The researchers from Suomalainen Luke were surprised by the politicians’ skepticism

“I find it completely incomprehensible that these calculations can vary so much. And then people run after them and suddenly start jumping to conclusions. This is not how it should go, he stated in a discussion hosted by the Central Association of Rural Futures and Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK).

“We need to find a solid basis for how carbon sinks are defined and calculated so that we have a clear understanding of what is justified.”

In December, Luke released calculations confirming that the land-use sector has turned from a carbon sink to a source of emissions for the first in 2021, partly due to record logging levels and partly due to slowing growth. pine forests. Both trends have weakened the ability of forests to bind from the atmosphere to such an extent that the sink is no longer sufficient to compensate for emissions from other land use, such as the clearing of fields.

was not the only decision-maker to question the accuracy of the calculations on Wednesday, January 11.

Riikka PurraThe chairman of the Basic referred to the study seemingly dismissively as “some calculations”, while the chairman of the , Sari Essayah, implied that 2021 was an anomaly.

“The fact that we’re stuck with a -year carbon sink calculation skews this whole thing,” said Essayah.

Raisa MäkipääLuke’s research professor, told is surprised and disappointed by the decision-makers’ comments. He reminded that Luke has a legal obligation to make the calculations and it does it in a peer-reviewed manner using internationally accepted methods.

“The calculations are on a very good basis,” he emphasized.

“You would hope that the party chairman could issue more than a blunt remark if he suspected that the calculations were inaccurate,” he added. “I think a remark like this is an indication that policymakers haven’t had the time or inclination to look into what science has found.”

If Orpo referred to the annual variation in the calculations, it is mainly due to the variation in logging intensity. Juha Mikkolagroup leader in Luke.

“The annual variation that Orpo may have been referring to is primarily due to logging, which in turn reflects the demand for wood. The growth of the trees themselves does not vary too much from year to year.”

Mäkipää also rejected the claim that the latest calculations were from a year that was somehow unusual. According to him, the year 2021 was the culmination of more than a decade of trend-like development, when felling volumes increased and tree growth slowed while emissions from peat fields remained unchanged.

“It’s useless to convince yourself that this is just a one-year exception,” he said.

Aleksi Teivainen –

Source: The Nordic Page

Related Posts