Hopefully, this does not encourage those who want to ravage our ancient forests but a recent analysis shows that young forests capture more carbon/year than old ones.

Don’t we need those old growths for things like fire resistance, suppression in areas where the younger trees would get wiped out? I know the redwood old growth are more resistant to fires while the undergrowth and younger trees get burned as a part of natural cleansing cycles.

This may be a dumb question, but didnt they act as a sort of safe guard that we’ve eliminated by cutting down so much old growth? Enhancing how large the fires can get. It would seem unwise to take out the last of our naturally fire resistant forests, not to mention all their other attributes(those spirit bears up north… Much cute. Must keep them) .

Hopefully we can look towards things like aquaculture with seagrass and kelp to aid in the circulation of the carbon cycle within our seas as well as improving our national carbon footprints.

%d bloggers like this: