> The researchers have found that carbon uptake of trees (as measured by growth rates) continuously increases with their size because the overall leaf area increases as they grow. This enables bigger trees to absorb more carbon from the atmosphere. Thus, the oldest trees in a forest capture the most carbon from the atmosphere. These oldest trees are to be found in ancient forests. Importantly, older trees are also more valuable for biodiversity than younger trees because they support a wider range of species
Coming from Brazil, it pretty much looks like rain forest to me, except all the tree species are different. Besides, what is the point you are trying to make? That this is somehow ok?
Maybe instead of "debunked", you meant to say "this is a controversial issue".
Here's a better source to support your claims: http://www.co2science.org/subject/f/summaries/forestold.php
Quote from the second link:
> with respect to the Brazilian forests in the central Amazon - about 50% of their above-ground biomass is contained in less than the largest 10% of their trees
Logging could be done in an ecological manner enabling and even stimulating natural regeneration but the industry culture has been powerfully opposed to ecological concern and campaigns that have struggled against its practices for many decades past[1]
Despite potentially offering insightful, fit and adventurous outdoor employment opportunities for humanity, global logging industry has politically lobbied to maintain a brutal strategy of maximum impact and immediate return towards its resource.
These practices are developed and carried out wherever profitable, by well established Western logging companies and professionals. Wildlife is poisoned and culled before work begins to simplify operations - the nature of the whole area is eliminated by design :
" Clearfelling, as the name suggests, first involves the complete felling of a forest by chainsaws and skidders. Then, the whole area is torched, the firing started by helicopters dropping incendiary devices made of jellied petroleum, commonly known as napalm. The resultant fire is of such ferocity it produces mushroom clouds visible from considerable distances. In consequence, every autumn, the island's otherwise most beautiful season, china-blue skies are frequently nicotine-scummed, an inescapable reminder that clearfelling means the total destruction of ancient and unique forests."[2]
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=eg+greenpeace+logging&tbs=cd...
[2] https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2007/may/1348543148/rich...
No one thinks the logging industry is especially echo friendly. It’s as exploitive as any other.
It simply has to be transformed, its legacy of habitat devastation must be outlawed and could even though unlikely -justly be retrospectively prosecuted.
This comment is not accurate with current industry practices, or frankly practices in the BC forest industry over last 30 years. The comment suggests that cut blocks are not re-planted? While this was the practice in up to the late '60s, things have changed. There was a massive investment (and resultant industry) focused on silviculture. Historic cut blocks were planted, and subsequently managed (brushed, thinned, fill planted) up to the the mid 90s. I would suggest that the historic backlog was significantly reduced by 1990. Today, it is at an equilibrium, with periodic deficits resulting from fire or the massive pine beetle infestation in the province.
Cut blocks are not planted with a single species, but with a mix of species. Trees are grown from seeds taken from the same area and elevation as the areas harvested.
I am not in the forest industry, however I paid for school and my student loans by planting trees (1988-1993). I am an engineer and earlier in my career I was heavily involved in habitat (aquatic and riparian) rehabilitation resulting from past forestry practices. They were horrific. The industry has adapted and continues to adapt. It ain't perfect, but to base an opinion on one side of a long standing heated debate -- as presented in the article -- is uninformed.
As with most thing, the truth lies somewhere in between.
I take your advice about industrys adaptation in Canada - but I think its adapted to external regulation and environmental oversight. Horrific, internationally contracted and equipped logging business continues around the world. I can appreciate how investors and wage seekers become insensitive to it, and in other industries to combustion, pollution, waste.. so examination, regulation, forcing industry to adapt at home and abroad is the only hope.
The google search was relevant to illustrate that concerned organisations have been campaigning against clearfelling for decades.
Tasmanian rain forest is still be destroyed in the same manner today.
https://www.wilderness.org.au/news-events/end-rainforest-log...
Odd, because I recall a plaque at Lake Quinault of some sort claiming that the term "rain forest" was coined by FDR when he visited the Olympic peninsula, though it's not mentioned in the article linked below.
Tangent, though this is technically a rainforest, it bares little resembles to what the word is usually associated with.