Ask Dainis

Tree News’s controversial woodsman answers readers queries on dying oaks, the virtues of broadleaf versus conifer and the futility of using trees for carbon off-setting – at least as conventionally packaged. As always, he ruffles feathers, but gives pause for thought.

BATTLING CLIMATE CHANGE

How can we best harness our forests to tackle global warming?

Trees could play a part in locking up carbon, but simply planting more trees is only part of the equation. Unmanaged mature forests are at best closed systems, at worst they can release more CO2 back into the atmosphere. The answer is to remove the carbon regularly as timber and lock it away in the structures and infrastructure of the built environment. This way, instead of being released back into the natural carbon cycle, greenhouse gases can be captured and stored for centuries.

We live in an increasingly built-up environment. We cannot realistically cover towns and cities with living forests, but using more construction timber from managed forests allows us to store carbon creatively within exciting architecture. It is notable that although 70% of the world’s population lives in timber frame buildings, in Britain we mostly live energy-dependant lives in unremarkable – and very inefficient – architecture.

Specifyers and architects distrust timber because they see it as less predictable than energy-embodied steel and concrete. As we become more aware of CO2 emissions, however, such mindsets have to change. Also, new technologies such as acetylation (which reduces timber’s capacity to absorb and release water) are now offering a product from renewable resources which is as stable, predictable and durable as steel and concrete. European nations could utilise far more of their own timber in construction and so reduce their massive ecological footprint.

Dainis welcomes challenging questions from readers, but direct approaches will not get an answer: all enquiries should be sent via the editor.