Amador Ledger Dispatch -- Competing forest studies spar over CO2

A dispute is brewing between environmental groups and a timber industry over the effect intensive logging practices have on the environment. Photo by: Kelly Scott

Two competing forest studies have put Sierra Pacific Industries' forest management practices at the heart of a heated debate about global warming.

On one side is SPI, the owner of 1.6 million acres of California forest land, which says a peer-reviewed industry study reveals intensive management as a tool in offsetting the impact of carbon dioxide emissions equal to removing more than 877,000 cars from the road each year.

On the other side is the international environmental organization ForestEthics, which calls the timber giant's "intensive management" a clearcutting philosophy that threatens to exacerbate climate change.

While the ForestEthics report wasn't designed as a specific counter to the SPI study, Ebbetts Pass Forest Watch Outreach Coordinator Josh Bridges said it couldn't help but call into question many of SPI's findings. Ebbetts Pass is a regional subsidiary of ForestEthics.

Bridges said SPI and his group are already tangling over whose study is more accurate. Each side has their experts, each side claims they're right, but each side is saying opposite things.

While neither study disputes that trees absorb CO2, a leading contributor to climate change - "That's about all we agree on," said Ebbetts Pass board member Susan Robinson - SPI claims new plantlings absorb the highest levels, justifying a more intensive logging strategy.

"By following intensive management practices to harvest and replant most of our lands over the course of 80 to 100 years, we found we can actually increase the ability of our forests to store carbon by about 150 percent," said the company's research and monitoring manager, Cajun James, Ph.D.

That claim has been sharply criticized by ForestWatch and other groups.

"It's definitely greenwashing if intended to make SPI's practices appear to be environmentally sound," said Chris Wright, executive director of the Foothill Conservancy, a local environmental group not associated with either study.

Wright added that the study does not perform a full carbon or climate change analysis that takes the full range of SPI's practices into account. He said the study concentrated solely on carbon in trees and overlooked the amount of fuel it takes to transport workers, harvest timber and haul the felled trees, all of which also cause carbon emissions.

SPI spokesman Mark Pawlicki countered that the four-year study, which was compiled by researchers hired by SPI, proved California forests were "undermanaged."

"There is an unnaturally large fuel build-up in the forests," he said. About ForestEthics, he added the group was "making allegations that are unfounded and completely off base."

Taking data from 2,586 separate and distinct plots in two watersheds, SPI researchers compared the carbon-sequestering capability of three common forest management techniques used in California, all of which meet California's Forest Practice rules, according to SPI. It examined four forest management scenarios, finding that the intensive model of harvesting and replanting about 1.25 percent of forest lands each year yielded the best results.

The ForestEthics report compiled data from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the regulatory agency that oversees private lands logging methods. While publicly available, ForestEthics said the data has never been compiled and presented in such a way.

Titled "Climate of Destruction: Sierra Pacific Industries' Impact on Global Warming," the report shows that SPI filed plans to conduct clearcutting and plantation conversion of nearly a quarter million acres from 1997 to 2006.

"SPI's clear cutting and conversion to plantations has been known for quite some time," Robinson said. "Their report shows the magnitude of destruction and its impact on global warming."

With the passage of California's landmark climate change bill in 2006, Assembly Bill 32, the pressure to offset greenhouse commissions has increased.

If the rhetoric remains charged between the industry giant and environmental groups, however, a middle ground may be difficult to reach.

"They are using allegations based on no science when we have science on our side," Pawlicki said of ForestWatch.

Meanwhile, ForestEthics has called on consumers, contractors and building professionals to steer clear of SPI products until the company reforms its forest management policies. ForestEthics released the names of more than 525 businesses that signed a letter calling on SPI to end its logging practices. One of the group's goals is to convince SPI to seek certification from the Forest Stewardship Council.

In June 2007, SPI settled a civil complaint with the Placer Air Pollution Control District for close to $13 million due to "past violations" of falsification on emission reports and tampering with monitoring equipment. Since then, SPI has taken steps to improve their compliance with air pollution regulations and permits as conditions of the settlement.

"SPI appears to have changed from the systematic non-compliance we alleged into doing real environmental good and serving as a potential compliance model," said California Air Resources Board Chairman Robert Sawyer.

That perception isn't shared by others.

"Bottom line is that it is a flawed study and a transparent effort by SPI to justify its economically, socially and environmentally unsustainable clearcutting timber practices," said Wright.

To read the full SPI study, visit www.spi-ind.com. For the ForestWatch study, visit www.savethesierra.org/climateofdestruction.