Letter to the Editor, The New York Times

October 13, 2016

To the editor:

In reference to your October 4 article regarding biomass, unfortunately, debates about complex carbon equations are clouding the real issue—the greatest contributor to forest area loss in the US is urbanization and development, not demand for wood. Based on landowner surveys, we know people want to keep their forests as forests, but difficulties arise when family financial needs become a factor. We need to provide real incentives to conserve and manage forests instead of clearing them for development.

Reducing atmospheric carbon requires action on a number of fronts. There is a convincing body of evidence to support the utilization of forest biomass for long-term carbon mitigation, but research about the carbon benefits of forest biomass utilization must continue.

We rely on forests for health and happiness. Forests not only provide low-cost carbon benefits, they also ensure a clean and abundant supply of drinking water, provide irreplaceable wildlife habitat, offer incredible recreation opportunities and awe-inspiring views. Our immediate and overarching goal should be keeping forests as forests, and encourage the conservation of private forests critical to sustaining the multitude of benefits we enjoy.

Matt Menashes
CEO
Society of American Foresters