From time to time, new or fashionable words and phrases appear in the public space. Are greenhouse gas emissions (hereafter – emissions) also “in fashion”, given how often they are mentioned? And can a scientist even answer such a question?
A scientist’s work is, to some extent, tied to political processes and the activities surrounding them. Therefore, my answer is: “Yes! Talking about emissions is currently popular and fashionable.” This topic is discussed across very different interest groups — some more rational, some less so, sometimes even conflicting — yet all of them share a greater or lesser degree of interest in emissions.
How easy or difficult is it for a scientist to work on a topic that is highly topical — knowing that someone will inevitably criticise everything possible if the results or conclusions are not to their liking?
Working in science, it is never pleasant to see or read the opinions that occasionally appear in the public space. The situation is twofold: the rational part of me says, “better not look and not get involved”, yet on a human level there is curiosity about what others think about the issue. I know very well that my colleagues in science work with great integrity — whenever we assess or support something, there is always a scientific basis behind it.
Why, from a scientific perspective, is it important to talk about emissions and study them?
A very large part of the current European Union climate policy is based on greenhouse gas (GHG) inventories. This is a technical process fundamentally grounded in science — guidelines, default methodologies, and nationally approved, empirically based methods. The role of science is to justify and improve all of the above.
Why is it important for scientists to participate? So that the resulting political decisions are adequate. The more accurate the GHG inventory, the more accurate the political decisions will be. If a country calculates its emissions incorrectly, the climate targets will be incorrect, and the planned solutions and actions will be equally flawed. That is why science is indispensable.
It should be added that I am describing the optimal scenario. In reality, we often see various interest groups coming up with their own ideas about what they believe or feel is best. Most often these are non‑governmental organisations that decide what seems acceptable or desirable to them, thereby influencing political processes. In short, loud support does not always have a clear or scientific justification.
Why, evaluating from a scientific point of view, is it important to talk about emissions and to study them?
Very many processes in the current European Union climate policy are based on greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory, which is a technical process, the basis of which undoubtedly is science – guidelines, default methodologies, nationally approved, empirically based methodologies. The task of science is to justify and improve all of the above. Why is it important for scientists to participate? So that the respective political decisions would be adequate. The more precise the GHG inventory will be, the more precise the political decisions will be. If emissions in a country are calculated incorrectly, the set climate targets will not be correct and equally incorrect will be the planned solutions and actions. Therefore, without science it is impossible!
It should be added, however, that I am speaking about the optimal variant; often we experience that different interest groups themselves invent what, in their opinion, seems or feels better. Most often these are non-governmental organizations that invent what seems acceptable and pleasant to them and what not, thereby influencing political processes. In short, loud support does not always have a clear and scientific justification.
How is it possible to calculate emissions incorrectly?
I assume it would be more correct to speak about the precision of calculations, which is one of the six principles mentioned in the guidelines (accuracy). Science always strives to reduce possible inaccuracies, because in the land-use sector in which we operate, there exists very high uncertainty. Looking at the scale of all Europe, aggregating all reports, the uncertainty of results is very high – around 80%, there are positions where it is even greater than 100%. It must be emphasized that here we are not talking about an error, but every measurement has some variation that reflects the natural heterogeneity of the measured process. For example, if we carry out measurements in a sample of forest stands, the obtained results have a certain representativeness for all forests of Latvia, which is exactly how it is published – let us say – “this and that is within a 95% confidence interval,” within which the truth is also located. Science, as I already mentioned, continuously collects extensive data in order to reduce this uncertainty (dispersion).
Would it be mathematically correct – if uncertainty (dispersion) is 80% and the obtained result is 68 – the true result can fluctuate from 28 to 108?
The calculation is correct. If we speak about inventory, scientists know this variation excellently, but more than one person not connected with science, who wishes to interpret the results, takes the average value and judges that it shows absolute truth. It does not!
In recent years especially much it is discussed that various kinds of activities, including policy, should be created based on science. If, for example, someone comes to you to ask for advice and you know well how uncertain the obtained result is, what is possible to recommend?
In climate policy, science recommends various climate change mitigation measures. As there are many ideas and we know how large the uncertainty of each is, we pay more attention to that which has higher reliability, lower risks of negative outcome, and we insist on that. A scientist will basically orient towards the most reliable variant.
Recently zemeunvalsts.lv published an article about the differences between Finland and Sweden in carbon sequestration. Also in Latvia there are discussions about sequestration, in which more is talked about what one or another participant likes better (it must be remembered that an unpleasant result is not an incorrect result). How large a dataset is sufficient in order to convincingly evaluate what should be paid attention to and what should be left aside?
It must be reminded of a well-known thing – in nature nothing is static – everything changes, also climate; forest management practice also changes and develops, etc. We cannot say that after 10 years data will be collected in such volume that we will know almost everything. That will not be so! In changing conditions we constantly strive towards better understanding.
Why do Finnish and Swedish data differ? It must be said, your question is not easy to answer, so that I would not be misunderstood that someone calculates correctly, someone – incorrectly; in each country calculations take place based on that country’s best knowledge on how to calculate most precisely. One of the pillars of inventories is comparability, but harmonization of inventories carried out in different European countries is a certain problem. Although the inventory guidelines define the main calculation principles and methods, their parameters are allowed to differ, because in different conditions they must differ. The reasons for differences can be various and many – for example – calculation methods within the allowed guideline limits may differ in their complexity, which is determined by the data available in each country, this can influence the result.
I myself carry out inventories in Latvia, last year I have checked GHG inventories also in other countries. There are still countries where calculations in forests are carried out by taking the default numbers from guidelines, for example average increment. In the European Union it is no longer allowed to calculate like that; significant carbon pools cannot be calculated with default methodology, each country must have a methodology based on its own data. Another reason for differences may be nuances of accounting methodologies for achieving climate targets – there are countries which by chance have it easier to achieve targets, because in the period against which it is evaluated whether carbon sequestration increases, for example, in biomass, there has been greater logging than currently. In other words, larger harvesting volumes historically can help achieve targets in the future.
Accounting calculations are sufficiently complex with many variables. In Nordic countries the reported carbon sequestration is actually very similar, not to say identical. The main carbon sink is tree biomass. If we open inventory reports and look at carbon stock change in forest living biomass, the average indicator of the last five years in Finland is 0.23 t C ha-1 per year, while in Sweden 0.24 t C ha-1 per year. Also in Latvia similar – 0.30 t C ha-1 per year. But if in the land-use sector we look at the overall national situation instead of per-hectare average, Finland compared to Sweden will always be in a worse situation, because there are four times larger areas of organic soils. Therefore, what we see in inventories depends on what and how we look.
So the point is that inventories carried out in, for example, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania, Slovenia and Bulgaria could and should be compared.
Exactly so! The best and simplest example of comparability problems is organic soil. For example, in Latvia, Lithuania and Denmark the definition of organic soil is different, therefore discussions arise on how to interpret what is peat soil, what is organic soil; how to separate organic soil from mineral soil, etc. Depending on how we define organic soil in our country, it is possible to determine the extent of these soils. It must be repeated: each country has its own best available data and not all use unified data sources.
The next comparability problem – how do we evaluate what emissions come from organic soils. One uses default data from the guidelines, another one fixed emission factors, yet others divide organic soils according to fertility.
Ideally it would be if scientists from all European countries came together, combined the obtained data and a unified methodology would be created. We have tried to initiate this from the side of “Silava” – namely – we collect data from Nordic countries, prepare a research proposal, prepare a unified methodology at least for our region.
Why has this not succeeded?
Scientists would like to implement it, but in order to start, a research proposal is written, which ends up in the hands of anonymous (unknown) evaluators, who read, evaluate and say: “There are more актуal things that must be solved.”
How often do GHG inventories take place in Latvia and how often do data change (are updated)?
One of the main data sources is forest resource monitoring, which evaluates not only the change of living and dead biomass stock, but also land-use change. This monitoring, as is known, takes place in a 5-year cycle. Additionally, annual data come in. Summarizing about emissions, there are two data sources – so-called activity data, for example, area of organic soils, land-use change, wood increment, harvesting volume, natural mortality; the second is provided by science, so that it is clear how to interpret the received activity data in order to calculate emissions.
Is it possible, from a scientist’s point of view, to evaluate various practical plans created in the climate field, concluding what included in them is very significant and valuable and what should not have been touched?
Climate measures can be looked at from two sides; there are measures in the implementation of which there is already experience, and those which are only planned. There are many recommendations, of different content and direction, much is written in policies, but in practical actions it is not sufficiently reflected. For example, the Common Agricultural Policy, where we read: “replacement of unproductive forest stands to improve carbon sequestration.” When we look at how much of that has been done in the previous planning period, we see – very little, because the idea is not sufficiently explained or stimulated. To replace grey alder stands with a more productive stand would not be complicated, but in order to recognize a stand as unproductive, there is a lack of a simple mechanism so that the forest owner could conveniently do it. The measure is good, but is implemented little, evidently due to complexity. Speaking about only planned measures, the most vivid example is restoration of groundwater level in areas with organic soils – a very widely advertised measure, but scientifically unfounded.
Recognizing a grey alder stand as unproductive might not be complicated, but unproductive can also be a spruce stand in too wet a place, where the tree is still quite young, but rot is already present.
Also, but the owner, in order to obtain a felling permit, must prove that it truly is so.
What, from your experience, should be done in forestry, thinking about emissions? If we evaluate information in the information space, it is fundamentally black and white, although truth is usually colorful.
I will agree, scientifically based, nothing is black and white. A process can be evaluated from a climate perspective, one can evaluate climate and ecology, one can also look at the economy. The more aspects are evaluated, the more everything becomes colorful.
In my opinion, before every conversation or discussion it would be important to clearly and understandably define what we will talk about and exactly what the topic of the conversation will be. When I observe various meetings, so to say, from the side, it is visible that each participant says something of their own, there is no common denominator; many discussions proceed like this, monologue follows monologue, everyone has spoken, but no one understands what should be done. For example, how and what compromise to reach.
Why is reducing logging volume currently so popular?
Why? What exactly is the goal of those promoting such an idea? What is its justification? I would very much like to understand it, because if such an idea exists, it must be justified – are we solving climate issues, or ecology, or what?
If we look at reducing logging volume from a climate perspective, yes, we will very quickly achieve climate targets for 2030–2050 – “we do not touch the forest, while it grows, biomass will increase, the inventory will show that carbon accumulates in the forest.” What will happen after 2050, or approaching it? What will we do with the consequences resulting from such a decision – increase of low-quality timber share, reduced economic return, reduced carbon sequestration in the long term?
The point is about important long-term matters.
Exactly so! We evaluate three aspects (ecology, climate, economy) and look at what time period we are thinking about. The promoter of an idea must be able to clearly answer – for what term and goal it is intended.
What would be long-term for a forest?
If we model possible scenarios, within one forest rotation cycle it is difficult to understand anything. For example, modeling afforestation of mineral soils, it is not enough with “plant, cut,” but one must think about at least three rotation cycles, thus at least 200 years.
Equally important and inseparable are all three – climate, ecology and economy.
Correct – they cannot and should not be evaluated separately.
Speaking about substitution, it must be said that our sector is sometimes opposed by saying that wood products will oxidize over time anyway, what is the point of talking about them, that it is not a long-term solution, that it is not worth focusing on. This is the already mentioned substitution effect – if I sit on a wooden chair at a wooden table, I do not use plastic products. Also, by burning an old chair, you will not burn fossil resources. Substitution effect: 1 ton of stored carbon in wood products has typically prevented 0.5 tons of fossil emissions. If you calculate mathematically, a forest over several rotation cycles can provide a substitution effect that is greater than the carbon stock in an old forest.
What is the best climate change mitigation measure in the forest?
Logging, mathematically calculated, is the best mechanism to mitigate climate change. Grow, remove, store and start again from the beginning. You do not create emissions that would be created by consumption of alternative products. With this I once opposed the Bank of Latvia, whose representatives wrote that intensive forestry cannot be a climate change mitigation measure. No, it is exactly that!
But… it will not be easy to explain this to society.
