Loggers, environmentalists disagree about carbon cycle
AMADOR, Calif.—Logging companies see a silver lining in global warming. If accumulations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are truly a serious problem, they say, then efforts to keep forests young and gulping in carbon should be rewarded. That would mean frequent cuttings, what the industry calls intensive forest management.
That's the gist of a four-year study produced on behalf of Sierra Pacific Industries, which owns 1.6 million acres of forests in California. The study, reports the Amador Ledger Dispatch, claims that California forests are "undermanaged" with the result of unnaturally large-buildup in the forests.
"By following intensive management practices to harvest and replant most of our lands over the course of 80 to 100 years, we found we can actually increase the ability of our forests to store carbon by about 150 percent," said Cajun James, the company's research and monitoring managers.
The study examined four scenarios, and found that the intensive model of harvesting and replanting about 1.25 percent of forest lands each year most successfully sequestered carbon.
Environmental groups think the science justifying these conclusions is, at best, sloppy. Chris Wright, executive director of the Foothills Conservancy, said the study only concentrates on carbon in trees, and overlooks how much carbon is emitted into the atmosphere while transporting workers, harvesting the wood, and hauling the felled trees.
A group called ForestWatch, which produced its own study, asks builders to steer clear of Sierra Pacific Industry products until the company reforms its forest management polices. The company last year paid a fine of $13 million for falsifying emission reports and tempering with monitoring equipment.
Bottom line is that it is a flawed study and a transparent effort by SPI to justify its economically, socially and environmentally unsustainable clearcutting timber practices," said Wright.
Trash police to bear down on garbage cans
EAGLE VALLEY, Colo.—Bears are out. Soon, will employees of Eagle County instructed to police how people protect their trash against bears and other animals.
A law passed by Eagle County officials last year specifies that people outside of Vail and other towns must have wildlife-resistant garbage containers or, if they use larger Dumpster-type receptacles, they must be wildlife proof.
What's the difference between wildlife-resistant and wildlife-proof? According to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, wildlife resistant containers need to keep bears at bay for 90 minutes. A wildlife-proofed containers typically has more heavy metal and will frustrated a bear for even longer.
Vail has its own, even more demanding ordinance, as does Beaver Creek.
Aspen Skiing takes sides in rural co-op election
ASPEN, Colo.—The Aspen Skiing Co. is now more broadly advancing its environmental agenda, taking sides in the election of directors of the local electrical utility that serves the Roaring Fork and Eagle valleys.
Aspen, worried about continued growth in greenhouse gases, wants to see a greater push for renewable energy sources. Of the electricity distributed by Glenwood Springs-based Holy Cross Energy, 94 percent is produced by burning either coal or natural gas. While it is considered progressive as compared to most rural electrical co-coops, Aspen Skiing feels a sense of urgency to take sides and prod production of electricity from renewable sources.
As such, it is endorsing two candidates who are opposing incumbents from the Vail-dominated Eagle Valley.
"We want to see more, faster," said Auden Schendler, the company's executive director of community and environmental responsibility.
Schendler said Aspen Skiing was dismayed by Holy Cross's investment in a new coal-fired power plant at Pueblo, Colo.
The Vail Daily interviewed one of the incumbents, George Schaefer, a builder, who argues that while renewables are important, there are other considerations.
