Yesterday's Carbon Sink, Tomorrow's Emissions?
Print this Article | Send to Colleague
By Heikki Vierimaa, Senior Adviser, Energy for the Finnish Forest Industries Federation
A carbon sink-centered climate policy cannot address climate change, as demonstrated by the increasing frequency of forest fires around the world. The discussion around climate actions must also include various carbon storage methods, which can diversify actions against climate change.
Summer holidays offer a much-needed pause, allowing time for reflexions. As we recover from the year of working, our thoughts become clearer, and we begin to see the world through a new lens. Some may ponder great philosophical questions, while others may find themselves answering others' questions. In my case, alongside explaining the workings of a fire alarm to my relatives' children, my thoughts turned to carbon sinks, triggered by news of recent forest fires.
Did you know that in 2023, forest fires in Canada emitted as much carbon dioxide as India, the world's third-largest emitter? That's how much one country's annual forest fires can cost us in the fight against our common enemy, climate change. As temperatures keep breaking new records and forest fires become more common, there is surprisingly little discussion about the climate impact of forest fires or how we can protect the climate change mitigation measures of forests.
I understand that logging has an impact on carbon sinks. But the problem with forest fires in the context of climate change is not just their impact on the carbon absorption capacity of forests. The fires also release carbon that has been stored in forests over past decades. As the climate warms, the increasing frequency of forest fires and the spread of harmful pests make climate policy and carbon sinks seem more fragile than before. Carbon sinks are not called the "unstable backbone" of climate policy for nothing.
In the heat of this debate, I recommend viewing the problem through a different lens. As climate change progresses, forest damage is not expected to decrease. In the long term, increasing the sink by limiting wood use will slow the rate of forest as the carbon absorption capacity of aging trees declines. On the other hand, the short-term maximization of carbon sinks risks allowing fossil-based products to replace wood-based alternatives. This would further harm the global climate and both EU's and Finland's economy.
There are numerous ways to safeguard carbon storage, and many of these are already within our reach. In the forest industry, carbon stored in trees can be used to manufacture a variety of products. Buildings can sequester carbon for hundreds of years, furniture for decades. Packaging and wood-based chemicals reduce the use of fossil fuels. These are all examples of concrete actions that help preserve carbon storage and slow down climate change. At the same time, they contribute to economic growth by generating tax revenues and jobs — both of which there has been a shortage of in the EU in recent years.
