Trees, forests and sequestration

From Lou Gould

I'd like to try to help clarify some possible confusion around the relationship of trees, forests and carbon sequestration.

While it is technically accurate to say that trees do not sequester carbon permanently, it is much more accurate to place trees in a context of forests or farms -- and the type of forest or farm. 

Generally, mature forests hold an enormous amount of carbon in the tree boles and the soils. Disruptions caused by deforestation release enormous amounts of stored carbon and today changes in land use from forest to farm or pasture are recognized as a major GW problem. This is why the IPCC is presently trying to refine a REDD system to provide payments for avoided or reduced deforestation.

Yes, forests are not permanent. Yes, once they reach maturity and equilibrium, they no longer remove more carbon than they release. Yes, they are vulnerable to catastrophic forces. But the stored carbon is held within the equilibrium and that can be for a long time. Forests are quite a carbon sink.

Thus, the question about planting trees must be placed in context. A fast growing tree plantation designed for paper pulp holds little advantage for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. On the other hand, planting trees with the intention of creating forests that provide a wide range of ecosystem services can make a very real contribution.

__