Researcher Hans Petersson had of the objections in a response to my letter to the editor of the DN Opinion on 5 december that the state should reward the owners who let their forests sequester and conserve carbon dioxide. Our views differ only on some few, but important, points.
first, Let me remind you that the climate situation is desperate. The atmosphere, too high carbon dioxide is like a blanket around the earth and causing global warming. Content is at 410 ppm and must be reduced to 350 ppm within 80 years, if our children should be able to handle the climate that we leave after us.
How can this excessive amount of carbon dioxide be reduced? The boring answer is that there is no other way than to persuade the forest and the land to bind as much carbon dioxide as possible.
to bind the carbon. Fossil fuels, we need to make us of with in other ways.
on the whole, we need to make us of with almost all fuels, because almost all increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere about as much during combustion. The exception is, for example, biogas from unavoidable waste.
But the trees included in a cycle, many people think of. While they lived and grew strip the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Sure, but then should we not bring back the carbon dioxide that they have tied it to the atmosphere again. On the contrary, we must ensure that the bound carbon dioxide remains bound and the best ways is, of course, in the living forest and in the sågverksprodukter used for construction.
in it, there is an optimal growth period to increase the volume of wood in the forest. But the actual when it is determined by the forest owners, who are more affected by the demand and prices of felled trees than of what increases the stock of standing timber in the forest.
Our market economy benefit in a way that is not conducive to the greatest possible carbon sequestration. This should change by allowing forest owners who are tempted to harvest their trees receive financial aid to not cut too early, but let the forest stand remain and grow.
This does not mean that one should never harvest the trees. His Petersson worry needlessly that my proposal would lead to the old tree that should have been harvested a long time ago would lie and rot and create greenhouse gases.
managed, particularly thinning, which means that the trees that are left are growing even faster. Nobody can make that assessment better than a forest owner, who can weigh the market price of harvested wood towards the support that the state should provide, in order to increase the stock of wood in the trees that remain and grow.
as soon As the overall virkesmängden in the total forest area would increase faster due to the thinning of the trees that grow the slowest, they should be harvested and their carbon saved in the wood.
Also the forest owner Roger Asplund responded to my letter with an interesting post. He gave a telling example of the market prevents one, from a climate point of view, a better way to manage the forest. The price is too low for the forests that are left and bind even more CO2.
should go in and see to – with canlı bahis a generous support to all the forest owners will receive incentives to manage their forest in the way that is best for diversity and climate, and thus for the future of our children.
