By Susan Harris*
A recent article published on interest.co.nz purported to discuss the recent flood events in the Hawke's Bay and "what is needed in terms of land management", presumably to prevent these types of event from happening again. Widespread damage from the floods was at least partly the result of poor logging practices. Huge quantities of slash were washed down hillsides and into the rivers, destroying roads, railway lines, bridges, fences, paddocks, farm buildings and homes.
Yet incredibly, the interviewer asked the forest ecologist quoted in the article: "if we have a forestry problem, particularly carbon farming and whether the industry needs to be managed better". Even more incredibly, the forest ecologist replied that: “Yeah that plant-and-leave carbon farming I think that that's setting up major problems for future generations, in the sense that those forests that are planted in the notion that they will replace themselves to be permanent.”
What an incredible twist of the facts! This article gives the impression that carbon forestry caused the awful events of Cyclone Gabrielle, and that permanent carbon forestry could lead to similar disasters in the future. This misinformation needs correcting.
Key points are these:
• Forestry slash in Hawke's Bay came from commercial logging sites;
• Poor logging practice lead to the washing of slash into rivers under heavy rainfall;
• Destruction and damage to neighbouring properties and infrastructure from mobile slash in storm events has happened frequently before and has been reported to authorities. Some prosecutions have ensued;
• Permanent carbon forestry does not create slash problems because the trees are not clear-fell harvested;
• If carbon forest is harvested under averaging accounting, competent advisors will recommend sustainable harvesting practices. Selling harvest waste for chip, or chipping and recycling it on-site are two examples of such;
• If exotic carbon forestry, as the trees grow old replacement planting programmes can be used to transition old forest to new. This is not an issue for native forest because it matures over very long time periods;
• Converting pine forest to native forest for permanent carbon forestry can be managed professionally so that the transition is smooth. It certainly need not involve the production of thousands of tonnes of slash;
• There is no such thing as "lock-up-and-walk-away-forest" or "plant-and-leave-carbon-farming" in professional carbon farming practice;
• Professional carbon farmers recognise that they are forest stewards, responsible for managing the forest for maximum carbon stock production, for increased biodiversity, erosion prevention, water quality protection, and native seed propagation;
• This also means that professional carbon farmers have active programmes for pest destruction (they don't want animal pests eating or destroying their carbon stock), disease control, and fence maintenance, as examples of common carbon forest management practices;
• Permanent carbon forestry in marginal country sits well with and can fund other sustainable land use practices such as honey production, tourism, adventure parks, "glamping", high-value guided hunting excursions, restoration of traditional historic sites, scientific research, arable and pastoral farming, and purchase of other properties for multiple-use land options, (not just carbon farming);
• Permanent carbon forestry shows New Zealand is making a genuine contribution to tackling climate change, which was one of the major causes of the Cyclone Gabrielle disaster. Carbon farming will also help protect our exporters from future carbon tariffs being proposed by the European Union and USA for countries that are not actively working to reduce their emissions.
To conclude, carbon farming is a win-win for many reasons. Properly managed permanent carbon forestry will help keep the hillsides up, it will never generate massive slash tsunamis like we have seen lately. They will set up future generations for success in climate change action, sustainable forest re-establishment, and revenue generation from otherwise marginal country.
*Susan Harris is Principal Scientist at GreenXperts Limited, a New Zealand-based sustainability consultancy involved in numerous carbon and land management projects. Susan was on the science team that helped the New Zealand Government create the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme. Susan worked on emission factors with other colleagues at that time.
45 Comments
profile - uninformed and wrong. Not planting trees will leave bare ground that will establish weeds and storms will wash silt into properties and land all because Jimmy Mums and his Ilk are more interested in virtual signalling than finding solutions that allow trees/Carbon Credits and employment without allowing slash buildup. Slash used to be burnt on site until greenies whinged that it released co2, but letting slash rot releases co2 just over a longer period so its no different just timing. There are ways to use slash beneficially but I suspect the usual depts of interference & obstruction will make this uneconomic and Govt will waste more Taxpayer $ on reports to be filed away and not implemented on.
What do you define as slash ? It seems to have changed to be include large logs , that ae not economic to transport to the wharf , or pulp mill . I would say health and safety rules have made it difficutlt to allow third party operators with portable mills in to make fence posts etc.
The greens want slash converted to usuable biomass , i am hoping local processing facilities in Gisborne , and maybe one up the coast , will come out of the review. Or a portable chipper / pellet maker to make the transport economic. Even so it would need government backing at some level .
The same climate change that was being blamed for Auckland's drought a couple of years ago.
I reckon climate is happening and there is a chance that it might rapidly accelerate so I'd like us to be taking it seriously and carefully measuring greenhouse emissions and planning how best to reduce them. However a sensible policy is undercut every time the media confuses weather with climate. Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and we were assured hurricanes would become more frequent and stronger but the next ten years were a very quiet decade for hurricanes hitting the USA. We are told that with more energy in the atmosphere there will be more gales but average wind speeds are dropping worldwide which is not good for wind power. The real climate scientists have less sense of certainty than our alarmist journalists.
It has always been said that climate change would result in more weather extremes, not necessarily just hotter and drier.
As far as the recent cyclones go , warmer seas south of the tropics ,eamt the cyclones picked up a lot more moisture as they headed towards NZ.
More extreme weather is frequently predicted. It even makes sense - more energy in the atmosphere resulting in more varied results. However unlike the steadily rising average temperature of the oceans there is no evidence or maybe insufficient evidence that climate change correlates with more variable weather.
There is even some evidence in reverse - the centre of the Pacific Ocean lies in the tropics but it is called 'pacific' because the cold air and water in the roaring forties produce the worst storms. I recently read wind speeds are dropping not increasing resulting in lower than anticipated power generation by wind farms. Check the history - terrible weather events have been with us for millennia but we are less tough and resilient.
Rubbish! We have been in a La Nina weather pattern for the best part of 3 years. During this time we have been constantly warned that there would be an increased chance of tropical cyclones impacting the North Island during this WEATHER phase. This is not a result of climate change. Unfortunately our talented MSM have all been shouting "caused by climate change" as loudly as possible. And we know how gullible the bulk of the population are to the MSM! There is absolutely no way of knowing if the cyclone was any more intense (or not) because of climate change.
As for the author of the article, how can we take her seriously! Firstly she helped design the farcical ETS and secondly her and her partners are making big coin out of their "consulting".
Hugh vested interest!
An attribution study on Cyclone Gabrielle has already been completed:
Based on historical weather station data, the scientists found that heavy rainfall events, like those seen during Cyclone Gabrielle, now produce around 30% more rain than before humans warmed the planet. Such heavy rainfall events also now happen about four times more often than they did previously.
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/heavy-rain-that-flooded-northea…
Stephen06 - no, let's stick to truths.
You - and others here - will be directly impacted, presumably negatively and presumably monetarily, to be making the noises you are.
One in particular, is probably a paid tout.
But the rest of us stick to the science, OK? And it's time comments like yours were stuffed back where they belong.
When we added so much heat energy to the ocean systems, this was the long-predicted result. And it will become more common. Accept it.
""so much heat energy to the ocean"" - this is true. But the oceans are very big. So the temperature of the upper few metres of the ocean – has increased by approximately 0.13°C per decade over the past 100 years. That is a dramatic 1.3°C but measuring energy from absolute zero that would be an energy increase of 0.4%. Significant but not dramatic. The majority of the ocean is not in the upper few metres but the 3,600 metres below. This is my concern about climate change - we could stop all emissions tomorrow but the warming of the oceans that has already occurred would mean climate warming will remain for centuries.
The oceans are indeed vast. Heating them by 1.3degC is quite an achievement for Homo colossus, considering how much energy is needed for such an undertaking. Thank goodness for the oceans.
"According to an analysis by the Grantham Institute, if the same amount of heat that has gone into the top 2,000 m of the ocean between 1955 and 2010 had gone into the lower 10 km of the atmosphere, the Earth would have seen a warming of 36°C."
Even "profile" might notice this deviation in average temperature?
https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-brief/ocean-warming
How much energy has it taken to heat our planet to date? The energy of about 3.2 billion Hiroshima bombs apparently.
https://4hiroshimas.info/https://4hiroshimas.info/
Who "added so much heat energy" to the ocean systems back when we didn't have carbon credits to control the climate?
Pacific Ocean heat content during the past 10,000 years
"We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24179224/
So cooler oceans now (compared to the mid Holocene) are extremely unnatural heating? The warming going on now is the same as per WW2 but back then people had real problems and the big end of town hadn't invented carbon bludging.
"Our reconstruction, which agrees with other estimates for the well-observed period, demonstrates that the ocean absorbed as much heat during 1921–1946 as during 1990–2015." As much ocean heating at 300ppm as 400 ppm. You might be on to something with natural cycles.
Thanks for the interesting link profile. I take it you agree with the contents of your reference?
"Most of the excess energy stored in the climate system due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has been taken up by the oceans, leading to thermal expansion and sea-level rise. The oceans thus have an important role in the Earth’s energy imbalance."
The study doesn't examine why "the ocean absorbed as much heat during 1921–1946 as during 1990–2015.", but it does say "Before the 1990s, most ocean temperature measurements were above 700 m and therefore, insufficient for an accurate global estimate of ocean warming.".
It then goes on to say "We present a method to reconstruct ocean temperature changes with global, full-depth ocean coverage". Oh no ! A temperature reconstruction! Deniers of anthropogenic global heating just hate temperature reconstructions, so I know you will be discrediting this one!
Perhaps you can track down a study that examines why this might be the case, because this study doesn't? "with an increase during 1921–1946 (145 ±± 62 ×1021×1021 J) that is as large as during 1990–2015"
In the absence of an actual study, its interesting to speculate on the cause of this anomaly. ENSO? It's an established fact during the La Nina phase of ENSO oceans absorb heat and release it during El Nino. Perhaps there was a greater influence from La Nina in the '21/'46 period and El Nino during '90/'15? An amateur glance at the ENSO record would suggest this may be the case.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei.ext/
Aerosols? The difference in energy absorbed could be due to the effect of much greater aerosol pollution now?
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/11/10/1095
If this situation in fact existed, it was no doubt due to a combination of factors.
In your studies conclusion. "Monitoring and understanding OHC change and the role of circulation in shaping the patterns of warming remain key to predicting global and regional climate change and sea-level rise." Most of the excess energy stored in the climate system due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has been taken up by the oceans, leading to thermal expansion and sea-level rise." Seems the authors have no problem accepting a AGW planet?
Get stuck Palmtree and find out where that 1921–1946 "excess heat" came from. While you are at it find out where the mid Holocene "excess heat" came from. It clearly wasn't anthro CO2. Really need to figure that out before you can attempt to predict future climate or tax people to change the climate.
"We show that water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic intermediate waters were warmer by 2.1 ± 0.4°C and 1.5 ± 0.4°C, respectively, during the middle Holocene Thermal Maximum than over the past century. Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades."
So do you admit to accepting the text of the study you referenced profile?
"Most of the excess energy stored in the climate system due to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions has been taken up by the oceans, leading to thermal expansion and sea-level rise."
"find out where that 1921–1946 "excess heat" came from." Combination of AGW and natural factors probably. LOL. By 1920 we had already increased atmospheric CO2 by 10% over pre industrial.
https://www.climate.gov/media/14596
"water masses linked to North Pacific and Antarctic" You do realise this statement doesn't constitute the whole planet right?
I am wondering which "recent decades" this limited spatial study refers to? Being behind a paywall its impossible to know. Unless you cough up and purchase the article to back up your claims? Being 10 years old I would assume this study doesn't include the latest ocean heat data.
https://www.statista.com/chart/19418/divergence-of-ocean-temperatures-f…
Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades."
The key words are at the end: "from otherwise marginal country".
Is it the case that conversions to carbon farming are being done on marginal land? That seems to be the key risk here, in that farmers are incentivised to convert productive land based on potentially short-term pricing and political agreements, without being able to easily convert back. NZ needs to have an overall long-term strategy.
There is no law that states carbon forestry must occur on marginal/poor land but it certainly tends to. Within the market for land, carbon foresters are competing with all other purchasers (i.e. farmers, commercial foresters etc) so the sums don't typically work for buying high quality land for carbon- it's too expensive. Many players in the industry only target land that is otherwise unsustainable for farming and is already reverting to weeds, some specifically subdivide and sell the better parts of a property rather than plant it or lease the poorer quality land for planting (thereby giving capital to spend on getting better productivity from the good remaining land)
I am not sure whether the promises that you list in your article about being ‘good stewards and managers’ is covered by legislation with appropriate penalties for non-compliers. I just want our government to ensure these practises actually occur. Especially with regard to any harvesting that takes place and the slash generated being recycled somehow. Also the stability of the harvested area that has been stripped bare is of great concern to many of us as well.
I'm not sure long term the words win/win and good stewards of the land will apply.
The only ones making money will be the farmers cashing out land and overseas investors collecting credits.
There is no export revenue generated from these carbon only farms .Just repatriating money off shore or to corporate entities.
As for good stewardship.. pest control will only happen in the establishment phase and will mainly involve shooting feral animals from helicopters with kill left to rot.
They tend to plant everything on the land in trees including tracks ,access points and along with unpruned trees /gorse /blackberry getting into these blocks over land will be very difficult.
Previously maintained farm dams will silt up( no firefighting water source) and along with the lack of fire breaks when a fire does break out it will be difficult/impossible to control.
Rural communities will loose ratepayers/infrastructure /schools so wont be win win for them.
I think we need to pause this plant everything in trees dogma and think about what the future hinterland will look like in 15 years time.
Once you sell your farm they dont pay you carbon credits. I thought this was obvious.The key word is 'export' revenue.
The vast majority of carbon farms will be owned by corporates, many overseas .
My info comes from driving down my road.Dont believe everything people like the author tell you.
They all have a vested interest(namely their job)
Susan, whats your opinion of commercial native forest logging? In my opinion in regions prone to land erosion/slips like the East Coast, trees with longer growing time would stabilise the land for longer. If trees like Kauri were farmed then there presumably would be less trunk slash and more timber than pines? From a long term economic view point, native commercial forest logging could lead to NZ processing of native timber, a boutique timber product and tourism potential = local jobs and more secondary service industry?
There is very little commercial native forest logging happening, because laws are very strict with a sustainable forest permit required. My opinion is that it is better to leave the forest in the ground for land stability, water conservation, and native seed propagation. There is a need for more native seed and seedling sources for new plantings of native forest that can go into the NZ Emissions Trading Scheme and earn carbon credits.
"There is no such thing as "lock-up-and-walk-away-forest" or "plant-and-leave-carbon-farming" in professional carbon farming practice".
What nonsense. There is permanent carbon forest in Hawke's Bay, and other regions, that has been planted and left. Even including high pruned stands that now will never be harvested.
I think she means even pine trees need some maintainance when they are young. You have to meet the canopy cover and height ( 5 metres) at a certain point. Presumably, there is a audit process to check the trees are actually meeting the targets they are getting the credits for.
If you look at QE2 national trust covenants , many(probably the majority) of the 5000 landowners would be farmers. they voluntarily retire and protect areas for Native forest . Not hard to think they would do the same for exotic forests.
A good article. Professional management as you have outlined is ideal. Unfortunately there are plenty of “lock-up and walk away forests” or “plant and leave carbon farming”
The emissions trading scheme is full of holes – this being a very obvious one. I am a forester and a farm lender. I have had dozens of funding requests for carbon farms. My first question is how do you intend to sustainably manage or harvest. In nearly every case the response is – “we don’t intend to harvest” – which if true for an exotic stand will cause environmental disaster for the next generation. My challenge to you as a professional carbon farmer – how do you rein in the irresponsible?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.