Protecting Forests Can Help Us Combat the Climate Crisis–If Done Right
If we are to restore old growth, combat climate change, and preserve wildlife habitats and have forests for future generations to experience, we must change the way that we manage our public forest lands.
In December, the Biden administration took a redwood-sized step toward protecting old-growth trees and forests. Following a presidential executive order in April 2022, the U.S. Forest Service announced that it intends to amend all 128 forest land management plans to conserve and expand old growth in national forests. That move clears the way for us to stop chainsaws from felling our oldest trees, which are worth more standing than as lumber. We commend Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (who presides over the Forest Service) and his team.
As with any policy proposal, the devil is in the details. To truly prevent timber companies from chopping down our old-growth trees and forests, the final version of this proposed amendment, expected in January 2025, must be stronger in a few specific areas.
- The amendment as announced would limit the logging of old growth for commercial motives. The Forest Service must go further and prevent the commercial exchange of old growth cut down for any reason. There’s no reason for old-growth trees to ever be sold to timber mills.
- All protections enacted must apply to the entire National Forest System, especially to Alaska’s Tongass National Forest. The Tongass was exempted from the plan announced in December. There is more old growth in the Tongass than anywhere else, and leaving the crown jewel of our National Forest System out of a plan to protect old growth is nonsensical.
Environment America and our allies with the Climate Forests Campaign have been and will continue to advocate for the strongest possible protections for these trees and forests.
While it is a strong step in the direction of protecting critical trees and forests, even if the Forest Service’s final amendment includes the robust protections described above, it will still omit many important trees and forests.
Some of these forests are managed by another federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Interior Secretary Deb Halaand and BLM Director Tracy Stone-Manning should propose their own plan to protect older trees and forests on BLM’s lands.
We’re facing twin crises—climate change and biodiversity loss. To combat both, we need more “climate forests”—vibrant ecosystems full of older trees that absorb and store carbon.
Old-growth forests are irreplaceable and worthy of elevated protection, but there are hardly any left. To recover even a fraction of what was lost to logging over the centuries, the United States must act to protect mature trees and forests, the future old growth, from commercial logging. These forests are still developing and will turn into old-growth ecosystems, supporting biodiversity and storing more carbon if we let the trees grow. The solution to our shortage of old-growth forests is to nurture these future ones, but the Forest Service’s proposed amendment would not confer meaningful safeguards for mature forests.
Humans have built wooden homes, fences, furniture, and other products for centuries. The problems started when people began to believe that trees were most valuable when chopped down. We started industrial-scale logging to clear land for agriculture, cities, railroads, and highways. We’ve managed our forests accordingly, accepting a Forest Service mission that includes the “productivity of the nation’s forests.”
After more than a century of management for “productivity,” many of our nation’s “forests” are rows of trees of uniform species and age that we let grow only to chop down in a few decades. They resemble fields on a farm. Two-thirds of our country’s forests are “timberlands,” designated for industrial logging. If you embrace the concept of a forest as a fully functioning ecosystem, developing over decades or centuries without large-scale human interference, then it’s clear that the public forests of the United States mostly come up short.
This shortage is unfortunate because we’re facing twin crises—climate change and biodiversity loss. To combat both, we need more “climate forests”—vibrant ecosystems full of older trees that absorb and store carbon. Our national forests and grasslands are home to 3,000 species of wildlife, and according to the Forest Service, “forests in the U.S. remove the equivalent of about 12% of annual U.S. fossil fuel emissions.” No other technology can match forests for carbon removal at this scale. We don’t even have to invest in research and development to spin up new forests. We simply have to let our existing forests grow.
Approximately 38% of forestland in the United States is publicly owned, most of that is managed by the federal government. If we are to restore old growth, combat climate change, and preserve wildlife habitats and have forests for future generations to experience, we must change the way that we manage our public forest lands.
The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have their work cut out for them. Step one should be to finalize this proposed amendment so that it protects as many trees as possible. The administration must simultaneously be working on step two: developing durable policies for protecting the rest of our “climate forests.” We’ve heard too many trees fall in our forests. Now, it’s time to keep them standing.
