Wouldn’t God Love Oak Forests?

I was at a friend’s mom’s funeral yesterday wondering about the existence of God. If there is a God, I thought, wouldn’t he prefer that we prayed under trees instead of converting forests into oak pews? Oaks have caught my attention since I was 5, even though a relative ridiculed my fascination with acorns, something she thought was meaningless and commonplace. A White Oak can live for at least six centuries, and the genus,Quercus, that it belongs to includes about 400 species of trees and shrubs, 240 of which are found in North America. That group of similar species is essential to deciduous forests.

Due to exploitation, oak forests are typically small and patchy. Moreover, forests with very old oaks or other mature hardwood trees are rare. So-called old growth forests make up only 1% of all forests in Europe. On the planet as a whole, 2/3 are gone. To be considered old-growth, a forest must have many large trees about twice the human lifespan. It needs to have been free of human intervention for nearly a century. And it needs lots of deadwood in various stages of decomposition.

Why deadwood? In everyday terms, we give the word a negative connotation. In our obsession to industrialize at the fastest pace possible, we apply it to people who are no longer productive. But in the forest-reality, dead wood is an essential long term storage of carbon. Part of wood eventually gets partly converted into carbon dioxide. But most becomes stabilized in the soil as humus. Humus helps retain other life-essential elements such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and micronutrients such as magnesium. This is achieved by fungi, beetles, spiders and a host of other insects collectively known as saproxylic organisms. With intensive exploitation of forests, there is less dead wood around and the soil suffers, hindering the possibility for regrowth. Meanwhile, it directly impacts biodiversity. Currently, 11% of saproxylic organisms are threatened species.

In the UK, about 650 beetle species from 53 families are associated with deadwood. This image shows at least one species from each family. None of them are to scale. Images courtesy of Udo Schmidt and Lech Borowiec. Text: https://www.rosspiper.net/2020/01/10/saproxylic-beetles/

Eight thousand years ago marked the beginning of a transition for humanity. Much of our nomadic hunting and gathering lifestyle was replaced by farming and villages. At that point, the planet was covered with about 6 billion hectares of forest. That number now stands at about 4 billion. Not only is a greater fraction of old forest gone, what remains among the 4 billion hectares is different in structure and composition. Preference is given to certain species. Shrubs are often eliminated and deadwood is cleared.

In 2024,  the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) and (ICS), officially rejected a proposal to formally recognize the Anthropocene as a new geological epoch. But they were merely stating that the recent human impact to the geological record is not guaranteed to leave a long-lasting signature in Earth’s rocks. They were not denying the massive and significant impact we’ve had on the world’s forests, which has directly contributed to our compromising of the atmosphere and biodiversity of the planet. If there is a God, is he more happy with our obsession with GDP? Or more worried about what we are doing to oak forests and the planet they grow on?

Sources:

Vild, O., et al. (2021). Forest type matters: Global review about the structure of oak dominated old‑growth temperate forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 500, 119629. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2021.119629

Canadians, Not Exactly Stewards of the Earth

When I lived in Hawaii, a nurse asked me, “how could you leave such a beautiful country like Canada?” Her question was spot-on. Canada is a vast land of striking scenery and resources. But are we developing the latter in a responsible manner in a way that reflects a forgotten truth:  there is no clear boundary between economy and environment? The Conference Board of Canada website gives a good overview of how well Canada is doing environmentally relative to 16 other industrial countries, but overall the report is far from stellar.

Forest in Parc Nationale d’Oka, in Quebec, near Montreal. –photograph by the author

Luckily, since 2005, 348 million hectares or 34% of our country’s land were maintained as forest. But it would have been desirable to have increased the amount of wooded areas to offset some of our carbon dioxide emissions in the manner that Norway, Italy and Ireland have. Canada is third in per capita  greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—only the United States and Australia are bigger polluters. In our defense, our cold climate and large distances between cities does not help matters. And things could have been worse if we were not rich in hydroelectricity, which is used to generate 58% of our electricity; fossil fuels only supply 23% of our energy needs. But there’s a catch. We are far from leading the way in sustainable energy development because of a huge industrial and government commitment to developing the world’s 3rd largest oil reserves. In world markets, we are already currently producing 4.5 % of the world’s oil , fifth place among nations, even though we account for only 0.5% of the planet’s population.

Relative to other countries, threatened terrestrial species are not doing as badly as elsewhere, and we have a federal biodiversity action plan in place. But the number of species at risk is still increasing. Furthermore, with regard to change in the Marine Trophic Index, Canada ranks last. The sustainability of its fish resources has been in constant decline since the 1970s.

Less pressured by a low population density, we have become increasingly complacent and irresponsible with municipal waste. Canada is dead last in that department too, producing, on a per capita basis, even more trash than the Americans.  Our per capita release of nitrogen oxides, which is again elevated partly due to the large distances covered by our vehicles, place us 2nd-last among 17 peer countries.The ensuing smog from these compounds has been less intense than it had been in 1970, but we have not kept pace with other countries’ emission standards. Similarly, we are the worst emitters of volatile organic compounds(VOC) from cleaning products, paints, printing inks and personal care products.

According to a 2014 Angus Reid poll, when asked what factor should take greater priority in shaping this country’s energy policy, the majority of Canadians (58 per cent) say protecting the environment is most important. Only 42 per cent want to encourage economic growth above everything else. Interestingly, of all Canadian political parties, the one least interested in environmental matters gained 40% of the popular vote in the last election. But that was enough to form a majority in parliament and to prevent the country from doing something about its embarrassing record.