Scientific American: Selective Logging Fails to Sustain Rainforest

[Waenara]

A new study using satellite imagery to analyze the rainforest shows that selective logging does much more damage than anyone expected.

Scientific American: Selective Logging Fails to Sustain Rainforest

@Scientific American

A four-year, comprehensive survey of the Amazon Basin in Brazil reveals that selective logging–the practice of cutting down just one or two tree species in an area–creates an additional 60 to 123 percent more damage than deforestation alone.

<snip>

In short, they determined that for every tree removed, 30 more become severely damanged. That’s because selective logging is inherently destructive, the team says. When a tree is cut down, vines growing between it and other trees will pull down neighbors. The space that opens up becomes dry and susceptible to burning. Additionally, tractors and skidders used to remove the hardwoods destroy the forest floor and promote additional logging.

What’s more, felled trees, the decomposing debris left behind on the forest floor and the large amounts of sawdust procured at sawmills release carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere. Traditional deforestation unleashes 400 million tons of carbon every year, and Asner and his colleagues estimate selective logging produces an additional 100 million tons.

So if this is the situation, where do we go from here?

In this thread from 2003 the OP was concerned about various problems for the future, including rainforest depletion, and various posters cited selective logging as a reason why the future of the rainforest is brighter than the OP thought.

Modern forestry equipment goes into forests and thins them a tree at a time, leading to even healthier forests. Before this equipment came along, clearcutting was the order of the day.

For social change to be immediate, it also has to be somewhat traumatic. If we suddenlly managed to ban all rainforest logging, for example, people who depend on the logging for their livlihoods in poor nations which have few other employment options would be in dire straights, and nations whose economy depends strongly on rainforest exploitation would suffer. In many situations, “baby steps” are the best way to deal with a situation. Continuing on with the rainforest example, utilizing new selective logging methods, as well as other conservation techniques, help ease the stress on the environment without seriously affecting the economics of the situation. Helping developing nations to develop other resources helps to wean them off of what we consider destructive expoitation.

While one small triumph may not seem like much, the cumulative effect of a series of them makes quite a difference. After all, the ocean is made of raindrops. Every small step in the right direction is at least preventing further damage.

Now this new study seems to turn that on its head. Baby steps are very good, but what if the steps we’re taking are in the wrong direction?

I definitely agree that a complete cessation of rainforest logging isn’t feasible, and reductions in logging will take quite some time to implement. According to the Scientific American article, this (damage due to selective logging) will make enforcement of logging regulations even more difficult.

So what should we do now? It seems awfully counterintuitive that selective logging (SL) releases relatively more carbon dioxide than “regular” logging. But is carbon dioxide release the only concern? What if SL releases more greenhouse gases, it’s better for the environment in other ways? According to the article SL causes more damage than previously thought to the understory and surrounding trees. But I would think that a damaged ecosystem is better than none at all (i.e. clearcutting).

I’m really not informed enough about the rainforest and logging issues to really know what to make of this - and it seemed Great Debates was the most appropriate forum in which to discuss this.