The good news:

Global warming in the next century could cause a significant increase in the productivity of high-elevation forests of the Pacific Northwest, a new study suggests.

The bad news:

However, forests at lower elevations — which in recent years have accounted for more than 80 percent of the region’s timber harvest — could face a decline in growth.

That’s the way the world always wants to go—give something; take something.

Charles Mudede—who writes about film, books, music, and his life in Rhodesia, Zimbabwe, the USA, and the UK for The Stranger—was born near a steel plant in Kwe Kwe, Zimbabwe. He has no memory...

14 replies on “The Future of the Pacific Northwest”

  2. ugh, reducing nature to “productivity”. so USFS.

    they already cut everything up to the timberline as frequently as possible. is this laying the groundwork for harvesting rock and (former) ice?

  4. There’s more to it than just trees.

    There’s all the little critters that kill trees. Little critters that are also looking forward to warmer winters. Expect massive deforestation and wholesale replacement of arboreal species.

    Your “give something; take something” summary is appropriate, but the application is far more complex, at the environmental level, rather than the organism level.

  5. Alpine meadow plants and animals are already taking a hit as trees encroach up the mountain (global warming, but also fire suppression).

    The Olympic Peninsula has a ton of endemic alpine meadow species.

  6. @2 – go look at Glacier National Park in Montana and the area to the north of it in BC – half the glaciers have melted entirely and the rocky outcrops aren’t really suited for tree growth, due to lack of topsoil.

    @4 – yup. And salmon. They’ll have to be forcibly shipped north – basically salmon in northern CA will have to go in Oregon and WA rivers and those here will have to go up to Alaska and Northern BC.

  8. Environmentally, those are both bad news.
    Why do you want the high elevation forests to be more productive? They are fine the way they are. You’d probably end up losing quite a bit of biodiversity.

  11. From a competetive standpoint, that’s two gifts. The more our forests grow, the better for us. The more competitors’ forests shrink, the better for us.

  12. Classic economics.

    Mind you, most of you have never worked on a greenchain or had to cut shakes and shingles by hand, so just remember – wear your gloves and keep your hands and feet clear of the chainsaw blade.

Comments are closed.