the Trees bind via photosynthesis of carbon, but it is a misconception that the role of forests from a climate point of view only is to store carbon in the forest. The forest’s role is mainly to replace finite resources like fossil oil. The forest growth is both good for the environment and sustainable.
A stand of trees growing more or less after an S-curve. If you are not rejuvenates the (planting) after logging there will be no growth and if you never remove it stagnates growth.
After a long time, the growth can actually become negative because of the självgallring and old forests are also more vulnerable to storms and fires. Trees that die and fall to the ground are broken down by micro-organisms and the carbon is returned to the atmosphere.
from the point of view of climate means, therefore, mainly to maximize the long-term photosynthesis (absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere), which is the same as maximizing the growth of helträdsbiomassa over time. To harvest too early or too late causes a tillväxtförlust.
It should also be long-term to minimize emissions from forestry. For example, it is likely not climate smart to replace a stick that must be transported long-distance to the nearest incinerator, and greenhouse gas emissions from the soil during harvesting operations on peatlands are considered particularly large.
Intuitively, it seems stupid to fell a trädplanta after only a few years of growth, but also to let the tree die and rot away after maybe hundreds of years. Thus, it should be an optimal growth period of Makrobet the long-term maximizes growth.
this is not news, and it turns out that the maximum long-term production is obtained when the medeltillväxten culminates. Then one should harvest the wood as soon as possible thereafter återföryngra for future growth for the substitution.
I agree that we should stimulate growth, but find that growth sustainable is to be used for substitution. Forests have a limited ability to store and sooner or later burns the forest up without benefit to the climate (but fires can be good for other things such as biodiversity).
If skogsägarens personal financial goal is to maximize the growth happens to this in line with what is climate smart. I do not think that the state should pay landowners for the additional growth.
in particular, samhällviktig can, for example, grants for forest fertilisation to increase the growth significantly – unfortunately, the fertilizer is often based on fossil fuels. Instead, the state can, for example, financial compensation to landowners for återvätning of organic agricultural land that is considered to contribute to the big issues.
It should be noted that the resource of forest and land are important for many benefits and not just the climate. We would like to state that the landowner shall modify its use, this must be financially compensated.
I agree with the submitter that the most important thing is to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Skogbruk already contributes an improved climate, but it does not provide the whole solution to the climate problem.
