The only climate realities we can predict for sure: 1. green, chlorophyll-rich leaves are the nature’s most efficient decarbonizing engines and 2. as climate change continues to pump greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, larger swaths of forestland will go up in smoke, adding more carbon to the atmosphere and devastating anything in or near them.
According to the United Nations, “The escalating climate crisis and land-use change are driving a global increase in extreme wildfires, with a 14% increase predicted by 2030 and a 30% increase by 2050, according to a UN report involving more than 50 international researchers.” Guardian UK, February 23rd. Even “cleaning” dry brush and dead trees from forest land does not guarantee that the targeted greenbelts will survive the wildfire threat. Hot and drier times also challenge forests to remain heathy. What to do?
Heavily populated New Jersey still has vast forests in state-controlled parks and refuges. Beautiful, rolling acres of magnificent pines, especially in the south-central part of the state. New Jersey officials are about to cull the herd, so to speak. Eliminating all but the biggest pines in a state reserve. “Created by an act of Congress in 1978, the Pinelands district occupies 22% of New Jersey’s land area, is home to 135 rare plant and animal species, and is the largest body of open space on the mid-Atlantic seaboard between Richmond, Va., and Boston. It also includes an aquifer that is the source of 17 trillion gallons of drinking water.
“‘It is unacceptable to be cutting down trees in a climate emergency, and cutting 2.4 million small trees will severely reduce the future ability to store carbon,’ said Bill Wolfe, a former department official who runs an environmental blog.
“New Jersey environmental officials say that the plan to kill trees in a section of Bass River State Forest is designed to better protect against catastrophic wildfires, and that it will mostly affect small, scrawny trees — not the towering giants for which the Pinelands National Refuge is known and loved.
“But the project, adopted Oct. 14 by the New Jersey Pinelands Commission and set to begin in April, has split environmentalists. Some say it is a reasonable and necessary response to the dangers of wildfires, while others say it is an unconscionable waste of trees that would no longer be able to store carbon as climate change imperils the globe.
“Foes are also upset about the possible use of herbicides to prevent invasive species regeneration, noting that the Pinelands sit atop an aquifer that contains some of the purest drinking water in the country… And some of them fear the plan could be a back door to logging the protected woodlands under the guise of fire protection, despite the state’s denials… ‘In order to save the forest, they have to cut down the forest,’ said Jeff Tittel, the retired former director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, calling the plan ‘shameful’ and ‘Orwellian.’
“Pinelands Commissioner Mark Lohbauer voted against the plan, calling it ill-advised on many levels. He says it could harm rare snakes, and adds that he has researched forestry tactics from Western states and believes that tree-thinning is ineffective in preventing large wildfires… ‘We are in an era of climate change; it’s incumbent on us to do our utmost to preserve these trees that are sequestering carbon,’ he said. ‘If we don’t have an absolutely essential reason for cutting down trees, we shouldn’t do it.’” Wayne Parry, writing for the November 27th Associated Press.
We’ve lambasted Brazil’s former but recent President Jair Bolsonaro for prioritizing (or looking the other way) cutting down rain forests to make way for more farmland and mine sites, harvesting lumber in the meantime. The acreage there is vastly larger than what is happening here, but species and indigenous peoples are losing their territory; Amazonia is now pumping more carbon (from burning) that it used to remove.
New Jersey is hardly the hotbed of wildfires, but it does represent state officials concerned that it does not become the “next.” “The plan involves about 1,300 acres, a miniscule percentage of the 1.1-million-acre Pinelands preserve, which enjoys federal and state protection, and has been named a unique biosphere by the United Nations.
“Most of the trees to be killed are 2 inches or less in diameter, the state said. Dense undergrowth of these smaller trees can act as ‘ladder fuel, carrying fire from the forest floor up to the treetops, where flames can spread rapidly and wind can intensify to whip up blazes, the state Department of Environmental Protection said in a statement.
“A Pinelands commissioner calculated that 2.4 million trees would be removed by using data from the state’s application, multiplying the percentage of tree density reduction by the amount of land affected… The department would not say whether it believes that number is accurate, nor would it offer a number of its own. But it did say ‘the total number of trees thinned could be significant.’
“‘This is like liquid gasoline in the Pinelands,’ said Todd Wyckoff, chief of the New Jersey Forest Service, as he touched a scrawny pine tree of the type that will most often be cut during the project. ‘I see a forest at risk from fire. I look at this as restoring the forest to more of what it should be.’” AP. But deep within this analysis in one giant question: can our vast forests even survive as temperatures rise to a new permanent high? Is this a fight we cannot win until we seriously address reducing, then eliminating carbon emissions in their entirety... everywhere?
I’m Peter Dekom, but all these minor efforts are shortcuts that cannot possibly solve the big picture damage being caused that that will be caused by failing sufficiently to address climate change in a massive global effort.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment