of forest industry

Examples of engaging the mindustry:

Portal: The over-exploitation of BC forests

Portal: The need to reform BC forest legislation

Portal: The need to expedite treaties with First Nations

Portal: The need to get more organized, informed and inspired for change

Portal: Develop a new relationship with forests

Portal: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Portal: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Portal: Increase in forest fire hazard

Portal: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Portal: Increase in forest carbon emissions

Portal: Ecologically damaging forestry practices

Portal: Loss of forest-related employment

Portal: Loss of future employment resulting from raw log exports

Portal: Costs of floods, fires and clearcutting of watersheds

Portal: The economic impact on communities of boom and bust cycles

Portal: Loss of economic development by other forest-based sectors

Portal: The true cost of subsidies provided to the logging industry

Help

Loss of trust in institutions

Portal: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Portal: The psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Portal: Loss of trust in institutions caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Portal: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Journalism: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Journalism: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Journalism: Loss in trust of institutions as a result of over-exploitation of BC forests

Journalism: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: The instability of communities dependent on forest extraction

Library: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Library: Loss of trust in institutions as a result of over-exploitation of BC forests

Library: Social division caused by over-exploitation of BC forests

Resources: Psychological unease caused by forest destruction

Resources: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Resources: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Journalism: Cost of floods, fires and clearcutting of community watersheds

Journalism: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Journalism: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Library: Cost of floods, fires and clearcutting of community watersheds

Library: The economic impact on communities of boom-and-bust cycles

Library: Loss of economic development potential in other forest-based sectors

Portal: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Portal: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Journalism: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Library: Permanent loss of forests to logging roads

Journalism: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Library: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Resources: The economic costs of converting forests into sawdust and wood chips

Resources: Ecologically damaging forestry practices

Resources: Conversion of forests to permanent logging roads

Library: Getting organized

Journalism: Getting organized

Forest politics

Forest Stewards

Portal: Plantation failure

Library: Plantation failure

Journalism: Plantation failure

Library: Loss of carbon sequestration capacity

Portal: Soil loss and damage

Journalism: Soil loss and damage

Library: Soil loss and damage

Resources: Soil loss and damage

Journalism: Loss of employment resulting from export of raw logs

Journalism: Destruction of wildlife habitat and loss of biodiversity

Journalism: Loss of the hydrological functions of forests

Journalism: Increase in forest fire hazard

Action Group: Sunlighting professional reliance

Making the case for much greater conservation of BC forests

Science Alliance for Forestry Transformation

Bearing witness:

Economic State of the BC Forest Sector

Big tree mapping and monitoring

Reported Elsewhere

Protect more

Start a forest conservation project

Get involved

Article reference pages

Physical impacts created by logging industry

Nature Directed Stewardship at Glade and Laird watersheds

References for: How did 22 TFLs in BC evade legal old-growth management areas?

References for: BC's triangle of fire: More than just climate change

References for: Teal Cedar goes after Fairy Creek leaders

References for: Is the draft framework on biodiversity and ecosystem health something new? Or just more talk and log?

IWTF events, articles and videos

Store

Downloads

Everything posted by Yudel

  1. Yudel
    Thanks for the clarification!
  2. Yudel
    Thanks for the clarification!
  3. Yudel
    The THLB is the area that is legally and economically available for logging. Aren't any old growth requirements, along with all other non-timber requirements, subtracted from the forested landscape before the THLB is defined? Isn't the THLB simply the area of productive forest that is left after all the deductions for non-timber values like old growth and visual quality are made? So by definition, the THLB shouldn't include old growth management areas, because those areas are off-limits to logging and are therefore not part of the THLB. It's possible that no spatial old growth management areas have been identified, but still 9% of the area of productive forest could have been left out of the THLB to meet old growth requirements. Is this possibly what occurred in these TFLs? Also, as I understand it, old growth protection should be 9% of the forested land base, not 9% of the THLB, so the amount of old growth off limits to logging should be higher than the 132,400 ha that you mention. Am I wrong about all this?
  4. Yudel
    I would be interested in a sharper version of this letter, if that is possible?
  5. Yudel
    The Valhalla Wilderness Society, who apparently did a lot of the campaigning to protect this area, does use the term "rock and ice", but it refers to a much smaller area than you describe. Taken from their press release (https://www.vws.org/incomappleux/) “At 58,000 hectares, the promised new Incomappleux Conservancy is relatively large,” says Pettitt. “VWS is pleased that it takes in the entirety of the Incomappleux unit of our park proposal. The Conservancy is close to twice as large as the Incomappleux unit of VWS’s park proposal; but the extra is mostly clearcuts, inoperable terrain, rock and ice." So a little under half of the conservancy is "clearcuts, inoperable terrain, rock and ice." That's very different from 94% being "rock and ice" [(58,000-3,600)/58,000 ha].
  6. Yudel
    The Valhalla Wilderness Society, who apparently did a lot of the campaigning to protect this area, does use the term "rock and ice", but it refers to a much smaller area than you describe. Taken from their press release (https://www.vws.org/incomappleux/) “At 58,000 hectares, the promised new Incomappleux Conservancy is relatively large,” says Pettitt. “VWS is pleased that it takes in the entirety of the Incomappleux unit of our park proposal. The Conservancy is close to twice as large as the Incomappleux unit of VWS’s park proposal; but the extra is mostly clearcuts, inoperable terrain, rock and ice." So a little under half of the conservancy is "clearcuts, inoperable terrain, rock and ice." That's very different from 94% being "rock and ice" [(58,000-3,600)/58,000 ha].
  7. Yudel
  8. Yudel
  9. Yudel
    "[T]he Incomappleaux Conservancy is not protected from mining... All of the existing mineral claims in the conservancy have been left intact." According to the in-depth Narwhal article on the conservancy (https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-rainforest-protected-area-conservancy/), this isn't true: "Logging, mining and large hydro-electric development will be prohibited in the conservancy... The southern one-quarter of the valley — 17,000 hectares — will receive a special designation under B.C.’s Forests Act to prevent timber harvesting but allow mineral exploration and mining, according to a letter the forests ministry sent to the Regional District of Central Kootenay, a copy of which was reviewed by The Narwhal."
  10. Yudel
    "[T]he Incomappleaux Conservancy is not protected from mining... All of the existing mineral claims in the conservancy have been left intact." According to the in-depth Narwhal article on the conservancy (https://thenarwhal.ca/bc-rainforest-protected-area-conservancy/), this isn't true: "Logging, mining and large hydro-electric development will be prohibited in the conservancy... The southern one-quarter of the valley — 17,000 hectares — will receive a special designation under B.C.’s Forests Act to prevent timber harvesting but allow mineral exploration and mining, according to a letter the forests ministry sent to the Regional District of Central Kootenay, a copy of which was reviewed by The Narwhal."
  11. Yudel
    "The vast majority of the area of the new conservancy consists of biodiversity-scarce ice and rock... The areal extent of the Incomappleaux Valley that’s now in the conservancy that was considered suitable for logging—see Interfor’s map of its timber harvesting land base in blue in the image below—was only 3600 hectares... much of which had already been logged once—little of that area still contains high levels of biodiversity: a mere 273 hectares." I think this is misleading. You equate everything outside the timber harvesting land base (THLB) with "rock and ice". But the THLB is simply the forest that is currently economical to harvest. This can be based on proximity to mills and/or current log prices (higher log prices leads to more area being economical to log). Areas outside the THLB might not only be forested, they might also be biodiverse. The fact that old growth forests were mapped outside the THLB supports this (even taking into consideration possible VRI inaccuracies, forested area and THLB are not synonymous since the THLB area itself was constructed using VRI). These old forests outside the THLB may not be as productive or have trees as big as those inside the THLB, but there's no reason to assume they have little biodiversity value, and they certainly shouldn't be called "ice and rock"! Your overall point, that the size of a protected area does not tell us how much old growth was protected inside that protected area, is still true. But you likely underestimated the importance of this conservancy for old growth protection.
  12. Yudel
    "The vast majority of the area of the new conservancy consists of biodiversity-scarce ice and rock... The areal extent of the Incomappleaux Valley that’s now in the conservancy that was considered suitable for logging—see Interfor’s map of its timber harvesting land base in blue in the image below—was only 3600 hectares... much of which had already been logged once—little of that area still contains high levels of biodiversity: a mere 273 hectares." I think this is misleading. You equate everything outside the timber harvesting land base (THLB) with "rock and ice". But the THLB is simply the forest that is currently economical to harvest. This can be based on proximity to mills and/or current log prices (higher log prices leads to more area being economical to log). Areas outside the THLB might not only be forested, they might also be biodiverse. The fact that old growth forests were mapped outside the THLB supports this (even taking into consideration possible VRI inaccuracies, forested area and THLB are not synonymous since the THLB area itself was constructed using VRI). These old forests outside the THLB may not be as productive or have trees as big as those inside the THLB, but there's no reason to assume they have little biodiversity value, and they certainly shouldn't be called "ice and rock"! Your overall point, that the size of a protected area does not tell us how much old growth was protected inside that protected area, is still true. But you likely underestimated the importance of this conservancy for old growth protection.
  13. Yudel
    "One possible solution to this dilemma would be to not conserve small areas of old forest as formal protected areas or conservancies. Instead, forest-related legislation could be amended to simply make it illegal to log old forest in these areas, including a suitable buffer of surrounding recruitment forest in those biogeoclimatic zones where old forest has fallen below 30 percent." This is a great idea. Not only would it solve the problem of how to protect thinly spread-out old growth, it would also solve the problem of the VRI inaccuracies that you pointed out in the other article. As policy currently stands, if government doesn't know an old growth stand exists due to VRI inaccuracy, they can't protect it or defer logging there. If a logging company then stumbles upon that old growth stand, they are free to log it. But if by default it is illegal to cut down old growth in biogeoclimatic zones/site series that have <30% old growth remaining, then if a company finds an unknown old growth stand in such an area, they would not be able to log it. Instead, the VRI data for that stand would be updated and the stand would be automatically protected.
  14. Yudel
    "One possible solution to this dilemma would be to not conserve small areas of old forest as formal protected areas or conservancies. Instead, forest-related legislation could be amended to simply make it illegal to log old forest in these areas, including a suitable buffer of surrounding recruitment forest in those biogeoclimatic zones where old forest has fallen below 30 percent." This is a great idea. Not only would it solve the problem of how to protect thinly spread-out old growth, it would also solve the problem of the VRI inaccuracies that you pointed out in the other article. As policy currently stands, if government doesn't know an old growth stand exists due to VRI inaccuracy, they can't protect it or defer logging there. If a logging company then stumbles upon that old growth stand, they are free to log it. But if by default it is illegal to cut down old growth in biogeoclimatic zones/site series that have <30% old growth remaining, then if a company finds an unknown old growth stand in such an area, they would not be able to log it. Instead, the VRI data for that stand would be updated and the stand would be automatically protected.
  15. Yudel
    You assume that the carbon in all the volume logged is instantly returned to the atmosphere as CO2. But the rate of decomposition depends on what the wood is used for. Pulp might become CO2 fairly quickly, although not if a large percentage of paper/cardboard is recycled. Lumber can last decades or even hundreds of years when used for construction. For coastal old growth this might still be less than the time the trees would have lived. But perhaps not by much. For the interior, the living trees might have decomposed just as soon, if not sooner, than the lumber. Also, why do you count woody debris in the carbon subsidy? That wood was already dead before logging and will be left there after logging (not much slash burning happens anymore, as I understand it). Roots too will decompose quite slowly and I don't think you should have counted 100% of their carbon. Taking into account the shelf life of wood products, and not counting woody debris, would lower your estimate for the carbon subsidy. Nevertheless, you're probably correct that there is a large carbon subsidy (externality). It's possible that the value of the forestry industry to provincial GDP is currently greater than the combined subsidies, but even if so, it's probably not by much. And the difference will shrink and likely become negative as the price of carbon rises, as you pointed out. I would just like to see revised numbers that take into account the shelf life of wood products.
  16. Yudel
    You assume that the carbon in all the volume logged is instantly returned to the atmosphere as CO2. But the rate of decomposition depends on what the wood is used for. Pulp might become CO2 fairly quickly, although not if a large percentage of paper/cardboard is recycled. Lumber can last decades or even hundreds of years when used for construction. For coastal old growth this might still be less than the time the trees would have lived. But perhaps not by much. For the interior, the living trees might have decomposed just as soon, if not sooner, than the lumber. Also, why do you count woody debris in the carbon subsidy? That wood was already dead before logging and will be left there after logging (not much slash burning happens anymore, as I understand it). Roots too will decompose quite slowly and I don't think you should have counted 100% of their carbon. Taking into account the shelf life of wood products, and not counting woody debris, would lower your estimate for the carbon subsidy. Nevertheless, you're probably correct that there is a large carbon subsidy (externality). It's possible that the value of the forestry industry to provincial GDP is currently greater than the combined subsidies, but even if so, it's probably not by much. And the difference will shrink and likely become negative as the price of carbon rises, as you pointed out. I would just like to see revised numbers that take into account the shelf life of wood products.
  17. Yudel
    You assume that the carbon in all the volume logged is instantly returned to the atmosphere as CO2. But the rate of decomposition depends on what the wood is used for. Pulp might become CO2 fairly quickly, although not if a large percentage of paper/cardboard is recycled. Lumber can last decades or even hundreds of years when used for construction. For coastal old growth this might still be less than the time the trees would have lived. But perhaps not by much. For the interior, the living trees might have decomposed just as soon, if not sooner, than the lumber. Also, why do you count woody debris in the carbon subsidy? That wood was already dead before logging and will be left there after logging (not much slash burning happens anymore, as I understand it). Roots too will decompose quite slowly and I don't think you should have counted 100% of their carbon. Taking into account the shelf life of wood products, and not counting woody debris, would lower your estimate for the carbon subsidy. Nevertheless, you're probably correct that there is a large carbon subsidy (externality). It's possible that the value of the forestry industry to provincial GDP is currently greater than the combined subsidies, but even if so, it's probably not by much. And the difference will shrink and likely become negative as the price of carbon rises, as you pointed out. I would just like to see revised numbers that take into account the shelf life of wood products.
  18. Yudel
    You assume that the carbon in all the volume logged is instantly returned to the atmosphere as CO2. But the rate of decomposition depends on what the wood is used for. Pulp might become CO2 fairly quickly, although not if a large percentage of paper/cardboard is recycled. Lumber can last decades or even hundreds of years when used for construction. For coastal old growth this might still be less than the time the trees would have lived. But perhaps not by much. For the interior, the living trees might have decomposed just as soon, if not sooner, than the lumber. Also, why do you count woody debris in the carbon subsidy? That wood was already dead before logging and will be left there after logging (not much slash burning happens anymore, as I understand it). Roots too will decompose quite slowly and I don't think you should have counted 100% of their carbon. Taking into account the shelf life of wood products, and not counting woody debris, would lower your estimate for the carbon subsidy. Nevertheless, you're probably correct that there is a large carbon subsidy (externality). It's possible that the value of the forestry industry to provincial GDP is currently greater than the combined subsidies, but even if so, it's probably not by much. And the difference will shrink and likely become negative as the price of carbon rises, as you pointed out. I would just like to see revised numbers that take into account the shelf life of wood products.
  19. Yudel
    You assume that the carbon in all the volume logged is instantly returned to the atmosphere as CO2. But the rate of decomposition depends on what the wood is used for. Pulp might become CO2 fairly quickly, although not if a large percentage of paper/cardboard is recycled. Lumber can last decades or even hundreds of years when used for construction. For coastal old growth this might still be less than the time the trees would have lived. But perhaps not by much. For the interior, the living trees might have decomposed just as soon, if not sooner, than the lumber. Also, why do you count woody debris in the carbon subsidy? That wood was already dead before logging and will be left there after logging (not much slash burning happens anymore, as I understand it). Roots too will decompose quite slowly and I don't think you should have counted 100% of their carbon. Taking into account the shelf life of wood products, and not counting woody debris, would lower your estimate for the carbon subsidy. Nevertheless, you're probably correct that there is a large carbon subsidy (externality). It's possible that the value of the forestry industry to provincial GDP is currently greater than the combined subsidies, but even if so, it's probably not by much. And the difference will shrink and likely become negative as the price of carbon rises, as you pointed out. I would just like to see revised numbers that take into account the shelf life of wood products.
  20. Yudel
    You assume that the carbon in all the volume logged is instantly returned to the atmosphere as CO2. But the rate of decomposition depends on what the wood is used for. Pulp might become CO2 fairly quickly, although not if a large percentage of paper/cardboard is recycled. Lumber can last decades or even hundreds of years when used for construction. For coastal old growth this might still be less than the time the trees would have lived. But perhaps not by much. For the interior, the living trees might have decomposed just as soon, if not sooner, than the lumber. Also, why do you count woody debris in the carbon subsidy? That wood was already dead before logging and will be left there after logging (not much slash burning happens anymore, as I understand it). Roots too will decompose quite slowly and I don't think you should have counted 100% of their carbon. Taking into account the shelf life of wood products, and not counting woody debris, would lower your estimate for the carbon subsidy. Nevertheless, you're probably correct that there is a large carbon subsidy (externality). It's possible that the value of the forestry industry to provincial GDP is currently greater than the combined subsidies, but even if so, it's probably not by much. And the difference will shrink and likely become negative as the price of carbon rises, as you pointed out. I would just like to see revised numbers that take into account the shelf life of wood products.
×
×
  • Create New...