Which is better: timber plantations or native woodland?

MARP

The false dichotomy alarm is off again. We need to restore native woodlands to sink carbon and increase biodiversity, AND we need loads more new timber plantations in smart places. We can do both. https://twitter.com/andyheald/status/1339114040187097089

Lots of countries with higher forest cover actually have a lot of working forests. Some are pretty sad, some have no wildlife, but there can be a balance. Some are more wild, or really old. Some were a farmer who got bored of growing cattle and now grows wood. We need both.

It’s usually not too tough to tell which is which.

Lots of trees planted same time, same height, in a grid. This is a timber plantation.

If it’s a beautiful mess of randomness, that’s probably an actual forest.

Both will be managed differently.

Both can reduce emissions.

Timber plantations might be clear cut and replanted acres at a time. If the wood is used for housing or long term stuff, that CO2 is trapped in the frame of the house, probably rather safely. Emissions from moving it around, but otherwise, wood is a great thing to grow and farm.

Timber plantations can make money so they’re popular, but where there’s money, there’s dickheads.

Planting in peat bogs. Not good. Emits more emissions than it absorbs but they don’t care.

Taking carbon offset credits to plant, cutting them down, replant for more credits.

All industries have good and bad actors but these ideas aren’t inherently good or bad. Conservation is good for carbon and wildlife, but chopping down planted trees can be good for the environment too. We need to grow LOTS more wood, and a mixture of all approaches is welcome.