Thread by @IrelandsFarmers

On my (@IrishRainforest) second last day on this account, I want to talk about the big lie that is Irish 'forests'.

One of these below is a forest, one of them most definitely is not.

One covers around 1% of Ireland, the other 10%.

It would be easy to think of a forest as a big bunch of trees, but nothing could be further from the truth.

A real forest is instead made up of thousands of different species that coevolved over very long periods of time to function cohesively as an *ecosystem*.

So what do I mean by the big lie that is Irish 'forests'?

Here's a good example: "Irish forest cover at its highest level in 350 years."

Sounds wonderful, except around 90% of that is monoculture plantations, mostly of alien species like sitka spruce.
m.independent.ie/business/farmi…

What's the problem with non-native tree species? Surely a tree is a tree?

Far from it. Native trees like oak, birch and holly evolved together over aeons with the insects, birds, fungi, wildflowers, mammals, micro-organisms and other things that make up a woodland ecosystem.

To make this real, I recommend spending time in a native forest in healthy condition (not easy to find, sadly, as outlined yesterday).

For much of the year, you'll find yourself immersed in a living soup of pulsing, vibrant life, rich with buzzing insects, flowers and birdsong.

Then walk into a sitka plantation, and you'll find the direct opposite. You'll find yourself in a deadzone: no flowers, no insects, no birds, almost no nothing.

These things didn't evolve all the ecological links with sitka, so it's useless to them, other than as cover, at best.

But the problem isn't merely that sitka is an alien species. It's also that it's planted in monocultures.

And I'll never stop repeating it: monocultures - of any sort - are next to useless to nature.

A monoculture of native ash, for example, isn't a whole lot better for wildlife, no more than if you went to the supermarket and found solely nutella, or tins of baked beans on the shelves.

Wildlife needs diversity.

Then consider ash dieback, for eg.

https://twitter.com/IrishRainforest/status/1452501172733063169?t=RtNjjiLTBmNFbCaPQAPKLQ&s=19

Disease and pests flourish in monocultures, in which trees are very often genetically identical. Globalisation makes each plantation monoculture a disaster in waiting.

In a wild forest, by contrast, there's enormous genetic diversity, evident in the huge variety of tree forms.

Every tree in a wild, natural forest also has its own unique story, making it unlike any other.

Maybe an acorn seeded into the side of an escarpment, & had to grow out horizontally for several decades to reach out from under existing trees.

And so on, in endless configurations.

The result could not be more in contrast to a monoculture plantation. They are simply entirely different entities.

Yet they're constantly lumped together as 'forest', as if they had anything remotely in common.

Many parts of Ireland already find themselves swamped by blankets of lifeless monotony.

Leitrim is so far the worst affected county, with many family farms almost completely surrounded by dark foreboding walls of sitka.

See @SaveLeitrim, @SaveKerry, @savewestcavan, @SaveWicklow

But it gets worse: huge amounts of chemicals are poured into these plantations, and these, together with an acidifying effect of the needles, cause life to die off in local streams, rivers and lakes.

Monoculture plantations are a disaster for people *and* wildlife.

Real forests also help prevent flooding, while plantations do not.

What about the argument commonly used to promote monoculture forestry: that it's an essential weapon against climate breakdown?

That too is just a big lie. Here's why...

Researchers found that a 10% increase in European 'forest' cover between 1750 and 2010 (an extra 200,000km2) had led to a counterintuitive temperature RISE of 0.12 degrees.

How is that possible?

Simple: they were mostly non-native conifers like sitka.

bbc.com/news/science-e…

Natural forests help keep the climate stable in a variety of ways.

First, they absorb and release vast quantities of water through their leaves, creating cloud that reflects solar radiation back into space.

Water-retaining conifer needles are far less effective in this role.

Conifers are also much darker than most of our native trees, and so absorb, rather than reflect, heat. This is called 'the albedo effect'.

"Ok, but surely all trees absorb carbon out of the air, helping avoid climate breakdown?"

Even on that count, plantations fall well short.

In a natural temperate forest, almost 75% of the carbon storage is in the soil.

The longer a forest is left alone, the more carbon it locks down, as leaves, branches, trunks and other matter rot down, building soils.

But conifer plantations are routinely thinned, clearfelled and replanted, all of which severely disturbs the ground, releasing great quantities of carbon.

So even if we decide that people, nature and flooding don't matter, alien plantations *hasten* climate breakdown too.

So why are we constantly being told Ireland 'has only 11% forest cover', and that we need more plantations?

Because there's a whole industry based around them, which doesn't give a damn about people, nature or the climate, however much they claim they do.
irishtimes.com/news/environme…

Of course we need timber, but it doesn't need to be based on an ongoing ecological catastrophe.

On the contrary: switching to growing wild, naturally regenerated native forests would be great for people, nature and the climate.

Surprise, surprise, they're made of timber too!

And it would all be so easy. Visit a clearfelled plantation, and if you look at the ground more often than not you'll see multitudes of seedlings of birch, willow and other wild, native species coming up.

These could just be let grow into forests, instead of always obliterated.

Of course, these new forests would take time to grow. But you'd be amazed how quick they can be: natural regeneration works *with* nature.

In the meantime, the existing plantations would serve as a timber supply; we just wouldn't plant any more of them.

Forestry industry reps will cry:
'But that's impractical. Our systems, machinery, everything, is all geared up to the way things are.'

They misunderstand the situation: we're in a deep ecological and climate crisis, and *that* must dictate how we proceed.
rte.ie/news/environme…

So please, don't believe the hype from the forestry industry, @coilltenews, the government, media, or anyone else.

Bart is dead right: we need way more REAL, not fake, forests.

Back tomorrow for my last day curating this account, hope you can join me!