Carbon sinks and biofuels silviculture in the Greenhouse

Transcription

1 Carbon sinks and biofuels silviculture in the Greenhouse Andrew Greig Gorton Timber Company and Alan Cummine National Policy Director Australian Forest Growers

2 Australia s greenhouse gas abatement strategy Vegetation sinks, carbon credits, emissions trading political, media and broad industry support but forest growers cautious because of conceptual and accounting problems Ironic contrast Using biomass for electricity and transport fuels is good for forest growers and processors but ill-informed conservation opposition raises political threats to an excellent policy outcome Can we ever find common ground?

3 A new carboniferous era? Earth Summit 1992 UNFCCC ratified 1994 Kyoto Protocol (CoP3) Gross emissions can be offset against a limited range of carbon sequestration activities Thus, nett Ghg emissions (targets) Atmospheric carbon locked away until recently to once again be recaptured and stored in forests but this time, human-induced, as carbon sinks New questions for forest policy

4 Carbon sinks a mixed bag for production forestry? Atmospheric carbon is increased by... combustion of fossil fuels artificial disturbance of vegetation and soils So, aim to reduce both Thus, carbon sinks mitigate Ghg emissions by offsetting fossil fuel combustion helping to prevent land clearing BUT FORESTRY IS NOT LAND CLEARING

5 Under Kyoto Protocol, forest as a carbon sink is not all privilege (1) Article 3.3 Only direct human-induced post-1989 afforestation and reforestation can provide C sequestration credits in pre-1990 afforestation resources won t be credited, yet post-1989 deforestation of the same will be debited and forest is still to be satisfactorily defined and all emissions from all land use activities will be debited

6 Under Kyoto Protocol, forest as a carbon sink is not all privilege (2) Kyoto Article 3.4 offers possibilities Additional human-induced sink activities might allow silviculture and harvest regimes tailored to manipulate carbon sequestration converting forest from timber production to conservation status

7 Biofuels complement carbon sinks (1) Mitigate CO 2 emissions by carbon sinks and reduced fossil fuel combustion Reduce fossil fuel combustion by more efficient utilisation substitution by renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and biomass BUT in greenhouse mitigation terms, biomass energy (biofuel) is proving politically contentious

8 Biofuels complement carbon sinks (2) Some contend that any fuel substitution accompanied by CO 2 emission is unacceptable Others would allow CO 2 emission from some fuels e.g. natural gas rather than petrol, diesel, coal, biomass They consider biomass combustion to be an ineffective and unacceptable means of greenhouse mitigation Such a contention misunderstands the dynamics of biomass in recycling atmospheric carbon

9 Biomass decay and Greenhouse gases (1) Photosynthesis captures solar energy as biomass Combusting biomass is similar to eating biomass or leaving it to decay naturally all produce Ghg emissions Increase in carbon stocks by revegetation will be nett of natural Ghg emissions during a plant s decay phase Farming/harvesting to enhance soil carbon must still be balanced against other constraints on retaining biomass surplus to product yield ie surplus biomass must still be disposed of

10 Biomass decay and Greenhouse gases (3) Decaying biomass accumulates surplus to the main activity Combustion as fuel simply speeds up the otherwise inevitable generation of Ghg through decay So, displacing fossil fuels with biomass fuels effectively mitigates Ghg emissions just as carbon sequestration does

11 Biomass decay and Greenhouse gases (4) IPCC sees biofuel combustion as Gh-neutral because emissions are re-absorbed by replacement vegetative growth Misleading fails to acknowledge decay as integral in vegetation populations Implication? There s no need to replace the vegetation if it s not used as fuel in the first place Political opponents rely on this implication

12 The redemption of silviculture? Silviculture for timber production is often overwhelmed by political values of forests for conservation and recreation Fossil fuels financed this luxury fossil fuels also previously facilitated the silvicultural vandalism that led to those political values But now, a fuel-related crisis (global warming) offers silviculture a chance of redemption

13 Sawlog yield and non-sawlog growth No amount of silvicultural manipulation can prevent the total product yield of a forest from including large quantities of non-sawlog material Pulpwood for paper and packaging is the only large-scale commercial use of that material, but has many constraints Fuelwood demand has long been dormant (fossil fuels again!) Economic viability of forests has declined with the loss of product demand to use the forest s products

14 Utilising non-sawlog growth Forests denied access to demands for their non-sawlog growth cannot sustain sawlog supply Popular contrary belief severely inhibits sustainable forest management especially in highgraded and regrowth forests Politics-of-denial impedes plantation management, too lack of facilities to use non-sawlog thinnings

15 Sustainable forestry management = Greenhouse silviculture (1) Carbon sinks at first sounded good for forestry and silviculture but the old political rhetoric interfered Carbon sequestered in Kyoto forests will attract credit but emissions must be debited at harvest (forestry treated as land use change?) Carbon sinks, wood products and biofuels seem an excellent role for forests in the Greenhouse but it needs much political spadework to be seen as in accord with sustainable forest management

16 Sustainable forestry management = Greenhouse silviculture (2) Suppression of less vigorous forest trees represents active decay in the midst of vibrant growth The growth increment = total Ghg sequestration But that increment is nett of emissions from decay Thus, using the decay portion of gross biomass production is neutral with respect to nett Ghg emissions

17 Sustainable forestry management = Greenhouse silviculture (3) Silviculture that replicates this natural dynamic seems indistinguishable from silviculture for sustainable timber yield Thus, Greenhouse mitigation should foster silvicultural practices that also enhance forest management for timber production Yes, but

18 Opposition to biofuels is unnecessary Even while condemning fossil fuel emissions as the primary culprit, the forest campaigners prefer that timber production should be the scapegoat Carbon sinks? Yes. Carbon fibre? No. Fuelwood? NO NO NO. Incineration of our native forests for power generation, cremating our forests, the arsonists posing as the power industry, and so on. Confused, unnecessary, disappointing But some politicians have withstood the clamour NSW legislation allows the use of biofuels derived from forests

19 Finding common ground? (1) Political problem with forests is that their dynamic biomass turnover is almost imperceptible, when viewed tree by tree Relative tranquility of a forest is mistaken for a static permanence Resentment of the evident devastation just after a harvest

20 Finding common ground? (2) Forest conservation ethos has tended to focus on biomass stocks rather than on biomass dynamics Can that focus be expanded to growth cycle dynamics? A paradigm shift from preservation to sustainable utilisation? With fossil fuels now a Greenhouse negative, sustainability surely favours utilisation of natural resources?

21 Finding common ground? (3) Preservation denies complementarity of carbon sinks with biofuels and discounts the potential extra sequestration from manipulating the resource Could silvicultural realities and utilisation of the natural decay phase be the common ground? Australian society cannot afford years of needless debate about using some of a forest s inevitable product yield as a source of renewable energy.