» Articles » PMID: 37407827

The Carbon Costs of Global Wood Harvests

Overview
Journal Nature
Specialty Science
Date 2023 Jul 5
PMID 37407827
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

After agriculture, wood harvest is the human activity that has most reduced the storage of carbon in vegetation and soils. Although felled wood releases carbon to the atmosphere in various steps, the fact that growing trees absorb carbon has led to different carbon-accounting approaches for wood use, producing widely varying estimates of carbon costs. Many approaches give the impression of low, zero or even negative greenhouse gas emissions from wood harvests because, in different ways, they offset carbon losses from new harvests with carbon sequestration from growth of broad forest areas. Attributing this sequestration to new harvests is inappropriate because this other forest growth would occur regardless of new harvests and typically results from agricultural abandonment, recovery from previous harvests and climate change itself. Nevertheless some papers count gross emissions annually, which assigns no value to the capacity of newly harvested forests to regrow and approach the carbon stocks of unharvested forests. Here we present results of a new model that uses time discounting to estimate the present and future carbon costs of global wood harvests under different scenarios. We find that forest harvests between 2010 and 2050 will probably have annualized carbon costs of 3.5-4.2 Gt COe yr, which approach common estimates of annual emissions from land-use change due to agricultural expansion. Our study suggests an underappreciated option to address climate change by reducing these costs.

Citing Articles

Advancing forest carbon projections requires improved convergence between ecological and economic models.

Fuller M, Ganjam M, Baker J, Abt R Carbon Balance Manag. 2025; 20(1):2.

PMID: 39792318 PMC: 11721258. DOI: 10.1186/s13021-024-00290-0.


Scenario analysis of supply- and demand-side solutions for circular economy and climate change mitigation in the global building sector.

Pauliuk S, Carrer F, Heeren N, Hertwich E J Ind Ecol. 2024; 28(6):1699-1715.

PMID: 39722867 PMC: 11667659. DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13557.


Can triad forestry reconcile Europe's biodiversity and forestry strategies? A critical evaluation of forest zoning.

Nagel T, Rodriguez-Recio M, Aakala T, Angelstam P, Avdagic A, Borowski Z Ambio. 2024; 54(4):632-641.

PMID: 39699610 PMC: 11871248. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-024-02116-2.


WD-1D-VGG19-FEA: An Efficient Wood Defect Elastic Modulus Predictive Model.

Pan S, Chang Z Sensors (Basel). 2024; 24(17).

PMID: 39275484 PMC: 11397923. DOI: 10.3390/s24175572.


The enduring world forest carbon sink.

Pan Y, Birdsey R, Phillips O, Houghton R, Fang J, Kauppi P Nature. 2024; 631(8021):563-569.

PMID: 39020035 DOI: 10.1038/s41586-024-07602-x.


References
1.
Duveiller G, Filipponi F, Ceglar A, Bojanowski J, Alkama R, Cescatti A . Revealing the widespread potential of forests to increase low level cloud cover. Nat Commun. 2021; 12(1):4337. PMC: 8282670. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-24551-5. View

2.
Daniel K, Litterman R, Wagner G . Declining CO price paths. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2019; 116(42):20886-20891. PMC: 6800385. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1817444116. View

3.
Zhang X, Chen J, Dias A, Yang H . Improving Carbon Stock Estimates for In-Use Harvested Wood Products by Linking Production and Consumption-A Global Case Study. Environ Sci Technol. 2020; 54(5):2565-2574. DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b05721. View

4.
Haberl H, Sprinz D, Bonazountas M, Cocco P, Desaubies Y, Henze M . Correcting a fundamental error in greenhouse gas accounting related to bioenergy. Energy Policy. 2013; 45-222(5):18-23. PMC: 3617913. DOI: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.051. View

5.
Harris N, Hagen S, Saatchi S, Pearson T, Woodall C, Domke G . Attribution of net carbon change by disturbance type across forest lands of the conterminous United States. Carbon Balance Manag. 2016; 11(1):24. PMC: 5108824. DOI: 10.1186/s13021-016-0066-5. View