A couple of points, the most sustainable way to grow natural native forests is to allow them to naturally regenerate, these forests do not rquire fertilisers, which add to the carbon emissions , nor do they require pesticides etc, as Plantations do. A Plantation is not a Forest. Natural native woodlands are the most valuable land based habitats on earth, they are three dimensional mazes of biodiversity fuelled by the sun. Biodiversity itself is made up of carbon, so the more natural the forest the more carbon is locked up in the surrounding habitat, this is often missed out on in these debates. Its called the Primary and secondary production in biodiversity. Plantations are green deserts causing serious ecological damage across the globe the idea of rewarding this nefarious industry by payment for carbon lock up is obscene.

The Convention on Biological Diversity agreed by 176 Nations after the 1992 Rio Declaration on the Environment, in response to a dying planet, places the emphasis firmly on plants in situ as the most important to conserve, enhance, and restore, native trees are the highest ecological achievement in the palnt kingdom. the Convention alos encourages ecosystem management as the key to the future. The Industrial nature of Plantation management is the complete opposite of what is required to protect Biodiversity and lock up carbon in a responsilble manner.

The privatisation of Coillte should be opposed by the citizens of Ireland as they are the real owners of the public forest estate, and cannot afford to lose the equivalent of two counties the size of Meath. Coillte should be disbanded and the Plantations phased out utilising natural regeneration of our native trees, this should be rewarded and paid out at a local community level for managing same. The native species will help to remediate the contaminated lands, and the managing should be continous cover multiple species, coppicing.

I am PRO of an NGO promoting an alternative model and opposed to the sale of Coillte.

I felt an obligation to share this information.

And why is that, exactly? It seems that fixing one fixes the other.

I don’t doubt it one bit. But we have to use all of the skill we can muster in terms of our team and human resources management. Have you ever sat amongst a bunch of these scientists and engineers for a half an hour, and seen the amount of productive work achieved? BOH.

And why is that, exactly? It seems that fixing one fixes the other.

It is unfortunate at the moment that human civilisation is struck with two very different problems at once - peak oil and global warming. Each individual in society is asked to account for their Co2 emissions. At the same time, society is also asked to measure its energy consumption - both thermal, electrical and locomotive. We have two completely different measurements which need to be performed at once. We are not good at doing either. The problems really appear when you have two groups of experts working on the same committees. It is a well recognised fact in project management, as you add more persons, the productivity levels per participant are not guaranteed to rise. In fact, we can witness the opposite. The enterprise can collapse beneath its own weight of communication. This is what we witness at the moment unfortunately.

We find overlap between carbon accounting and energy conservation. Which leads us into a false sense of security. You mentioned forestry above. Timber is used as a building material, and acts as a carbon sink. Forestry produce is used as a carbon neutral fuel. But listen to folk in energy conservation and they inform you of how hard it is to procure wood boilers which work. Depending on the climate zone the effects of temperature rises in coming decades, may require we use more thermal mass in buildings. We find yourself in this stand-off between opposing points of view. Both are trying to work very hard. But its like that old saying, a camel is a horse designed by committee. The green party emphasises this notion of energy security and climate change, co-exist together as bed fellows. It is unfortunate that climate change and peak oil have converged together in the time-line. Because often, the consultants are able to grab fees from looking into both problems. But that is about all that is going on presently. BOH.

I have heard that claim before - the wood cells are slightly bigger and cell walls slightly thinner - larch may have been the main culprit but I am open to correction. I wonder is it a red herring. Coillte sends a lot of timber to sawmills. Not all of it is failing stress tests presumably and here is a lot of marginal land in Ireland suitable for nothing else regrettably.

Broad leaf forestation in Ireland is still patchy. In France commercial oak is harvested between 60-80 years. In Italy there is a bumper wood industry built around oak and chestnut. There is plenty of potential if the forests are there.

As I understand it, an issue with Irish wood is that due to the warmer climate, Irish wood grows faster and is less dense than Scandinavian wood resulting in a product that is not as useful in construction. Having said that, there are still plenty of uses for Irish wood as a construction material that would result in significant (and proven) carbon sequestration.

First, It seems clear that as part of privatizing Coillte the new owners will need to ‘get the grants’ to plant. Otherwise its not commercially viable.

However, it goes on to note that LULUCF can be included in the future reduction effort provided that the permanence and the environmental integrity is ensured.

Second, can the native woods and forestry that is now springing up on Coillte land where forests have been cleared but not replanted be included in the carbon figures? Its costing us nothing to grow and their environmental integrity and permanence cannot be challenged

Same as saving the banks…. the do nothing approach should be considered… land lying idle doesn’t just wait for permission to grow something.
On the negative it wont get the same tonnage being grown as a plantation. On the positive theres no carbon released during preparation and planting, no cost of subsidizing the planting, reduced costs on road repairs, and a much better environment for tourism etc.

In this case, the recommendation is not only in Ireland’s interest but generally the right thing to do.

After you thanks.

I thought the idea was to grow wood and buren it because it’s carbon neutral.

Enjoy the flames.

Burn the forests.

Throw yourself on the fire first?

Burn the forests.