1-2alb
2-2alb
3-2alb
4-2alb
5-2alb
6-2alb
7-2alb
8-2alb
9-2alb
10-2alb
11-2alb
12-2alb
13-2alb
14-2alb
15-2alb
16-2alb
17-2alb
18-2alb
19-2alb
20-2alb
21-2alb
22-2alb
23-2alb
24-2alb
25-2alb
26-2alb
27-2alb
28-2alb
29-2alb
30-2alb
31-2alb
32-2alb
33-2alb
34-2alb
35-2alb
36-2alb
37-2alb
38-2alb
39-2alb
40-2alb
41-2alb
42-2alb
43-2alb
44-2alb
45-2alb
46-2alb
47-2alb
48-2alb
49-2alb
50-2alb
51-2alb
52-2alb
53-2alb
54-2alb
55-2alb
56-2alb
57-2alb-2025
58-2alb-2025
59-2alb-2025

 

pasargadabu500

 

On Carbon and Forests: Why "Logging in the Name of the Climate" Does Not Work in Latvia

Latvia’s forests have traditionally served as an important carbon sink and as a provider of biodiversity. However, data from recent years show that the forest sector in Latvia is no longer fulfilling this function at a sufficient scale - since 2022, forests have shifted from a carbon sink to a net source of emissions. The main reason is intensive timber harvesting, especially the widespread use of clear-cutting and the reduction of the minimum felling age.

Climate change is one of the most pressing environmental issues of this century. Climate conferences, international agreements, environmental policy, and even carbon markets - the world is continually searching for solutions to overcome this now no longer fully avoidable, yet still improvable problem. The main task is very simple: reduce the volume of emissions released into the environment and remove carbon that is already in the atmosphere. Although this is easy to understand, it is very difficult to accomplish, because it depends on cooperation across sectors worldwide - cooperation that can sometimes seem almost impossible. Unfortunately, in many sectors the fight against climate change is used as a justification for actions whose real motivation is sometimes quite different. One example is Latvia’s forest sector.

One of the most popular narratives in Latvia’s public forestry discourse in recent years is “logging in the name of the climate.” Representatives of Latvia’s State Forests and the Ministry of Agriculture tirelessly repeat it at public events and in the media - "old trees must be replaced with young ones, because as they grow they absorb a great deal of carbon and help mitigate climate change, and we turn the felled trees into houses and furniture, so the carbon does not disappear." First, this rhetoric is not entirely false. Yes, trees do absorb carbon as they grow. The only problem is that, when speaking about this noble sacrifice of forests in the fight against climate change, too many facts are withheld - facts that fully refute the truthfulness of such claims. It is important to emphasize that Latvia has for some time become a country with a negative carbon balance. Since 2022, emissions from Latvia’s forests have exceeded carbon removals. But how can that be - we regenerate harvested forests, and the small trees we plant in their place are supposed to absorb so much carbon. The cause is very simple: timber harvesting is too intensive. So intensive that the carbon balance has become negative.

First, when carrying out timber harvesting - for example, clear-cutting and the subsequent soil preparation (milling, furrowing, etc.) - a significant amount of emissions is released from the soil into the atmosphere, because soil warming and the activation of microorganisms trigger decomposition of nutrients that the previous forest had managed to accumulate. It has long been proven that, although young trees absorb carbon, a young stand’s ability to compensate for the loss of carbon stored in the previous forest becomes apparent only after several decades. It should also be stressed that there are well-founded concerns about whether, by reducing the permitted felling age, this balance can ever be reached in time. Second, the “shadow of doubt” cast over the carbon uptake of the remaining old forests has arisen only because the Ministry of Agriculture has sought interpretations favorable to itself. Yes, old forests do absorb carbon more slowly than young stands. But the uptake process continues nonetheless - contrary to what the Ministry of Agriculture often asserts with confidence. However, more important than the speed is the end result, because the total amount of carbon stored in old forests is significantly greater than in young ones. And it is not stored only in tree trunks - sometimes as much as 50% of the total stand carbon is stored in the soil. When such a forest is clear-cut, a substantial share of the carbon accumulated in the soil is released to the atmosphere. In wet forests, carbon losses can reach as much as half of what had previously been stored in the soil.

But what about the “storage of carbon in furniture and houses” used in public rhetoric? This claim is not completely false, because wood, if carefully kept, can indeed store carbon for decades and even centuries. However, a key question must be asked: what share of the harvested timber in practice - not only in assumptions - is converted into high value-added products? The answer is not encouraging: only a few percent. In 2024, the “furniture” so often mentioned by Latvia’s State Forests accounted for only 5.5% of total timber exports. Unfortunately, no meaningful long-term carbon storage results from this, because most harvested timber becomes low value-added material. For example, Denmark imports large volumes of wood from Baltic forests for use as fuel. A few years ago, Latvia’s pellet production volume was the same as in Sweden and France. Moreover, even the same few percent of carbon that ends up in houses and furniture cannot offset the loss of soil carbon caused by clear-cut-based forestry.

Young stands and even-aged stands are considerably more vulnerable than old, structurally diverse forests. Intensive, uniform forestry reduces forests’ resilience to climate change (droughts, pests, storms). In the longer term, this is no longer only a nature conservation issue - it is also a problem of economic security.

Wood must be produced, but it does not need to be justified by misleading society. The forest sector has an important place in Latvia’s economy, yet the sector has completely lost its connection with sustainability. Latvia’s current strategy for the future of the forest sector is analogous to payday loans: today the money feels good in your hand, but later everything will have to be paid for anyway - with very high interest. A small ray of hope in an otherwise not very bright future is provided by those forest owners who choose to manage their properties with respect for the environment, because despite the enormous lobbying power of the timber industry and large firms, there are still foresters in Latvia who can prove to others that it is possible to earn from forests while also preserving nature.

It should be emphasized that forest diversity is not always reflected in the number of species - the key prerequisite is a variety of forest structures, and the key prerequisite for structural diversity is forest age. The older the forest, the more different structures it will contain. For example, tree cavities - the Habitat of the Year in Latvia in 2026. The presence of cavities in forests is essential for 20% of all bird species breeding in Latvia. But the presence of cavities depends on the presence of old trees. These are the laws of nature, and they cannot be bypassed. If there are no old trees, there will be no cavities; and if there are no cavities, these species will disappear in Latvia. However, cavities are not the only structure of such importance in forests. Deadwood is just as important, as are thick-barked trees, uprooted root plates, and many others - the more such structures, the higher the biological value of the forest. Yet the younger the forests that are harvested, the more the chance decreases for these structures to form in time. Unfortunately, the current network of protected areas cannot compensate for this. That is why conserving biodiversity in managed forests is so important, rather than a strict separation of functions, which the Ministry of Agriculture seeks to achieve. However, if the goal of reducing the felling age is implemented, it will mean only one thing: several tree species simply will not reach the age at which these structures and microhabitats can develop on them. And if such trees disappear from the forest landscape, biodiversity will disappear as well.

The conclusion is that current forestry practices in Latvia create substantial risks both for achieving climate goals and for conserving biodiversity. "Logging in the name of the climate" is currently more of a myth than a solution in Latvia. Scientific evidence indicates that, in the long term, a more sustainable approach is based on preserving old forests, reducing soil disturbance, and maintaining a structurally diverse forest landscape. Aligning climate policy and forestry objectives is possible only if decisions are made on the basis of a full understanding of the carbon balance and ecosystem functions.

biteend

 

Who's Online

We have 353 guests and no members online

pasargasimdabu700HEALTH FUNDAMENTALS 

Let’s Protect Nature

Plastic - an invisible and very dangerous threat to our health and the environment

Today, plastic has become an inseparable part of everyday life - packaging, bags, household items. Yet behind this convenience lie serious environmental and health risks, especially when plastic enters the environment or is burned. One of the most dangerous types of pollution associated with it is dioxins.

Dioxins are a group of highly toxic chemical compounds that form during incomplete combustion, are very persistent in the environment (they do not break down for decades), accumulate in living organisms, especially in fatty tissues, and are dangerous even at very low concentrations.

Dioxins are not substances that are deliberately produced - they arise as a by-product, most often when burning chlorine-containing materials, such as plastic.

When plastic is burned, dioxins, furans, heavy metals, and toxic gases are released; black, poisonous smoke is produced that enters the respiratory tract directly, and the pollution spreads over a wide area with the wind.

PVC plastic (pipes, floor coverings, PVC windows, wire insulation) is especially dangerous, because it contains chlorine - the main source for dioxin formation. Bonfires, stoves, and barrels cannot reach a sufficiently high and stable temperature for dioxins to break down. On the contrary - under such conditions they form most intensively.

Burning plastic at home is one of the most harmful ways to pollute the environment and endanger health.

Dioxins accumulate in the body mainly through food and air. They can cause an increased risk of cancer, endocrine system disorders, disturbances in fetal development, weakening of the immune system, and damage to the nervous system. Children, pregnant women, and older people are especially sensitive.

Plastic does not decompose for hundreds of years; it breaks down into microplastics that end up in soil, water, and organisms,

can release toxic additives (phthalates, bisphenols, heavy metals), contaminate groundwater, and pollute the food chain. Even if plastic is not burned, its presence in nature harms both ecosystems and people in the long term.

Landfills are not a solution but a compromise, because plastic accumulates there for decades, promotes the spread of microplastics, and in the event of fires becomes a source of dioxins. Therefore, it is a short-term solution.

Plastic and dioxins are closely linked to threats to human health and the environment. Burning plastic is not a “quick solution,” but a silent source of pollution whose consequences can be felt for years and even generations.

What can each of us do? Do not burn plastic - ever; sort waste and deliver plastic for recycling; reduce plastic consumption in everyday life; choose reusable and more environmentally friendly solutions; inform others about the risks of burning plastic.

The impact of PFAS on human health

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of synthetic chemicals widely used in industry and consumer products, including non-stick cookware coatings, food packaging, water-resistant fabrics, and cosmetics. They are often called “forever chemicals” because PFAS practically do not break down in nature and can persist in the environment and in the human body for decades.

How do PFAS enter the body? People can be exposed to PFAS by drinking contaminated water, consuming food that has been in contact with PFAS-containing packaging, using consumer products (dishes, textiles, cosmetics), and inhaling indoor dust. PFAS can accumulate in blood and organs because the body eliminates them very slowly.

Scientific studies indicate that long-term PFAS exposure can affect health in ways that may include:

  ❇️ endocrine system disorders affecting the thyroid,

  ❇️ changes in liver function and elevated cholesterol levels,

  ❇️ weakening of the immune system, reducing vaccine effectiveness,

  ❇️ reproductive health problems, including reduced fertility,

  ❇️ effects on fetal and child development,

  ❇️ an increased risk of certain cancers (for example, kidney and testicular cancer).

Pregnant women, infants, and children are especially sensitive to PFAS exposure.

Although some PFAS-containing products are considered safe when used properly, the risk increases if cookware coatings are damaged or overheated, and also if PFAS exposure is long-term and comes from multiple sources at the same time.

Therefore, more and more countries, including the European Union, are working to restrict PFAS use and to introduce safer alternatives. PFAS, although useful chemicals, have serious side effects. Their persistence and ability to accumulate in the body create long-term risks to human health and the environment.

What is happening to the soil

In Latvia, the future prospects of soil and the condition in which we will pass it on to future generations are unfortunately hardly discussed at all. It must be understood: if people do not obtain the necessary micronutrients from food, increasing the health budget or carrying out yet another medical reform will become a pointless waste of money and time.

If the current farming model remains in agriculture - monocultures, mineral fertilizers, pesticides, and intensive ploughing - the amount of soil organic matter will continue to decline. That means less humus and fewer nutrients, as well as a reduced ability to retain moisture. But living soil = less flooding + less drought, whereas compacted soil = water runs off -> erosion.

In many places, humus loss is already 1-2% per decade. This is happening very rapidly. Without organic matter, soil becomes a “substrate” rather than a living ecosystem. In many areas, soil may become practically infertile, or it will have to be replaced by artificial systems (hydroponics, dependence on mineral fertilizers).

The nutritional value of food is declining. Studies already show that vegetables and grains contain less vitamin C and fewer B-group vitamins, fewer minerals, and fewer antioxidants. If the current trend does not change, the energy value of food will be high, but the amount of micronutrients will be very low. The risk of chronic diseases (thyroid, immune system, cognitive disorders) will increase.

A reduction in micronutrients is already observed in many products. For example, zinc (Zn) - up to a 30-50% decrease in some cereals compared with the middle of the last century; magnesium (Mg) - a decrease in vegetables and grains; selenium (Se) - in European soils it is simply no longer there; iodine (I) - decreasing sharply worldwide, especially in inland regions; iron (Fe) - “hidden iron deficiency” already affects billions of people. This means that if soil becomes even poorer, then even if yields are higher, their nutritional value will decline even further.

If soil is alive, it contains bacteria, fungi (mycorrhiza), earthworms, insects, nematodes, etc. All of these are the basic elements of healthy soil that ensure mineral availability, plant root health, and resistance to disease. But intensive pesticide use + deep ploughing gradually destroy this biological synergy. A future scenario: without substantial restoration, soil will no longer be able to sustain crops without intensive chemical use, and yield instability will increase (one year there is a harvest, the next years there is none). Plants will be more prone to disease, yields will drop sharply under drought or heat, and roots will also become weaker. Soil will no longer be able to buffer climatic stress, resulting in a “fertilizer trap” - it requires ever more NPK, efficiency declines over time, and costs rise irreversibly. Then the classic scenario follows: farmers’ protests for the government to compensate losses.

At present, the world is experiencing intensive topsoil erosion (topsoil loss). These trends are not a question of individual countries or ideologies - they occur regardless of region and farming model whenever soil is treated only as a production substrate. Various international studies show that around 33 hectares of topsoil are lost every second worldwide. Latvia, with the “blessing” of the Ministry of Agriculture, is actively participating in this process. By the way, 1 cm of fertile soil forms in 200-400 years. If current trends continue, after 100 years in a large part of agricultural zones the topsoil layer will be thin or will not exist at all; what will remain is compacted, water-impermeable mineral soil. This is the “edge of civilization” - without fertile soil, agriculture is impossible.

A logical question follows: what could be done to avoid reaching the “edge of civilization’s existence”?

Here are some recommendations:

✅ Regenerative agriculture (no-till - farming without ploughing, cover crops, diversity).

✅ Restoring soil organic matter (compost, organic fertilizers).

✅ Integration of livestock (rather than separating it as an industrial sector).

✅ Climate resilience through restoration of biological processes.

✅ Lower pesticide loads, which are deadly to soil fungi and the microbiome.

✅ Returning micronutrients to the soil, not only NPK (afforestation of degraded agricultural land with broadleaf trees in order to bring rare micronutrients up from tens of meters below the ground; moreover, it would be rational to place wind parks in these areas so that biologically valuable old forests do not have to be clear-cut).

The last recommendation is probably the hardest for the Ministry of Agriculture to implement, because it is closely tied to rejecting dictates from lobbying interests.

Latvia’s soils have historically had relatively low natural fertility (sandy, podzolized, low humus), so any degradation occurs faster here and with fewer possibilities for recovery. If you only take and take from soil, it does not respond with protests or strikes - it simply stops producing yields.