In the recent letter, “On carbon” (April 25) the author assumed people concerned about the Climate Crisis “just don’t want a tree cut.” We’d love to see any valid documentation on that specious claim! Inevitably, some trees must be removed to keep home fires burning when people can’t afford other more expensive means or when trees present safety concerns.
More importantly, the author then went on attempting to justify commercial logging of public lands (a practice that releases vast amounts of carbon back into our threatened atmosphere) because “more of the carbon in the trees ends up in long-lived products, such as lumber, tables, chairs, flooring and cabinets.” I’ve heard this bogus argument before coming from old-school foresters and loggers. Actually, studies show only 10 percent or less of carbon is retained in those products after a commercial logging operation. The rest is emitted into the atmosphere through the destruction of trees, undergrowth and disturbed soils (where 50 percent of the carbon is stored). Further, the very act of cutting down those trees, transporting and processing them are apparently not taken into account in the author’s so-called “growth and drain” theory. It sounds like just another euphemism for business-as-usual, something we cannot afford to continue in an age of climate chaos.
The Massachusetts Forest Alliance, which the author identifies with, must be all about old-school forestry, practices that never really recognized the big picture on climate change. Today, we need to preserve as much forest cover and undisturbed forest floor as possible. It’s the right thing to do.
Don Ogden
producer/co-host
The Enviro Show
WMCB
Greenfield