🌲Get my free guide to DIY forest Management: thetimberlandinvestor.com/how-to-read-your-forest-an-intro-to-diy-forest-management 🍁Join SilviCultural for FREE today: silvicultural.com/sign-up/
Wow man, incredible video and break down of a subject not very well understood. As the owner of 330 acres of mixed douglas fir hardwood timberland, I appreciate your channel. Keep up the good work!
Carbon-focused environmentalism has been one of the most damaging forces for conservation in America. It has shifted the focus to making people feel guilty for simply breathing, while encouraging the development of millions of acres of forests and farmland into solar farms, wind turbines, battery factories, etc.
It's not down to individual effort. Individual effort is needed, but the primary driver needs to be government regulation. We need to be chasing carbon centric goals.
@@JoelBeltmanThat, and we need to be pushing the knowledge of how our everyday actions have effects on biodiversity. Like invasive species for an example, people planted invasive species, and they still do it now for self reason that they look pretty and are cheap. Invasive species crawl out of gardens and cause extinction. Big ag is one of the largest destroyers of biodeversity and soil. I could go on and on if you wanted to but I guess my point is that I don’t believe that “going green” is going to immediately solve everything
Thanks. Excellent presentation. I live in the south and our mills do not want large old growth trees. We plant loblolly pine, thin at approximate age 15 years and clear cut at age 25-30 years. Even so I feel we are storing significant carbon. We also have significant quantities of deer and turkey to interest hunters.
40% of the carbon a tree eats is exuded from its root system to feed microorganisms in the soil. Even if you cut it down and burned it, you're still sequestering a good amount of carbon
“But you are a great sinner, that's true," he added almost solemnly, and your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing. Isn't that fearful? Isn't it fearful that you are living in this filth which you loathe so, and at the same time you know yourself (you've only to open your eyes) that you are not helping anyone by it, not saving anyone from anything?” Dostoevsky. Really great quote! And I really agree with your thoughts about carbon credits. Also, prior to European contact, there were very large fires in America due to the build up of fuels, even in New England. Ecologists now refute it but only because it interferes with their new land preservation models. Building up stored carbon in the forest has consequences not being discussed much.
An excellent piece with spot on analogies with religion. This topic is appropriate for all land owners, whether into timber management or not, since it lays out the authoritarian rationale for micro managing land use.
Great presentation Zach. Amazed again by your knowledge of science, math, religion, history, psychology and whatever else I forgot. Do you have an Elon IQ? Without blowing up the internet, I would love to have a little more of your thoughts on the environmental impact of the corn ethanol industry.
As a career conservationist and former forestry technician, I'd like to address that last point on religiosity. The purists have existed since before Pinchot and Muirs' little spat over Hetch Hetchy. Purists, who typically present themselves as preservationists, are exceptional at accumulating social capital from the general public but are extremely inefficient in translating it into financial capital. Millennial and Gen Z conservationists who work in the field professionally are almost uniformly disillusioned with the nonprofits and government agencies that currently dominate the conservation landscape. If there is a great schism, my bet is on the team who can draw and maintain young, ambitious, career driven talent. Moral grandstanding is one thing, effecting meaningful change is a matter of resource efficiency.
Incredibly incredibly complex topic. On the length of contracts at 20 years, you make a great point about the potential incentive to encourage land owners to extend the rotation cycle. This could have benefits in terms of wood productivity over a traditional model that optimizes for economic returns, which is beneficial for carbon storage in forestry products. There’s potential benefits in soil carbon storage from delaying or reducing the number of harvests over a given period, as they tend to be extremely disruptive to the soil carbon, leading to years of the land not being a carbon sink. If it takes 5 years for the land to recover and become a carbon sink again, and this program leads to a 35 year cycle instead of 15, that’s 3x as many years performing as a carbon sink. Also, regardless of durability, delaying those potential emissions 20 years is beneficial (if the alternative is release). Obviously 100 year + durability would be more valuable, and the cost of the carbon credits should reflect this. This is already the case with carbon removal credits from engineered methods such as direct air capture versus forestry carbon credits.
Thank you so much for the deep dive into this murky topic. Up in northern Maine, I feel that most of the carbon credit systems I've come across are 'Scenario #2', ie - preservation, more than management, but maybe I'm mistaken. It's all kind of confusing. I totally agree with your theological analysis of the situation. Environmentalism, like globalism and collectivism, are secular religions for the atheist. They wear some scientific clothing to fit in at the party, but it's mostly illusion. This may not be exactly what you were saying, but I believe it to be reality.
Around my property are thousands of acres of “Eco Forest Trust Management “ lands who sell credits and do virtually nothing to the land. A good percentage of that land burned this summer. What happens to the credits that were sold?
I can see this benefit the small property owners. It would benefit those as you said who have need to improve their property and watch it grow. 20 years to me is a lifetime. For a 20 year old it’s not. I would say you need to truly understand you might hold off till the value increases. Once your in , getting out isn’t much of an option.
BINGO SIR... you hit the nail on the head. I have been stating for quite a few years that this is the old Catholic church M.O. nothing but the selling of indulgencies. Buying them alleviates you of your sin of emitting carbon, based on this it won't be too long before you will be billed for every breath you exhale.
Good info! And the program may not really work....But what is wrong with working class taking the credits from rich corporatiins to keep their forest and all the wildlife, if the goal is to let their forest become healhier?
The bigger issue is that current fossil fuels are mostly from eons of algae that died, not trees…. the “re-tree” equivalent of what we are burning would be MANY original Earths of full tree…. If we replanted every tree back to the original 2 trillion we once had, it wouldn’t even come close to the carbon we are burning, and is still in the ground.
They don't need more insurance to cover when land owner reverts back to baseline management of the land after the 20 year contract is over. They just admit the program has more or less failed and go bankrupt. This is of course after they've been collecting 20 years of revenue from selling the carbon credits.
so lets look allowed at this as a property owner. if i sold some both through my woods and agricultural practices for growing crops. they got to sold to some bad guy like bill gates or ow gore. whats to stop the govt from deciding i'm exceeding my approved amount of electric or fuel and they start fining me. i see a problem coming in the future, they will try to force me into a vehicle that doesnt work in my cold climate. or i cant afford to buy food. or i cant grow my cattle anymore. i dont want anything t do with them and their baited trap.
The most damaging thing you can do is be absent from your community. We had an issue for 3 years where our council members would only give 4-8 hours notice and would constantly walk out when someone bad talked him. Took 3 years to get him to resign. Seriously if you live somewhere go to your city or town council meetings. Federal governments should have little to no affect on someones life. I believe state and local govs would be much more effective. But for that to happen people have to know whats going on in their community
Right. And all the more reason to take advantage of the system. Think less about the logic, and more about forest land owners receiving payment from big corporate donors who want or are required to virtue signal to their market.
@@mcmoore02 Too much CO2 would suffocate us. Water also sustains life, but flooding the earth would destroy many life forms. I could say similar things about oxygen as well.
I appreciate the presentation and the effort put into it. I think you should do more research into Forest Carbon Credits and maybe gain some experience before condemning this area of forestry management . Forest Carbon Credits for sure are NOT for everyone. Depending upon the acreage of forest land, time since the last clear cut, and personal management goals, forest carbon credits can make a LOT of sense for forest land owners to be paid for what they ARE currently and would ordinarily do.
They do make sense--as a subsidy. But if they are currently doing it and would ordinarily do it, it's not a valid carbon credit. That's the point. The outcome is being measured against what would have happened anyway.
@@thetimberlandinvestor Agree IF you really do believe in the climate change hoax, I suppose carbon credits can me rationalized. Good forest land management benefits EVERYONE, the public especially if you like clean air, clean water, wildlife, and common sense conservation. Part of being a good steward of the land & in this case forest land is to find as many ways as you can to make the land pay for itself without destroying it. Carbon credits/sequestration is just one avenue. In view of the outrageous property taxes imposed upon forest land owners who carry the public on their proverbial backs, this become a survival necessity.
He did mention clearly that carbon credits will make sense for some forest landowners as a subsidy for what they are already doing. Many forest landowners are already doing that in many countries.
Carbon credit purchases are just a form of public relations. If not required by governments companies buy credits to create a vibe for an environmentally concerned consumer. When the consumer no longer cares neither will the companies.
@@rossprior8968 Exactly right. And if you can benefit from the PR (private and public) expenditure, all the best. I think this PR investment will last longer than we might think.
Every year tons per acre of twig and leaf litter fall on the forest floor. As it then decomposes it releases carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Maybe should eliminate all forests like the glaciers did.
🌲Get my free guide to DIY forest Management: thetimberlandinvestor.com/how-to-read-your-forest-an-intro-to-diy-forest-management
🍁Join SilviCultural for FREE today: silvicultural.com/sign-up/
Wow man, incredible video and break down of a subject not very well understood. As the owner of 330 acres of mixed douglas fir hardwood timberland, I appreciate your channel. Keep up the good work!
Carbon-focused environmentalism has been one of the most damaging forces for conservation in America. It has shifted the focus to making people feel guilty for simply breathing, while encouraging the development of millions of acres of forests and farmland into solar farms, wind turbines, battery factories, etc.
It's not down to individual effort. Individual effort is needed, but the primary driver needs to be government regulation. We need to be chasing carbon centric goals.
@@JoelBeltmanThat, and we need to be pushing the knowledge of how our everyday actions have effects on biodiversity. Like invasive species for an example, people planted invasive species, and they still do it now for self reason that they look pretty and are cheap. Invasive species crawl out of gardens and cause extinction. Big ag is one of the largest destroyers of biodeversity and soil. I could go on and on if you wanted to but I guess my point is that I don’t believe that “going green” is going to immediately solve everything
Thanks. Excellent presentation. I live in the south and our mills do not want large old growth trees. We plant loblolly pine, thin at approximate age 15 years and clear cut at age 25-30 years. Even so I feel we are storing significant carbon. We also have significant quantities of deer and turkey to interest hunters.
40% of the carbon a tree eats is exuded from its root system to feed microorganisms in the soil. Even if you cut it down and burned it, you're still sequestering a good amount of carbon
Thanks for making videos, you add something of value to the conversation in each one.
“But you are a great sinner, that's true," he added almost solemnly, and your worst sin is that you have destroyed and betrayed yourself for nothing. Isn't that fearful? Isn't it fearful that you are living in this filth which you loathe so, and at the same time you know yourself (you've only to open your eyes) that you are not helping anyone by it, not saving anyone from anything?” Dostoevsky. Really great quote! And I really agree with your thoughts about carbon credits.
Also, prior to European contact, there were very large fires in America due to the build up of fuels, even in New England. Ecologists now refute it but only because it interferes with their new land preservation models. Building up stored carbon in the forest has consequences not being discussed much.
An excellent piece with spot on analogies with religion. This topic is appropriate for all land owners, whether into timber management or not, since it lays out the authoritarian rationale for micro managing land use.
Great presentation Zach. Amazed again by your knowledge of science, math, religion, history, psychology and whatever else I forgot. Do you have an Elon IQ? Without blowing up the internet, I would love to have a little more of your thoughts on the environmental impact of the corn ethanol industry.
Love your content! Greetings from a forest owner/investor from Finland.
Maybe I should join Silvicultural. We have an advanced forestry industry in Finland but nothing like a social networks for forestry, and with tools!
As a career conservationist and former forestry technician, I'd like to address that last point on religiosity. The purists have existed since before Pinchot and Muirs' little spat over Hetch Hetchy. Purists, who typically present themselves as preservationists, are exceptional at accumulating social capital from the general public but are extremely inefficient in translating it into financial capital. Millennial and Gen Z conservationists who work in the field professionally are almost uniformly disillusioned with the nonprofits and government agencies that currently dominate the conservation landscape. If there is a great schism, my bet is on the team who can draw and maintain young, ambitious, career driven talent. Moral grandstanding is one thing, effecting meaningful change is a matter of resource efficiency.
Great discussion!
Thanks for discussing this.
Great content!
Incredibly incredibly complex topic. On the length of contracts at 20 years, you make a great point about the potential incentive to encourage land owners to extend the rotation cycle. This could have benefits in terms of wood productivity over a traditional model that optimizes for economic returns, which is beneficial for carbon storage in forestry products. There’s potential benefits in soil carbon storage from delaying or reducing the number of harvests over a given period, as they tend to be extremely disruptive to the soil carbon, leading to years of the land not being a carbon sink. If it takes 5 years for the land to recover and become a carbon sink again, and this program leads to a 35 year cycle instead of 15, that’s 3x as many years performing as a carbon sink. Also, regardless of durability, delaying those potential emissions 20 years is beneficial (if the alternative is release). Obviously 100 year + durability would be more valuable, and the cost of the carbon credits should reflect this. This is already the case with carbon removal credits from engineered methods such as direct air capture versus forestry carbon credits.
Thank you so much for the deep dive into this murky topic. Up in northern Maine, I feel that most of the carbon credit systems I've come across are 'Scenario #2', ie - preservation, more than management, but maybe I'm mistaken. It's all kind of confusing. I totally agree with your theological analysis of the situation. Environmentalism, like globalism and collectivism, are secular religions for the atheist. They wear some scientific clothing to fit in at the party, but it's mostly illusion. This may not be exactly what you were saying, but I believe it to be reality.
Around my property are thousands of acres of “Eco Forest Trust Management “ lands who sell credits and do virtually nothing to the land. A good percentage of that land burned this summer. What happens to the credits that were sold?
hell yeah someone had to say it
I can see this benefit the small property owners. It would benefit those as you said who have need to improve their property and watch it grow. 20 years to me is a lifetime. For a 20 year old it’s not. I would say you need to truly understand you might hold off till the value increases. Once your in , getting out isn’t much of an option.
BINGO SIR... you hit the nail on the head. I have been stating for quite a few years that this is the old Catholic church M.O. nothing but the selling of indulgencies. Buying them alleviates you of your sin of emitting carbon, based on this it won't be too long before you will be billed for every breath you exhale.
It is an interesting analogy. What does M.O. stand for?
@@josephpostma1787 modus operandi
Good info! And the program may not really work....But what is wrong with working class taking the credits from rich corporatiins to keep their forest and all the wildlife, if the goal is to let their forest become healhier?
The bigger issue is that current fossil fuels are mostly from eons of algae that died, not trees…. the “re-tree” equivalent of what we are burning would be MANY original Earths of full tree…. If we replanted every tree back to the original 2 trillion we once had, it wouldn’t even come close to the carbon we are burning, and is still in the ground.
This is also true, but I'll give them credit from a "one tool in the toolbelt" perspective.
Carbon is not the greenhouse gas that needs attack 😅 and its been getting the shaft because we been profiling it as dangerous 😅
And…..Bingo!
They don't need more insurance to cover when land owner reverts back to baseline management of the land after the 20 year contract is over. They just admit the program has more or less failed and go bankrupt. This is of course after they've been collecting 20 years of revenue from selling the carbon credits.
so lets look allowed at this as a property owner. if i sold some both through my woods and agricultural practices for growing crops. they got to sold to some bad guy like bill gates or ow gore. whats to stop the govt from deciding i'm exceeding my approved amount of electric or fuel and they start fining me. i see a problem coming in the future, they will try to force me into a vehicle that doesnt work in my cold climate. or i cant afford to buy food. or i cant grow my cattle anymore. i dont want anything t do with them and their baited trap.
The most damaging thing you can do is be absent from your community. We had an issue for 3 years where our council members would only give 4-8 hours notice and would constantly walk out when someone bad talked him. Took 3 years to get him to resign. Seriously if you live somewhere go to your city or town council meetings. Federal governments should have little to no affect on someones life. I believe state and local govs would be much more effective. But for that to happen people have to know whats going on in their community
The problem with carbon credits is that the world needs more CO2, not less.
Right. And all the more reason to take advantage of the system. Think less about the logic, and more about forest land owners receiving payment from big corporate donors who want or are required to virtue signal to their market.
Why does the earth need more CO2?
@@josephpostma1787 Because CO2 sustains life.
@@mcmoore02 Too much CO2 would suffocate us. Water also sustains life, but flooding the earth would destroy many life forms. I could say similar things about oxygen as well.
@@josephpostma1787 Duh! Not asphyxiation levels of CO2. Current ppm levels of CO2 are far far far from asphyixiation levels🤣.
Excellent analysis. Carbon credits, carbon capture and carbon sequestraion. Seems pointless. A program about "nothing".
I appreciate the presentation and the effort put into it. I think you should do more research into Forest Carbon Credits and maybe gain some experience before condemning this area of forestry management . Forest Carbon Credits for sure are NOT for everyone. Depending upon the acreage of forest land, time since the last clear cut, and personal management goals, forest carbon credits can make a LOT of sense for forest land owners to be paid for what they ARE currently and would ordinarily do.
They do make sense--as a subsidy. But if they are currently doing it and would ordinarily do it, it's not a valid carbon credit. That's the point. The outcome is being measured against what would have happened anyway.
@@thetimberlandinvestor Agree IF you really do believe in the climate change hoax, I suppose carbon credits can me rationalized. Good forest land management benefits EVERYONE, the public especially if you like clean air, clean water, wildlife, and common sense conservation. Part of being a good steward of the land & in this case forest land is to find as many ways as you can to make the land pay for itself without destroying it. Carbon credits/sequestration is just one avenue. In view of the outrageous property taxes imposed upon forest land owners who carry the public on their proverbial backs, this become a survival necessity.
He did mention clearly that carbon credits will make sense for some forest landowners as a subsidy for what they are already doing. Many forest landowners are already doing that in many countries.
Carbon credit purchases are just a form of public relations. If not required by governments companies buy credits to create a vibe for an environmentally concerned consumer. When the consumer no longer cares neither will the companies.
@@rossprior8968 Exactly right. And if you can benefit from the PR (private and public) expenditure, all the best. I think this PR investment will last longer than we might think.
Every year tons per acre of twig and leaf litter fall on the forest floor. As it then decomposes it releases carbon emissions into the atmosphere. Maybe should eliminate all forests like the glaciers did.
Very little money for someone to impose rules on how you use your land. No thanks