2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

For years we've known about the many values of old-growth forests: some of the cleanest drinking water in the world, critical wildlife and salmon habitat, and world class recreational opportunities. But in recent years, there's a rapidly growing abundance of research citing the carbon storage capabilities of old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. PNW old-growth forests can store more carbon per acre than any other ecosystem on the planet. As we've already lost up to 90% of the historic old-growth forests in the NW, isn't it our obligation to preserve these areas - not just for future generations, but for the future preservation of the planet. For more info, go to:
http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_forests/global-warming-and-northwest-forests

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I'd like to know where Senator-elect Merkley stands on protecting our mature and old-growth forests and restoring our forests through conservation-based thinning projects. To date, we've already lost up to 90% of the old-growth we once had and a rapidly growing body of evidence cites old-growth forests as a critical component in mitigating climate change.

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

I'd like to know where Kurt Schrader stands on protecting our old-growth forests. More and more research is showing that PNW old-growth forests store more carbon more efficiently than just about any other ecosystem on earth. Does Kurt Schrader support Senator Wyden's and Representative DeFazio's efforts to secure old-growth protections?

posted 4 years, 6 months ago
view in context

It is commonly believed that fast-growing young forests are better carbon stores than slow-growing old forests. The timber industry would have us believe that once a tree reaches maturity and begins to grow more slowly, we need to cut it down and replace it with another fast-growing young tree. In fact, this characterization of the relationship between forest age and carbon storage is inaccurate and incomplete.
Scientists have discovered that old forests continue to absorb CO2 even after tree growth appears to have slowed. This may be explained in part by the fact that old-growth trees send large amounts of carbon into the soil to support belowground ecosystems that help sustain them. One example of an interdependent relationship built on carbon transfer is older trees sharing carbohydrates with fungi in exchange for water and other nutrients.

First, only a small fraction of the carbon removed from logged forests ends up stored as durable goods and buildings. Most of the carbon ends up in the atmosphere after spending a short time as slash, sawdust, waste/trim, hog fuel, and non-durable goods like paper and pallets. Second, wood products have short ?life spans? compared to forests that are well protected from logging. Most wood products are essentially disposable. Wood products that can reasonably be considered durable (e.g. buildings) may in fact be less durable than the wood retained safely inside old-growth trees that can live to be hundreds of years old.

Many believe that forests are not good places to store carbon because forest fires release carbon. Certainly, forest fires do release CO2, but only a small fraction of the total forest biomass is lost to the atmosphere. Due to the incomplete combustion of large wood, 70-80 percent of the carbon in tree stems remains after forest fires and, globally, 23 times more carbon is captured by photosynthesis than is emitted by fires.

Managing our forest for mature and old-growth characteristics is the best way to maximize the carbon storage potential of our forests while also protecting invaluable salmon and wildlife habitat and sources of drinking water.

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context

I'd like to respond to Doug Robertson's statement that the Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) would provide environmental safeguards for forests on BLM lands. The fact is that this Bush Administration plan would increase the clea-cutting of old-growth forests by a staggering 700%. These forests, in addition to providing wildlife habitat, clean drinking water, and recreation opportunities, can play a big role in helping to mitigate climate change.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context