That's a damned interesting statistic. Here is a map of the forests there:
"As of 2009, Australia has approximately 147 million hectares of native forest, which represents about 19% of Australia's land area."
So under 20% of the land area is able to absorb more than double the emissions of the continent? VERY interesting.
Keep in mind that the treasured view of forests as "carbon sinks" is inherently flawed. Yes, growing trees sequester carbon. But eventually they will age and die and release that carbon via decomposition or rapidly in a wildfire. You know what actually locks carbon up in near perpetuity (not that sequestering carbon is even remotely important)? Harvesting timber and turning that forest into stabilized timber products. Bonus points that tree farmers replant after harvest and that young trees sequester carbon much more quickly than muh old growth.
It also ignores the fact that any absorptive capacity of the forest was already employed in the carbon cycle not counting human emissions. It's a bit like being trapped in an airtight barn with 50 horses and some plants and thinking, "those plants make enough oxygen for two people so I'll be fine."
you are trying to speak logic to the illogical
There is no thought or logic required, have faith. Just repent your sins as a co2 producer and give your money to al gore.
Old growth are fucking cool they should be spared for that reason alone. Forestry has enough land to do thier shit knock down a shitty mctownhouse development and grow there if you want more wood.
You misunderstand. I was writing sarcastically from the view of an envirocultist who thinks every big tree is "old growth". The USFS has a hard cap on harvestable DBH and it has absolutely nothing to do with virgin old growth, second growth, or tree age or health. I obviously don't advocate for wholesale clearcutting of all forests. That's insane.
With that said, the true old growth is dying. A combination of refusal to thin old growth out and very aggressive fire suppression has produced decadent stands of huge timber that are worthless at a mill, releasing all their carbon at an accelerated rate, and as dead fuel accumulates are at an ever increasing risk of soil-sterilizing stand-replacement fires. Forests need management or they need to burn naturally and the enviros reeee about either option They've done such a good job of it that no forestry school even knows how to teach the management of old growth forests anymore. On top of that environmental researchers tend to exclude the carbon sequestered by reforestation when they talk about the carbon footprint of forest management.
(post is archived)