FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Clearcutting Our Carbon Accounts: How the Timber Industry Shields its Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Public Scrutiny

by

Imagine you are in the 6th grade, and your teacher has told you everyone must get a C average or above, or they will fail her class. Everyone in the class dutifully works hard to get an A, except one person, who ignores all the rules and consistently gets Ds and Fs. At the end of the year, this student passes. Flabbergasted, the other students who tried so hard to get high grades ask why. The teacher tells them that everyone’s grades were averaged together, and so the bad student benefited from everyone’s extra hard work and was allowed to pass, while the good students saw their grades go down.  Sound fair? Of course not.

Yet that is exactly what is now happening in the forest sector globally. A flawed methodology developed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the international level to calculate greenhouse gas emissions attributable to the forest sector and adopted by countries around the world allows the timber industry—the bad actor– to shield its global warming pollution from public scrutiny by taking credit for carbon sequestered on lands it did not protect. Practices such as clearcutting, conversion of native forests into tree plantations, construction of logging roads and application of carbon-intensive pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers release significant greenhouse gas pollution into the atmosphere. Yet the timber industry claims that the carbon dioxide absorbed by forests conserved at great cost by non-profits, by small landowners and held in trust by public lands exceeds what the timber industry emits and therefore the net emissions from what they call the “forestry sector” are zero.

Because of this accounting trick, greenhouse gas emissions from the timber industry in Oregon and elsewhere around the world have not been tracked and evaluated since 2002 and are ignored by climate policy makers. Instead, the State (in its Roadmap to 2020) merely assumes that “Oregon’s forests are a carbon sink, capturing more carbon than they release. As such, Oregon’s forests and its forest sector have and will continue to contribute to the goal of achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by remaining a robust and sustainable sector in Oregon.” Adding insult to injury, industrial forest practices are undermining goals for climate adaptation by keeping millions of acres of forestland in a high-risk condition for wildfire, landslides, disease and pest outbreaks while contributing to thermal pollution deadly to coldwater fisheries.

What does this mean for Oregon? It means that a state, which prides itself on being one of the greenest in the country, is actually responsible for uncounted greenhouse gas emissions of roughly 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year. This is no small number. It is equivalent to the emissions of seven coal-fired power plants the size of the one operating in Boardman. This represents the second largest source of emissions for the State and 32% of the total emissions from all other sectors. The Oregon Global Warming Commission and other agencies are required to monitor and evaluate these emissions by law, but have failed to do so. By failing to reign in industrial forestland emissions Oregon won’t have a prayer of meeting its emissions reduction targets for 2020 and beyond.

There are several remedies the Commission and its counterparts in other states and across the world need to implement. First, emissions from industrial forest practices need to be tracked and evaluated just as they are from any other industrial activity. This means separating out industrial forestry emissions from others in the so-called forest sector – namely, small landowners, non-profits, and public agencies. This way timber industry emissions will have nowhere to hide.

Secondly, alternatives to clearcutting, short rotations, tree plantations and chemicals should be dramatically scaled up by direct regulation or economic incentives. These practices should be the rule not the exception. Third, commercial timber production should cease on public lands since these are the only lands ostensibly controlled by democratic processes and standards that require state and federal agencies to maximize public, not corporate benefits. Public forests should be managed for public resource values, carbon storage included.

And finally, tax loopholes that encourage carbon intensive forest practices should be closed. In Oregon and other states, the timber industry receives a 90% property tax break on its lands regardless of their condition. These tax breaks should not apply to logging roads and clearcuts. Instead, tax incentives should be rewired to incentivize techniques that maintain forest cover and promote the growth of large, older trees thereby bolstering carbon sequestration and storage.

Any good teacher knows holding students accountable for their own bad behavior is the only way to change it. It’s time we applied the same standard to the timber industry.

John Talberth is the founder of Center for Sustainable Economy and currently serves as both President and Senior Economist.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

April 26, 2017
Richard Moser
Empire Abroad, Empire At Home
Stan Cox
For Climate Justice, It’s the 33 Percent Who’ll Have to Pick Up the Tab
Paul Craig Roberts
The Looting Machine Called Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
The Dilemma for Intelligence Agencies
Christy Rodgers
Remaining Animal
Joseph Natoli
Facts, Opinions, Tweets, Words
Mel Gurtov
No Exit? The NY Times and North Korea
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Women on the Move: Can Three Women and a Truck Quell the Tide of Sexual Violence and Domestic Abuse?
Michael J. Sainato
Trump’s Wikileaks Flip-Flop
Manuel E. Yepe
North Korea’s Antidote to the US
Kim C. Domenico
‘Courting Failure:’ the Key to Resistance is Ending Animacide
Barbara Nimri Aziz
The Legacy of Lynne Stewart, the People’s Lawyer
Andrew Stewart
The People vs. Bernie Sanders
Daniel Warner
“Vive La France, Vive La République” vs. “God Bless America”
April 25, 2017
Russell Mokhiber
It’s Impossible to Support Single-Payer and Defend Obamacare
Nozomi Hayase
Prosecution of Assange is Persecution of Free Speech
Robert Fisk
The Madder Trump Gets, the More Seriously the World Takes Him
Giles Longley-Cook
Trump the Gardener
Bill Quigley
Major Challenges of New Orleans Charter Schools Exposed at NAACP Hearing
Jack Random
Little Fingers and Big Egos
Stanley L. Cohen
Dissent on the Lower East Side: the Post-Political Condition
Stephen Cooper
Conscientious Justice-Loving Alabamians, Speak Up!
Michael J. Sainato
Did the NRA Play a Role in the Forcing the Resignation of Surgeon General?
David Swanson
The F-35 and the Incinerating Ski Slope
Binoy Kampmark
Mike Pence in Oz
Peter Paul Catterall
Green Nationalism? How the Far Right Could Learn to Love the Environment
George Wuerthner
Range Riders: Making Tom Sawyer Proud
Clancy Sigal
It’s the Pits: the Miner’s Blues
Robert K. Tan
Abe is Taking Japan Back to the Bad Old Fascism
April 24, 2017
Mike Whitney
Is Mad Dog Planning to Invade East Syria?    
John Steppling
Puritan Jackals
Robert Hunziker
America’s Tale of Two Cities, Redux
David Jaffe
The Republican Party and the ‘Lunatic Right’
John Davis
No Tomorrow or Fashion-Forward
Patrick Cockburn
Treating Mental Health Patients as Criminals
Jack Dresser
An Accelerating Palestine Rights Movement Faces Uncertain Direction
George Wuerthner
Diet for a Warming Planet
Lawrence Wittner
Why Is There So Little Popular Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?
Colin Todhunter
From Earth Day to the Monsanto Tribunal, Capitalism on Trial
Paul Bentley
Teacher’s Out in Front
Franklin Lamb
A Post-Christian Middle East With or Without ISIS?
Kevin Martin
We Just Paid our Taxes — are They Making the U.S. and the World Safer?
Erik Mears
Education Reformers Lowered Teachers’ Salaries, While Promising to Raise Them
Binoy Kampmark
Fleeing the Ratpac: James Packer, Gambling and Hollywood
Weekend Edition
April 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Diana Johnstone
The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail