Response to the letters by Kun et al. and Booth et al

• Published in: Global change biology. Bioenergy 2020-12, Vol.12 (12), p.1038-1043
• Main Authors: Schulze, Ernst‐Detlef, Sierra, Carlos, Egenolf, Vincent, Woerdehoff, Rene, Irsinger, Roland, Baldamus, Conrad, Stupak, Inge, Spellmann, Hermann
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Alternative energy sources; Beech; Biomass; Carbon; Carbon dioxide; Carbon dioxide emissions; Emissions; Fluxes; Forest management; Forests; Fossil fuels; Incentives
• ISSN: 1757-1693; 1757-1707
• DOI: 10.1111/gcbb.12724

Incentives to store carbon in ecosystems in order to compensate the ever increasing fossil fuel emissions give people a false sense of having solved the problem, but it does not give an incentive to solve the biggest problem of all, which is reducing the large fossil fuel flux from the fossil stores to the atmosphere. [...]we clearly support the above‐cited EU regulation that CO2 emissions, originating mainly from fossil fuel fluxes, should be reduced and not compensated by biomass storage. [...]it takes a shorter time to reach maximum stocks for forest under management. [...]non‐intervention does not lead generally to higher stocks in the living and dead biomass at landscape scale, but biomass is accumulated faster under management. The collapse of the beech forest “Heilige Hallen” or “Solling” in Germany may be examples of that situation (personal observations). [...]stocks of old‐growth forest are not resistant to these extreme events and are equally vulnerable to rapid carbon losses, as it happens in managed forests by harvesting. [...]harvested wood is transferred to the pool of harvested