Carbon Emissions and Tree Planting

The Government of Korea announced in January that it would absorb 34 million tons of carbon by planting 3 billion trees for 30 years by 2050. This was criticized as “a logging policy under the guise of carbon neutrality”. Why is the Korean Government's tree planting plan gaining distrust?

✔The Foresty and Planting Plan(?)

The national greenhouse gas reduction target(NDC) by 2030, submitted to the United Nations by the government at the end of 2020, is said to be 173.02 million tons. Greenhouse gas reduction includes not only emission reduction but also an increase in absorption. Accordingly, the Korea Forest Service announced a plan to increase carbon sinks by planting trees. Of the 3 billion trees, 2.6 billion trees were planted through 'domestic forest management', excluding urban forests and plantings to restore North Korean wasteland through inter-Korean cooperation.

✔2.6 Billion Trees, Where Are They Planted?

According to this plan, the Korea Forest Service should plant 86 million trees every year by 2050. It would be great if tree planting could be increased through new and reforestation projects, but the expression ‘management’ is used to provide this. It turns out that the Korea Forest Service is planning to cut down trees growing on 900,000 hectares of existing economic forest and plant new seedlings.

The Korea Forest Service argues that 'the wage structure of our forests is unbalanced' in order to cut down existing trees. 70% of domestic forests are trees that are over 30 years old. There are many international studies showing contradictory results.

✔Do trees only absorb carbon?

The trees in the forest can absorb and store greenhouse gases, whereas the functions of the forest are very diverse. A forest is a place where animals and insects live together in an ecosystem. Forest scenery, soil runoff prevention, forest recreation, and water source cultivation are good functions of trees officially recognized by the Korea Forest Service, and these are functions whose evaluation value increases over time. However, the Korea Forest Service says that it will cut down large trees and plant young trees, seeing trees as merely carbon absorbing functions and forestry profits.

The KFEM(Korea Federation of Environmental Movement) criticizes this as follows :

1. Forest management centered on economic forests is a logging expansion project, not a carbon absorption function enhancement.

The Korea Forest Service's plan to plant 2.6 billion trees in domestic forests for 30 years for carbon neutrality is nothing more than an expansion of the existing forest management business, not a new or reforestation project.

2. The Korea Forest Service's calculation of carbon uptake and income inequality is a biased argument

International academic journals and organizations pointed out that the wrong way of planting economic forests, etc., could increase carbon dioxide emissions, decrease biodiversity, and adversely affect the landscape.

3. The 2050 carbon uptake suggested by the Korea Forest Service is largely inflated.

The 34 million tons that the Korea Forest Service promises to secure to contribute to carbon neutrality in 2050 is an inflated figure. Based on the argument that the forest currently absorbing 45.6 million tons of greenhouse gases will absorb only 14 million tons by 2050, the Korea Forest Service cut down existing forests and planted new trees to reduce the absorption of domestic forests by 20.7 million tons ( 6.1 million tons overseas). However, it is difficult to see that all of these 20.7 million tons are newly secured by the Korea Forest Service.

========================================================

In my personal opinion, cutting down a growing tree to plant more trees is a bit inconvenient. I think that the elite officials of the Korea Forest Service have diligently researched various alternatives and turned the numbers to most effectively approach the goal to be achieved, and perhaps a preliminary feasibility study has been conducted.

To achieve the policy goal and save more lives, the idea of ​​cutting down 300 million trees more than 30 years old and planting 3 billion saplings is a pre-modern idea. No, is it unavoidable to even feel that it is not ethical? Without thinking about how easily one member of the planet, humans, can decide the life or death of another member of the tree, trees.

As a student of biology, I realize that it takes 'overwhelming expertise' to find solutions through scientific methods to solve real problems. To say “This is not right!” based on emotion or social sentiment can only be used for political agitation.