Division of Forestry Strategic Direction
Statewide Forest Strategy 2010
Statewide Forest Assessment 2010
Forest Sustainability Framework
Statewide Forest Plan 2004
E3. Issue: Forests affect carbon emissions and sinks.
Comment #: 1
WI is increasing forest land EPA is placing the emphasis on the wrong state.
Comment #: 2
Same comment as in E1 above.
Comment #: 3
Eureka! That's why we need to leave them alon and not log!
Comment #: 4
Stress on young forest vs old declining forest
Comment #: 5
Plans shoud address reforestation of abandoned farms in rural areas; not just let undesirable species tak over.
Comment #: 6
Prove it.
Comment #: 7
This is one of many reasons to maximize forested areas in WI as much as possible.
Comment #: 8
Our forests in WI are increasing in acreage -therefore more trees-therfore we are on the + side of this equation.
Comment #: 9
Perhaps programs to encourage new forest groth in open acreage areas would help.
Comment #: 10
Opinion ("emissions result in global warming")
Comment #: 11
Public apathy is at the root of these problems.
Comment #: 12
Vehicles SUV's and gas powered machines causing emissions could be regulated on a more stringent basis.
Comment #: 13
I agree that forests remove carbon dioxide from the air and release oxygen. Global warming is a hoax forced on our society by a bunch of radical liberals.
Comment #: 14
This is why we need to limit development in forest areas and encourage tree planting and preservation
Comment #: 15
I didn't think "global warming" has been absolutely proven yet.
Comment #: 16
Scientific community does not agree with/on this. NEGLECT in study.
Comment #: 17
E1, 2 & 3 are for "ecologists" to fume about. Just stick to forestry in WI
Comment #: 18
Soil seems to be the most effective sink for carbon sequestration - while old growth forests are slightly better at sequestering carbon than early succession forests (once the canopy closes) savanna ecosystems have the highest rate of carbon sequestration of any other system.
Comment #: 19
not a fact
Comment #: 20
But people need to realize that dead/decaying trees and prescribed burning relase those carbons back into the atmosphere.
Comment #: 21
EDUCATION can accomplish great results!
Comment #: 22
So what does this mean, we should let them grow and not harvest them???
Comment #: 23
how would this fact be employed in a forest plan?
Comment #: 24
WI trees are great to reduce any warming cause human or valcanos?
Comment #: 25
gotta plant more trees in urban areas - land use plan is needed for 1/3 acre lots being developed - will a forester visit my home to help me plant my 1/3 acre?2
Comment #: 26
Global warming is a hoax brought to us by the same extremists who preached global cooling in the 1970's.
Comment #: 27
Reforestation and forest management practices might be eligible for tax breaks/credits for their ability to serve as carbon sinks.
Comment #: 28
Global warming is a mith - natual event
Comment #: 29
We need strong positive controls on this issue. This could be an ugly issue but has to be enforced.
Comment #: 30
Free ride for snowmobiles in the forest may end when payment for emissions is no snow.
Comment #: 31
1 acre of actively growing ? provides enough O2 for 20 persons.
Comment #: 32
Something relatively new on the scene - needs public education and appreciation
Comment #: 33
This is the biggest joke. Gore had a night mare and people believe this!
Comment #: 34
Infor only - peripheral
Comment #: 35
This should be considered an important economic benefit and should be mentioned in the economics section.
Comment #: 36
How do all of the crop lands compare to the forests as carbon sinks?
Comment #: 37
You've just give a good reason for a Forest Preservation Act
Comment #: 38
Many ag producers are covering land in fall and forestry firelanes w/ winter rye and wheat also using less or zero tillage to prevent carbin loss
Comment #: 39
Not all forests are carbon sinks - younger, vigorously growing woodlands will remove much more CO2 than old growth - (which sometimes will contribute more CO2 than is removed.
Comment #: 40
We have more "green" in the world now than 100 years ago. You can't disput this because you can't measure it.
Comment #: 41
The statewide forst plan should be an action oriented plan
Comment #: 42
The forests can be used as an excuse for the US to keep polluting
Comment #: 43
But, lets relate this to emissions not the trees.
Comment #: 44
Don't give me that global warming B.S.
Comment #: 45
The forsts will control or "use" carbon dioxide without additional help.
Comment #: 46
Educate people on this very important issue.
Comment #: 47
Plant more trees
Comment #: 48
Important but not relevant to the statewide forest plan
Comment #: 49
Why not provide signs to be placed on managed woodlands along public highways, especially on clear cuts, stating amount of oxygen produced per acre.
Comment #: 50
Would like to see some comparison of young vs. old forest as to effectiveness of fixing carbon.
Comment #: 51
Hope this is correct.
Comment #: 52
Encourage reforestation and green spaces, internationally, especially third world countries.
Comment #: 53
Get after the ones that are causing it; trucks ? Smoke desiels, a good gasoline doesn't do this althought is is poision, what isn't burned completely.
Comment #: 54
It is proven that a healthy growing "young forest" is more beneficial than "old growth forest" in terms of using carbon dioxide. I feel the answer is clear. Keep our forests healthy and growing.
Comment #: 55
As a way to decrease harmful gasses in the air, industry could buy credit from tree farmers to create carbon sinks.
Comment #: 56
Is this a vote for nuclear energy? Or more hydroelectric? Everyone's for cutting someone else's carbon emissions but no one is willing to reduce their own. So if we can't educate, then we should regulate? Is that the message?
Comment #: 57
It is the loss of habitat, for trees, that is the largest problem, and the affect of incrased pollution the byproduct. The KYOTO(?) protocol showed the U.S.A.'s errogant attitute that "we have plenty of forest" and took a no-action approach.
Comment #: 58
I agree this is an issue. However, the discussion should centered around the poor science that the EPA used in their report. (See comment on E1)
Comment #: 59
More forests =less Co2 " = more recreation " = more timber " = more shade, etc.
Comment #: 60
Do whatever we can to help reverse global warming.
Comment #: 61
Public education is vital.
Comment #: 62
This is another intangible value which should be calculated into the equation which pits the benefits of raw forest against the value of timber sales and man-made machinery.
Comment #: 63
But with more person's burning wood that carbon is again released. The question of carbon emissions and sinks is a very hard one!
Comment #: 64
E.P.A. is just a large bureaucracy trying to justify their existence with very little scientific evidence to back their decisions.
Comment #: 65
To acknowledge the importance of the forest.
Comment #: 66
Incentive for carbon storage.
Comment #: 67
This carbon sink is very temporary. Most of this carbon will be released in 40-100 years.
Comment #: 68
. . . unless the State can gain "carbon credits" that have an economic value that can be plowed back into forest management-forget it.
Comment #: 69
The state should give the private landowners more incentives to keep forests in their natural undeveloped state.
Comment #: 70
Need more definite info.
Comment #: 71
See B5.
Comment #: 72
Prescribed burning? Barrens restoration?
Comment #: 73
We should not allow U.S. to sell these as credits so we don't have to meet reduced ? standards though.
Comment #: 74
Earlier the statement was more land is returning to the forest. A lot of regs. Handed down further some other ambitions
Comment #: 75
2
Comment #: 76
This is why we should not log public lands and private lands should use the most sustainable methods possible. We must cut our comsumption of forest products. Hemp and other fiber plants should be used.
Comment #: 77
The wording of the question is contradictory
Comment #: 78
Yes, this is why we must be allowed to manage them and keep them healthy.
Comment #: 79
Total People x Total Time x Total Gal's of oil used globally x burn rate = Carbon Emissions. We need electric transportation and global insulation now. Fix the problem.
Comment #: 80
too many lawn mowers and bush hogs
Comment #: 81
It's a fact, nothing to do about it, except promote forest growth.
Comment #: 82
"release oxygen" - what will be will be? We can't market WI forests globally
Comment #: 83
Hurray for trees!
Comment #: 84
An insert in the Wisconsin Income Tax packet is one way to inform our citizens. Public radio is another.
Comment #: 85
Same answer as E1.
Comment #: 86
Maintain our forests.
Comment #: 87
Make more forests
Comment #: 88
Wisconsin definitely needs a fix of the present use value assessment law or else the potential exists for the law to encourage farms to sell woodlots for development or to pattern cattle in them. We should be compasionate owners for maintaining quality forest for the prupose of carbon sinks.
Comment #: 89
Lets plant more trees.
Comment #: 90
What about the abundance of trees in our cities and twons which consume the co2? Large cities - no.
Comment #: 91
Young trees are more efficient at this issue.
Comment #: 92
More studies are needed
Comment #: 93
That this is one more reason for a aspen/birch cycle than old growth and extened rotation.
Comment #: 94
Another reason to support the Tree Farm System and assess the land used to grow and cultivate trees at less then what pasture is assessed at. Don't tax us out of business.
Comment #: 95
More land should be returned to its original "wetland" status.
Comment #: 96
Urban forests should be nutured and increased.
Comment #: 97
"Wisconsin's land-use is resulting in a net greenhouse gas emission (EPA,1997). The conversion of forest and farms to other uses results in the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases." - I don't believe this. The land use has nothing to do with gas emissions. It is the activities associated with certain land uses that cause emission. 100 houses on 1,000 acres with 100 furnances will emit the same amoutn of gases as 10 multi-tenant buildings on 100 acres with 100 units.
Comment #: 98
It should be studied
Comment #: 99
Should not be included.
Comment #: 100
See E1. Wisc. DNR has not been active enough in encouraging tree planting.
Comment #: 101
No real proof time periods studied are too short
Comment #: 102
Yes
Comment #: 103
I'm not smart enough to comment.
Comment #: 104
Many people don't realize that one of the benefits of forests is a carbon sink.
Comment #: 105
I agree strongly that forests are a good carbon sink, the rest of this paragraph is totally unfounded.
Comment #: 106
This carbon sink is only temporary! The carbon will eventually be recycled putting more pressure on global warming in the future.
Comment #: 107
And research is badly needed to quantify the degree to which carbon is sequestered by forests
Comment #: 108
At best a one-line comment. Again, just manage the forests wisely, skip this mumbo jumbo.
Comment #: 109
This is a very selling point to landowners to keep their trees and to encourage planting trees, and goes nicely with some other issues mentioned previously regarding loss of trees.
Comment #: 110
Wisconsin tends to think that we are not a part of the problem
Comment #: 111
It may be more practical to infuse the global perspectives into the appropriate individual issues and address some regional issues instead.
Comment #: 112
Again, who says the earth is warming? Is anyone anyone considering a carbon sink of a younger forest vs and older forest.
Comment #: 113
Keep the forests growing! Educate the public on the positive effects of forested areas.
Comment #: 114
There is not enough good science on this topic. You need to steer clear of this topic, until it is real, and proven.
There is belief that volcanos, geo thermo, and forrest fires create more global warming, than people ever could.
Comment #: 115
Eventually the UN will come to some type of agreement and carbon sinks will be very important issue
Comment #: 116
Eventually the UN will come to some type of agreement and carbon sinks will be very important issue
Comment #: 117
The U.S. approach to global warming especially trying to receive credit for business as usual is an embarrassment.
Comment #: 118
This concenpt will greatly support our program.
Comment #: 119
see comment on E1
Comment #: 120
See if the State can get some sort of credit for existing forest lands.
Comment #: 121
AS LONG AS THE DEBATE DOES NOT CONTIUE FOR DECADES HAMSTRINGING DECISION MAKING.
Comment #: 122
Need to preserve them to preserve ourselves.
Comment #: 123
Again, the public needs to be made aware of what sinks are and how forests affect carbon emissions. This is a great point and I hope that it will be used more in the future.
Comment #: 124
Big issue that cannot be solved by the state forest plan.
Comment #: 125
These concerns dictate the need for our state forest plans to consider global concers and establishes the need to work within global networks.
Comment #: 126
Trees are our friends!!
Comment #: 127
Mother Nature must have a Forestry degree.
Comment #: 128
More for awareness than anything
Comment #: 129
Air pollution is also changing the incoming light spectrum which is not being addressed. This could affect life more than greenhouse gases or acid rain.
Comment #: 130
Important to explore but you are on thin
ice here at the moment. The jury is still
out kicking this one around. I would want
to take a good, hard look at the science
on this one before I stuck my neck out too
far!
Comment #: 131
Forests can indeed be important sources to sequester carbon. But we must not sacrifice our older, native forests for young, fast-growing "tree farms." Industry is attempting to use global warming to further destroy healthy forest ecosystems. We must not create one worsening environmental problem in the name of solving another one. Only progressive and enlightened forest programs should be rewarded by receiving carbon sequestration credits during implementation of the Kyoto Treaty (if and when that occurs).
Comment #: 132
Forests can indeed be important sources to sequester carbon. But we must not sacrifice our older, native forests for young, fast-growing "tree farms." Industry is attempting to use global warming to further destroy healthy forest ecosystems. We must not create one worsening environmental problem in the name of solving another one. Only progressive and enlightened forest programs should be rewarded by receiving carbon sequestration credits during implementation of the Kyoto Treaty (if and when that occurs).
Comment #: 133
Every little bit helps, but don't preach about it.
Comment #: 134
Again, this might be to large and complex an issue to tackle in a statewide plan (?).
Comment #: 135
And shade on our ever-increasing acres of pavement.
Comment #: 136
Devote resources to more immediate problems.
Comment #: 137
Although recently the Europeans have questioned our numbers about just how much a carbon sink can offset US global warming strategies.
Comment #: 138
Forests can be used to help reduce global warming, but they must not be sacrificed to do so. For example, forest restoration in old farm lands or degraded areas is a plus for carbon sequestration. But it would be a huge negative if native forests are converted into fast-growing, genetically engineered monoculture tree farms. We must not try to solve one environmental problem by creating another one.
Comment #: 139
You will be drawn into this issue groups that want the forest managed for one desired condition or another.
Comment #: 140
If we have more forested land now how can this be true?
Comment #: 141
I think we shouldn't have green houses
Comment #: 142
Maximize forest acreage and therefore the consumption of carbon dioxide by forests.
Comment #: 143
We should educate the public about this and make it a state goal and matter of pride for us to become a net green house gas sink instead of a source. How far are we away from this goal?
Comment #: 144
We know this-what's the purpose of rehashing a known fact?
Comment #: 145
Strong support for increased forest protection and planting.
Comment #: 146
Global warming has never been proven.
Comment #: 147
Remember the soils beneath the forests hold a prodigious amount of the carbon - much more than the trees themselves. Forests need to be approached as an ecosystem not as a collection of trees!
Last Revised: Monday July 30 2007
RSS