Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

RobertJoseph802 t1_iyswzpa wrote

Very little old growth in VT so you know this is uninformed ragebait

74

Faerhun t1_iyt44z4 wrote

I was gonna say, what Old Growth? VT was straight clear cut in it's almost entirety in the 1800-1900s. The only places that weren't were the places that they couldn't get the equipment in.

33

3rdcoffeecup t1_iyt69gg wrote

At the height of the Merino wool boom Vermont was 30% forrest and 70% deforrested. I believe now it's the opposite being 70% forrest and 30% deforrested. The Merino wool bubble burst in the 1840s(?) or 1850s(?).

18

[deleted] t1_iytf3aw wrote

[deleted]

8

Legitimate_Proof t1_iyvi6d4 wrote

I think the rate of sequestration is close. We assumed young forests sequestered more because they are growing faster, but studies have shown mature forests may actually sequester more carbon. Using made up numbers to demonstrate how that could be: if a young forest has 10 tons of carbon mass and is growing at 20% a year, it's adding 2 tons a year. A mature forest might have 10 times more mass and grow at 1/10th the rate, that would be 100 tons, growing at 2%, which would be 2 tons a year. I think the reality is that they are close enough that we can't generalize.

7

popquizmf t1_iyzojmx wrote

Depends on the forest. It's that simple, some mature forests, are great carbon reservoirs, but their ability to bring additional carbon in, is very limited. Other old growth forest continue to become more complex systems that can store more carbon.

All the research I went through as a grad student pointed to younger forests being better at sequestration. The bottom line is: the best carbon sinks are forests that don't exist yet. Allowing a field to go to forest is going to store more carbon over 100 years than any other option.

3

Johnny9Toes OP t1_iyudeef wrote

I think you're right and that people conflate sequestration (rate of carbon taken out of the atmosphere per some unit of time) with storage (total carbon locked in the forest above and below ground). I believe regenerating forests sequester more carbon and older forests have more carbon stored.

6

_lucy_blue t1_iytid6o wrote

So what is the end goal of the people who made the flyer? I genuinely don’t know enough about it, and am curious as to their motivations. Are they just vastly uninformed, or trying to use this to influence or forward other interests?

4