The wrong kind of trees: Ireland's afforestation meets resistance

So this doesn't have to be about native vs non-native...what's truly important here is that these forests are about as much part of the ecosystem as a lawn that's being sprayed twice a week.

But if there are preferred trees, I would like to know more about their differences from Sitka. Do they grow 10% more slowly? Or product 10% less lumber? Or require 10% more maintenance?

I recently visited Ireland and walked through some awesome woods. But the local houndsmaster explained that almost all of the trees are non-native. And that wasn’t a problem.

I don’t think non-native is a self-sustaining reason by itself. I’m sure the Leitrim group has more info on what are better trees for Ireland and I would like to see the climate trade off analysis they did to show how other trees should be used.

Wilderness is simply a concept that doesn't quite exist in Ireland. We didn't have any of it, and the closest equivalent, forestry, dates to earlier 20th century land reforms.

Effectively forestry is agriculture, not wilderness.. in terms of the ideal. Even agriculture has ecological standards, but preserving hedges for wildlife is not the same as preserving an arboreal ecosystems.

I would absolutely love to see as much forestry land as possible converted (conceptually) to "wilderness." That doesn't mean it can't produce wood pulp or other commercial products. But, it does mean that wood pulp is not the goal. Native species are the goal. Recreation is the goal. ..And the long term future is the goal.

Some of the spruce & pine patches dotted around the country have occasional hardwood "groves." Walking in from the dark & inaccessible pack of spruce into the the magical space created by as few as a dozen matures oaks and chestnuts... you can almost imagine the Ireland of fairy stories and legends. An acre of oak feels like a place, something that should have a name and a story. Those don't happen on short term timescales, but we can and should plant them as a gift to our grandchildren.

We need a paradigm shift. Some of this island should be dedicated to non-agricultural use... and timber mono-cropping doesn't count. It should be accessible to us. I would love for us to adopt Scottish "rambling rights," at least for forestry land). It should probably be not-for-profit, reinvesting any income into improvements and land acquisition.

*Personal: my Grandfather grew up on land that was "agriculturally unproductive." The land was acquired by the state for forestry in the early 50s and the people encouraged to migrate. That's the origin of much/most forestry land. It belongs to the public, morally (and technically, mostly).

We are wealthy enough as a nation that we can afford to use some of our least productive ($-p-acre) land for recreational, ecological and spiritual purposes. Planting an oak grove is spiritual, imo, especially in ireland. Timber plantations are not that.

The Horse Chestnut (non native but in place for several hundred years at lease and beautiful) is under threat too I believe.

This coming not so long after the catastrophe that the Elm tree population suffered with Dutch Elm disease

The sitka spruce forests are an abomination, nothing grows in them except sitka spruce, not even grass. They are also planted in rectangles that look jarring to the eye on hillsides, nothing natural looking about them at all.

Coillte have a remit for recreational use of Ireland’s woodlands but historically, they have always prioritised the commercial aspect over all other considerations. For a private enterprise, this would make sense as the income from tourism doesn’t appear on their balance sheets – but having a broader mission is one of the reasons why Coillte are a semi-state company.

The water use issue of eucalyptus far outweighs its carbon sequestration and the other problem is that after its cycle of 7 to 25 years (depending on use) a lot of that carbon ends up in the atmosphere anyway, for instance through burning for silicon mining.

The other important factor is the plant matter that composes the top soil and how this decomposes or otherwise interacts with the soil. A major part of CO2 release is through decomposition of plant matter. In fact, the recent article [1] that I read (on HN?) made me realise that a plant can be carbon neutral (rather than carbon negative). In the article, there is actually no difference between having a plant in that bottle or just having charcoal in the bottle—it's a completely closed system. This invites a question about afforestation and how important carbon capture via plantation is vs. re-establishing indigenous forest and on the other hand simply subterranean C02 sequestration.

[1]

But, get this, they're not pleasant to walk through! They're the wrong color. They are 'dark and dank'.

Hm. Compared to what? The stripped, blasted landscape they replaced? The ecological disaster that was remediated?

This seems a trivial, silly article.

The tropical “homegarden” — similar to the permaculture idea of a “food forest” — shows enormous promise for high annual and lifetime carbon sequestration potential. They can be beautiful, productive systems that have the added benefit of producing food and sustenance.

And generally speaking, it is safe to assume that mass monoculture systems are flawed, even if it takes 50 years for us to prove and illustrate those flaws.

With no wood, Irish began to burn peat (their own soil) for heat and cooking. Eventually there was famine and a mass exodus.

The soil is now markedly different, and requires trees that can tolerate the ph.

a.) combatting climate change effectively

b.) generating wealth

and

c.) creating a degree of variety and beauty

being shot down because a bunch of Irishmen think the forests are spooky and depressing. If my googling of these forests is accurate, they're actually pleasant looking forests.