AD SPACE HERE

Retired-CSIRO Scientist: NSW’s Forest Carbon Model Is Wrong

A new carbon model—backed by conservations—would allow the State governments to claim carbon credits for trees that would otherwise be harvested publically owned by stated forests, which would only lead to more emissions.


Tue 21 Jan 25

SHARE

A new proposal before the Australian government to replace logging of state forests with carbon credits is fundamentally flawed and will lead to increased emissions. That is according to Dr John Raison, CSIRO’s former chief research scientist, who has questioned a proposal by the NSW government that would allow state governments to claim carbon credits for not harvesting timber from publically owned state forests.

Dr Raison, who last month published A review of the impacts of sustainable harvesting, non-harvest management and wildfire on net carbon emissions from Australian native forests, said the proposal would not provide lower long-term carbon emissions than sustainable management for wood production. Instead, he told the Australian that a proper calculation of the scheme’s benefits would require a full-lifecycle analysis that looked at the decay of vegetation in the forest and the subsequent release of carbon, as well as the substitution of native timber products for other materials like concrete and steel or more problematic imported timber.

“When you take all of those things into account and do a proper analysis, there is no credible evidence that ceasing harvesting will reduce net emissions,” Dr Raison said. “Therefore, there’s no way you can reduce carbon emissions or bring in carbon abatement by stopping harvesting in state forests.”

Dr Raison said studies showing otherwise were incomplete or overestimated the rate of carbon gain in a forest if it is not harvested: “All these things have led to the incorrect conclusion that ceasing harvesting would provide better long-term emissions reduction methods than continuing to harvest.”

He also raised the issue of fire management and the massive increase in carbon emissions if a fire were to burn through an unmanaged state forest: “If you want to protect forests and the carbon stocks that remain there, you have to protect them from fire, but that is getting harder with climate change.”

Why Victoria’s Native Forest Ban is Poor Science

In the same study, Dr Raison said the Andrews and Allan decision to shut Victoria’s State Forests and close its native forest industry leaned on studies that “overestimated the possible benefits of ceasing harvesting because they have either been incomplete, used inappropriate parameters to estimate components of the total carbon balance, or overestimated the rate of carbon gain in older forests and the ability of unharvested forests to store carbon for the long term.”

“This has led to the incorrect conclusion that cessation of harvesting would provide lower long-term carbon emissions than sustainable management for wood production. A case study using the carbon balance of Victorian 1939 regrowth mountain ash forest managed for sawlog and pulpwood production on a rotation of 75 years showed that Victorian Government statements that harvesting results in significantly increased carbon emissions are incorrect,” he said.

Author

  • Wood Central

    Wood Central is Australia’s first and only dedicated platform covering wood-based media across all digital platforms. Our vision is to develop an integrated platform for media, events, education, and products that connect, inform, and inspire the people and organisations who work in and promote forestry, timber, and fibre.

spot_img

Related Articles