More Of Everything - The film Swedish forest industry doesn ́t want you to see

Summary

The transcript reveals a critical examination of the Swedish forestry model, highlighting its environmental impact and questioning the sustainability of bioenergy. It discusses the industry's significant lobbying efforts and the myth of carbon neutrality in wood usage, emphasizing the need for a shift towards ecosystem-based management to preserve biodiversity and combat climate change effectively.

Takeaways

• 🌲 The Swedish forestry model, promoted worldwide as a success, is criticized for its environmental impact and sustainability.
• 🔥 Bioenergy from forestry is not carbon neutral; burning wood for energy emits more CO2 than coal, challenging the EU's policy.
• 🏞️ Old-growth forests in Sweden, rich in biodiversity and carbon sequestration, are shrinking due to clear-cutting practices.
• 🌳 The modern Swedish forestry approach is likened to tree agriculture, with monoculture plantations replacing natural forests.
• 🔍 Independent research indicates that the true carbon storage potential of old-growth forests is not adequately considered in forestry practices.
• 💡 The forest industry's lobbying efforts have shaped the narrative around Swedish forestry, promoting it as climate-friendly despite evidence.
• 🌎 Globally, scientists are urging for less biomass use in energy production, but their advice has not been heeded by policymakers.
• 💸 Subsidies support the forest industry, despite its environmental impact, with billions spent on promoting and sustaining the model.
• 🔄 The forest industry claims of planting more trees than are cut down are misleading, as many seedlings are later removed.
• 🌿 Biodiversity loss is a significant concern, with clear-cutting and plantation forestry negatively affecting species and habitats.
• ⏳ Urgent action is needed to shift from the current forestry model to ecosystem-based management for long-term sustainability and climate benefits.

Q & A

What is the main criticism against the Swedish forestry model?

The main criticism is that the Swedish forestry model, which heavily relies on clearcutting and plantation methods, is marketed as sustainable but in reality, it contributes to environmental degradation, loss of biodiversity, and increased carbon emissions.

How does the Swedish forestry industry influence public perception?

The industry invests millions in advertising, public relations, and lobbying to promote a narrative of sustainability and climate benefit, often using misleading claims and tactics to shift public opinion in favor of their practices.

What are the environmental impacts of clearcutting and using wood for bioenergy?

Clearcutting and using wood for bioenergy release significant amounts of CO2, more so than coal per megawatt hour when burned. It also disrupts ecosystems, reduces biodiversity, and the regenerative capacity of forests.

What is the role of mycorrhizal networks in old-growth forests?

Mycorrhizal networks play a crucial role in sequestering carbon in soil and are a significant contributor to the long-term storage of carbon, making old-growth forests vital carbon sinks.

How does the Swedish forestry model affect biodiversity?

The model leads to the destruction of natural forests, loss of habitat for numerous species, and increased risk of extinction for many organisms. It also disrupts the complex interactions within ecosystems, leading to a decline in overall biodiversity.

What is the claim made by the forest industry regarding tree planting?

The forest industry claims that for every tree cut down, multiple new trees are planted, suggesting a sustainable cycle of forest regeneration. However, this is misleading as the majority of these planted trees are removed during thinning and the practice leads to monoculture plantations rather than diverse forests.

What are the economic contributions of the forestry industry in Sweden?

While the forestry industry contributes approximately 2-3% to Sweden's GDP and about 2% to tax revenues, the actual benefits are disputed. Critics argue that the industry receives substantial subsidies and that a significant portion of the profits goes to shareholders rather than benefiting the Swedish economy or society at large.

What is the impact of forestry practices on indigenous and local communities?

The intensive forestry practices have negatively affected indigenous and local communities, particularly those dependent on reindeer herding, as large areas of natural grazing lands are converted into plantations and clearcuts.

What changes are needed to make Swedish forestry more sustainable?

To make Swedish forestry more sustainable, there needs to be a shift from the current clearcutting and plantation model to an ecosystem-based, multiple-use approach that focuses on biodiversity conservation, carbon sequestration, and the restoration of natural forests.

What is the role of the forest in climate change mitigation according to the script?

Old-growth forests play a critical role in climate change mitigation by storing large amounts of carbon. The script suggests that instead of cutting them down, we should protect and restore these forests to maintain their climate benefits.

What is the significance of the 1.5 degree C target mentioned in the script?

The 1.5 degree C target is a key goal in the Paris Agreement to limit global warming. The script emphasizes that to meet this target, we need to drastically reduce emissions and that continuing with current forestry practices, which contribute to increased carbon emissions, is counterproductive.

Outlines

00:00

🌲 Critique of Swedish Forestry Practices

This paragraph discusses the unsustainable practices of the Swedish forestry industry, highlighting the myth that bioenergy does not impact the atmosphere. It criticizes the large-scale lobbying efforts and the promotion of the Swedish forestry model worldwide. The script emphasizes the environmental threat posed by current forestry practices in Sweden, including the clear-cutting of old forests and the manipulation of ecosystems to increase forest production. It also mentions the loss of natural forests and the threat to Europe's natural heritage due to continuous clear-cutting and the lack of awareness about the true workings of the Swedish forestry model.

05:01

🌳 Fragmentation and Loss of Old-Growth Forests

This paragraph focuses on the fragmentation and loss of old-growth forests in Sweden due to clear-cutting practices. It discusses the visual impact of the landscape, with green areas of old-growth forest becoming increasingly isolated. The script addresses the issue of unproductive forestland and the public's dislike for the clear-cut method. It also delves into the forest industry's PR strategies and the common claims made related to climate, such as the carbon neutrality of burning forest biomass for fuel, which is challenged by the script with evidence of higher CO2 emissions compared to coal.

10:02

🍃 The Myth of Carbon Savings in Forestry

The paragraph exposes the myth that the harvested forest in Sweden becomes climate-smart products and the false claim that old-growth forests sequester less carbon than plantations. It argues that a significant portion of the harvested trees are released as carbon dioxide, contributing to the same effect as burning fossil fuels. The script also criticizes the forest industry's narrative that young trees can replace the carbon storage of old forests, emphasizing the importance of preserving old forests for their substantial carbon sequestration capabilities and the role of mycorrhizal fungi in soil carbon storage.

15:02

🌵 Subsidies and Emissions in Swedish Forestry

This paragraph discusses the financial aspects of the Swedish forestry industry, including the subsidies it receives and the environmental damage it causes. It reveals the EU's expenditure on encouraging the cutting down of trees for biomass, despite scientists' advice against it. The script highlights the industry's significant contribution to CO2 emissions, surpassing other sectors like transportation, and the lack of public discussion on this issue. It also addresses the biodiversity crisis, emphasizing the importance of natural forests in preserving species and habitats and the need for landscape restoration to increase the functionality of protected areas.

20:03

🌻 Swedish Forestry and Biodiversity

The paragraph emphasizes the importance of biodiversity in forests and the threats posed by the forestry industry's practices. It discusses the impact of clear-cutting on the loss of habitat for numerous species, particularly those dependent on old-growth forests. The script also addresses the decline in mycorrhizal fungi due to forestry practices and the resulting loss of biodiversity. It calls for rapid measures to protect the remaining continuity forests and criticizes the industry's misleading claims about the protection of forests and the benefits of monoculture plantations.

25:06

🌿 The Role of Forests in Ecosystem Services

This paragraph discusses the vital ecosystem services provided by biodiverse forests, such as pollination, water regulation, climate regulation, and carbon storage. It challenges the Swedish forestry industry's claims that managed forests provide the same services as natural forests, highlighting the increased risks of disease and the loss of important forest structures like dead wood. The script also addresses the impact of forestry on water cycles and the frequency of wildfires, contrasting the natural role of fires in forest dynamics with the damage caused by clear-cutting.

30:08

💼 Economic and Employment Aspects of Forestry

The paragraph examines the economic contribution of the Swedish forestry industry, revealing that it accounts for a small percentage of GDP and tax revenue. It also discusses the industry's impact on employment, showing that a significant portion of jobs are in industry and sawmills rather than actual forestry work. The script critiques the industry's portrayal of forestry as essential for job creation and its lobbying efforts to promote forest products. It suggests that sustainable forest management and ecosystem-based multiple-use could provide more employment opportunities and societal benefits.

35:08

🌲 The Historical Context of Swedish Forestry

This paragraph provides a historical perspective on Swedish forestry, refuting the industry's claim that there is more forest now than ever. It discusses the rich forest resources of the 1850s and the changes brought about by commercial exploitation. The script also addresses the shift in societal values towards biodiversity and recreation, and the industry's failure to adapt to these changing preferences. It calls for a reformation of forestry practices, moving away from the clear-cutting and plantation model to a more sustainable and diverse approach.

40:08

🌳 The Need for Change in Forestry Practices

The final paragraph calls for urgent changes in Swedish forestry practices, emphasizing the environmental and climate risks of the current model. It criticizes the industry's focus on production and profit over sustainability and the need for public pushback against its influence on policy. The script advocates for the protection and restoration of old-growth forests as a crucial defense against climate change and stresses the importance of reducing consumption and letting forests remain intact for the sake of the planet's ecosystems.

Keywords

💡Sustainable Forestry

Sustainable forestry refers to the management and use of forest resources in a way that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In the video, it is suggested that the current practices in Sweden are not sustainable, as they lead to the destruction of natural forests and biodiversity loss, rather than maintaining a healthy balance between wood production and ecosystem preservation.

💡Bioenergy

Bioenergy is the energy derived from the conversion of biomass where biomass refers to organic materials such as plant and animal materials. The video discusses the misconception that bioenergy, particularly from wood, is carbon neutral and does not have a net impact on the atmosphere. However, it is argued that burning forest biomass for fuel emits more CO2 than coal, and the time it takes for trees to regrow is not aligned with the urgent carbon reduction needs to combat climate change.

💡Clearcutting

Clearcutting is a harvesting method where all the trees in a given area are cut down, leaving the land bare. This practice is a central focus in the video, as it is presented as a destructive method that eliminates the complexity of natural forests and disrupts ecosystems. Clearcutting is associated with significant carbon emissions and loss of biodiversity, as it removes habitats and eliminates the forest's ability to sequester carbon.

💡Biodiversity

Biodiversity refers to the variety of life in all its forms and interactions within ecosystems. It includes the diversity of species, genetic variations, and ecosystems themselves. The video emphasizes the critical role of biodiversity for functioning ecosystems and human survival. The loss of biodiversity due to forestry practices is a major concern, as it undermines the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to provide essential services such as carbon sequestration, pollination, and water regulation.

💡Carbon Sequestration

Carbon sequestration is the process through which carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and stored in a reservoir, such as forests, soils, or oceans. In the context of the video, old-growth forests are highlighted as being particularly effective at sequestering carbon due to their large biomass and the complex networks of mycorrhizal fungi in the soil. However, these forests are under threat from clearcutting and conversion to plantations, which reduces their capacity for carbon storage.

💡Climate Change

Climate change refers to significant changes in global or regional climate patterns over time, often attributed to human activities that increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The video discusses the role of forestry practices in either mitigating or exacerbating climate change, emphasizing the need for practices that enhance carbon sequestration and reduce emissions.

💡Forest Industry Lobbying

Forest industry lobbying refers to the efforts made by the forestry sector to influence public policy and opinion in their favor. This often involves the use of advertising, public relations, and direct lobbying to promote the industry's interests and narratives. The video suggests that such lobbying has led to the perpetuation of myths about the sustainability of bioenergy and the environmental benefits of clearcutting, despite evidence to the contrary.

💡Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services are the benefits that humans derive from nature, including provisioning services like food and water, regulating services such as climate and water cycle regulation, and cultural services like recreation and spiritual enrichment. The video argues that the Swedish forestry model, with its focus on wood production, neglects the importance of maintaining diverse ecosystems that provide a wide range of these services, from supporting biodiversity to sequestering carbon.

💡Deforestation

Deforestation is the process of removing trees and destroying forested areas, often for the purposes of agriculture, urban development, or logging. In the video, deforestation is portrayed as a significant environmental issue, as it leads to the loss of biodiversity, disruption of ecosystem services, and increased greenhouse gas emissions. The narrative criticizes the Swedish forestry model for contributing to deforestation through clearcutting and the replacement of natural forests with plantations.

💡IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an international body that assesses the science related to climate change. It provides policymakers with regular reports on the current state of knowledge on climate change, its impacts, and potential response strategies. The video suggests that the IPCC's findings and recommendations should be trusted over the claims made by the forest products industry regarding the role of forestry in climate change mitigation.

Highlights

The Swedish forestry model, promoted worldwide as a success story, is criticized for its environmental impact and sustainability.

Bioenergy from forestry is not carbon neutral and contributes more CO2 emissions than coal when burned.

Sweden's forests are undergoing a significant shift from natural to managed tree farms, impacting biodiversity and ecosystem services.

The forest industry's claim of planting more trees than they cut down is scrutinized, revealing a focus on monoculture plantations.

Clearcutting and the use of herbicides like Agent Orange in the past have led to the loss of deciduous trees and habitat destruction.

The forest industry's lobbying efforts have influenced public opinion and policy, often at odds with scientific consensus on sustainability.

Old-growth forests in Sweden are crucial for carbon sequestration and maintaining biodiversity, yet are threatened by current forestry practices.

The concept of 'sustainable forestry' is questioned, as there is no evidence showing that the current practices are sustainable in the long run.

The forest industry's narrative that clearcuts mimic natural disturbances like wildfires is debunked, highlighting the differences in ecological impact.

The economic contribution of the forestry industry in Sweden is not as significant as claimed, with a small percentage of GDP and jobs attributed to it.

The forest industry's impact on water regulation and soil health is negative, with ditching and soil scarification practices causing environmental damage.

The Swedish Forest Agency's decision to stop conducting inventories of woodland key habitats is criticized for paving the way for unregulated clearcutting.

The forest industry's funding and control over research projects is called into question, with concerns about the influence of funders on scientific outcomes.

The traditional lobbyist talking points about the necessity of cutting forests for sustainability are challenged, with calls for a shift in public and political opinion.

The urgency of protecting old-growth forests is emphasized as a critical strategy for combating climate change and preserving biodiversity.

The IPCC's stance on the importance of restoring and expanding forests as a key solution to climate change is highlighted, urging a reevaluation of current forestry practices.

The potential for ecosystem-based multiple-use forestry is discussed as a more sustainable alternative to the current Swedish clearcutting and plantation model.

Transcripts

Nobody has shown that it is a sustainable forestry.

I think the industry has found it very convenient to perpetuate

this myth, that bioenergy does not have a net impact on the atmosphere.

The situation is not getting better. It is actually getting worse over time.

The large synthesis was really the initiation of a huge lobbying effort.

The forestry in Sweden as it is designed today

is the single largest threat to the environment in Sweden.

The so-called Swedish forestry model is promoted all over the world as a success story.

In times of climate change, the forest industry claims to hold the magic wand: Wood.

Wood is to be used for everything from packaging,

makeup, and clothing, to fuel for an ever expanding transport sector.

To push this narrative, they spend millions and millions

on advertising, public relations and lobbying.

In this film, with the help of independent scientists and experts, we will

examine some of their claims. Because if these are not true,

continuing and spreading the Swedish forestry model could

jeopardize the climate and the ecosystems on which we all depend.

Many people think that a forest is a large collection of trees,

but a forest is more than just trees.

A natural forest consists of all the species above and below ground,

plants, huge fungal networks, animals, and the interaction between them.

Trees are born, they live, die and provide homes to countless organisms.

Sweden harbours an important part of Europe's last

remaining natural forests which have never been clear cut,

so-called continuity forests or ancient woodlands.

But Europe's natural heritage is threatened.

Every year the area of continuity forest shrinks in Sweden.

That is because both non-certified and also PEFC and FSC certified forest owners

continue to clear cut and destroy valuable natural forests

without caring for the consequences for the ecosystems.

Few people who hear about the Swedish forestry model are fully

aware of how it works. To summarize, it is more like tree agriculture.

Older forests are clear cut, and the ground is often harrowed.

The most common regeneration method is to plant

pre grown seedlings. After some time the stands are thinned and

when the trees are considered ready, they are clear cut again.

Especially during the 1900s we have had a

major transition of the Swedish forest. And that is

because we have started with what we usually call modern forestry.

This is a technical forestry, and it is moving the

forest towards more of an agricultural like state

where we not only harvest trees, but we also manipulate the ecosystem

in order to increase the production of the forest.

And we have been doing ditching on a large scale of forest land.

We have been using herbicides. We have been clear cutting,

and we are lowering the total age of the forest.

And we are having the same species and the same age of forest in separate stands,

which was never the case before, where we had landscape

covering forest with trees of different species and trees in

different age classes, all over the forest landscape.

Forest ecologist and expert in geographical information system,

Dr. Jon Anderson has visualized the

dramatic change in Swedish taiga since the 1950s.

The study area is located here in the Northern part of Sweden

in Västerbotten County and it covers roughly 17,000 square kilometers.

So these green areas, it is forest

that has not previously been clear-cut at this time.

And the yellow patches, it is clear cuts.

These small black lines, it is logging roads.

These grey areas, these are impediments. So forest is

not growing there by definition.

Now see here, it came a very big nature reserve.

But if you remember here, it is mostly mires actually.

The same goes for this one. So these patches

cover the entire area, but the entire area is not covered by forest.

And as you can see here, the landscape is now really patchy.

Green areas with old-growth forest, they go further and further away from each other

because of fragmentation by clearcutting.

Sweden has about 23 million hectares of productive forest

and then an additional 5 million hectares of unproductive forest.

The unproductive forest, actually,

as the name says it does not produce wood very much.

So of the 23 million hectares, about eight to ten percent, depending on how you count

have been set aside for conservation and the rest is managed for wood production.

And this is what it looks like.

But the short term profitable clearcut method of the Swedish model is

generally disliked by the general public. So to shift the opinion,

persuasion has been launched by the forest industry

since the dawn of the modern media landscape.

To maintain our advanced position on the pulp and paper market,

we have an extensive research activity.

Talking points change over time. And today these PR strategies

are more aggressive than ever before.

Currently a number of claims are particularly frequent in the

forest industry's marketing and lobbying campaigns.

So let's investigate the most common claims one by one.

Old natural forests store huge amounts of carbon in plants and in the ground.

Research shows that old-growth forests continues to sequestrate carbon

in trees and soil and the mycorrhizal networks.

Old forests that are not affected by disturbances

contain the greatest carbon stock.

Climate crisis awareness rises in society. And consequently, one of the forest

industry's main talking points is spinned around climate.

Let's examine the most common forestry claims related to climate.

Burning forest biomass for fuel is not carbon neutral.

When you cut down a tree and burn it for energy in a power plant,

it actually emits more CO2 than when you are burning coal.

Per megawatt hour, there is actually a lot more CO2 coming out of the

smoke stack when you burn wood. So this is obviously a huge problem.

How on earth can we be treating this as instantaneously

carbon neutral if it is emitting more CO2 than coal?

Well, the idea is that trees will grow back eventually.

This is the rationale that the EU is using for treating bioenergy as carbon neutral essentially.

But we don't have that kind of time.

We can't wait 50, 100 years for trees to grow back.

We need to stop emissions now.

If we are to achieve the 1.5 degree C target, the Paris agreement,

then we have to reduce the emissions by 40-45 percent by 2030.

And if we burn forest products, then the emissions will increase, not decrease.

The organizations we have, in this case, the forest companies,

it takes quite a lot to perturb them.

So they incorporate what is new into their regime and their ideas,

what comes as changing powers.

Like the climate issue in this case.

We can see that over time, the forest policy, in a broad sense,

has survived with this goal that we are a raw material producing country.

We should produce as much as possible and

we have to get these spruces to grow faster.

But the arguments for this has changed over time and now

the climate benefits came to almost be seen as something positive.

The future target for

Swedish forestry production is to increase the level of production

from where we are today. And we think that we will

be able to reach a 20% increase until the year 2030.

If we harvest forest and use it as bioenergy we get

both emissions of carbon dioxide and reduced uptake of carbon dioxide,

since we decrease the green area, the area that carries out photosynthesis.

So you do two wrongs, not only one wrong.

People are watching in horror, as forests in the Amazon, in Australia and

in California burn. And they understand immediately that

burning forest adds carbon to the atmosphere. But somehow

policy makers have gotten it into their heads that burning

forest for fuel actually saves carbon.

The regulations and the criteria that the EU put in place going forward for biomass

are really kind of Potemkin regulations. They appear to be effective

but in fact they were actually pretty much written by the biomass industry.

In 2018, a letter signed by 800 scientists was sent to the EU.

The letter was put together by a variety of scientists

and then signed onto by 800 scientists

to ask the EU to dramatically constrain the

amount of biomass that is being used for renewable energy in the EU.

But unfortunately they did not listen.

Well, the European Union spent in 2017, over 6.5 billion Euro

to pay people to cut down trees and burn them in power plants.

And that is actually not even the whole amount that was spent

when all of the subsidies are taken into consideration.

So this is absolutely scandalous.

That this environmentally damaging paper industry is subsidized

with 6-7 billion SEK per year in order to get cheap electricity.

That the industry pays a fraction of the price that ordinary people are paying.

It is quite scandalous really.

A common claim for the forest industry's advertising campaigns is that wood can

replace energy intensive materials. The so-called substitution effect.

Is this true, and will it save us from climate change?

It is a myth that the harvested forest in Sweden immediately becomes climate-smart products.

”When the trees are finished growing, they are used for climate-smart things and materials.”

About 16 percent of the harvest becomes sawn timber

that can be built into houses in Sweden or in other parts of the world

and store the carbon over a longer period of time.

The rest, perhaps 80-85 percent, is released fairly quickly to the atmosphere again

as carbon dioxide. And it has the same effect as

the burning of fossil fuels.

It is not possible to distinguish between green and black carbon dioxide molecules.

The atmosphere makes no difference in that case.

And besides, how many things are we going to ask forests to provide?

So forest is supposed to substitute for fossil fuels.

They are supposed to substitute for concrete, steel.

We only have so many forests.

"It is a pleasant and beautiful forest but it no longer provides a climate benefit in its current state."

In the quest for turning natural forests into products, the forest industry

often claims that old-growth forest sequestrate less carbon

than plantations and therefore should be cut down and replaced.

It is true that young trees do store carbon at a higher rate, but

old forests already contain a lot of carbon and cutting old

forests and liquidating that carbon represents an enormous

emission of carbon to the atmosphere.

As well, old forests actually do store a lot of carbon and the science is clear on this now.

It is just a few years ago that we realized that

the mycorrhiza fungi, the dead part of the hyphae, they

contribute significantly to the sequestration of carbon in soil.

I mean in old-growth forests, it is in the range of 40 to 50 percent

of the long stored carbon that originate for fungi.

On a global level, the terrestrial ecosystem stands for about one third

of the sink that exists. This counteracts

what ends up in the atmosphere.

Today, the trees are felled when they are relatively young.

But they have not stopped growing considering that a Scots pine can become 500-600 years old

and then it still continues to grow.

And no life cycle assessment has been made,

which shows how large (in diameter) a tree must be in order to,

from a climate point of view, allow felling.

But even if the case would be that the old-growth forest halts,

considering that we have until 2030 to meet the 1.5 degree C target,

it is wrong to cut them down because there is not enough time for new plants to come up until then.

They do not have time to absorb the carbon.

It is too late to discuss in such ways.

It is a new time now.

The science is conclusive that older forests continue to store carbon for centuries.

And this idea that only young forests store carbon is actually an industry myth.

The Swedish forestry industry, is not being penalized for the billions of tons of

carbon that was locked up in old-growth forests

that were scraped away and destroyed

for plantations to be put in their place.

And now they want to take credit for these young, fast growing trees

as representing carbon sequestration.

It is really kind of a shell game where you have got the pea under the shell

and you are moving it around.

It tricks policymakers, but it does not trick the climate.

In addition to CO2 emitted from burning forest products

the clearcut itself releases even more powerful greenhouse gases.

Clearcuts leak large amounts of carbon dioxide and that is what

is happening in the harvested area now during the coming years.

The critical years where we should reduce the emissions by 45 percent

by 2030, and this will continue to leak perhaps until then.

This is what we try to get a better grip of with this modern technology

where we can measure with a very high time resolution, every half hour we can

tell how much carbon dioxide that has been taken up or been emitted from a forest like this,

and there we have seen that clearcuts emit

a lot of carbon dioxide for quite a long time.

So above all, the soil has great potential to continue to store.

If you then cut down the forest and make a clearcut like this,

then you start the emissions immediately.

We do have an annual emission today from the forestry of

perhaps 83 million to 85 million tonnes of carbon dioxide from direct emissions.

It is biofuels that are being burnt, black liquor for example.

This can be compared with Sweden's other total emissions.

Traffic, communications, international flights including high altitude effect,

which approximately is 63 million tonnes CO2-EQ.

So the forest industry itself has significantly higher emissions

than the other climate emissions in Sweden.

Why is that not discussed?

Why is that not reported?

Well, the fact is that the forest in Sweden continues to accumulate

and that we have a net storage of carbon in Sweden because of this.

But the thing is, if we would not log, then this uptake

would increase immensely.

Per invested SEK, it would be incredibly economically defensible

compared to everything else that we would change in society

in order to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Because it is such a small part of the economy, but at the same time

Sweden could contribute internationally in a completely different way than we do today.

And in fact, what the climate modeling shows is that the best and highest use of forests

is to grow them and restore them and use reforestation

and afforestation, carefully, with natural forest, not plantations

and restore existing forests, so that they

store more carbon and provide habitat. Because one of the

things that seems to be missed in this whole conversation very often

is that we are also in the middle of a biodiversity crisis,

not just a climate crisis.

Biodiversity is the species, the habitat they live in and the process that maintains their habitat.

Biodiversity is the basis for functioning ecosystems

and functioning ecosystems are the basis for human survival.

Therefore biodiversity loss is considered one of the planetary boundaries.

Millions of years of evolution has created the

complex ecosystems of natural forests.

Most of the biological processes occur through species we usually do not see or think of.

Since the clearcut forestry took off in the 1950s, people and

scientists have stressed the importance of nature consideration,

and consequently, the forest industry focuses much

of its PR and image creating on that.

Important decisions have been made

to slow the loss of biodiversity and experts have

pointed out how much we need to protect.

From the Aichi targets under the UN convention on biological diversity,

to researchers who suggest that half the earth needs to be excluded from exploitation.

Sweden is committed to achieve

various UN Aichi targets by 2020.

Forestry should ensure biodiversity.

And at least 17% of ecologically representative areas must be preserved.

According to the forest industry and some politicians in Sweden,

we have already protected more than enough.

But leading scientists say that Sweden is far from reaching the targets.

So what is true?

I took part in a global study about 10 years ago when we compared the

retained amount in different countries. And at that time, the

Swedish statistics showed that the retained area in Sweden

was very low. So we were in the bottom group.

When the international comparison showed Sweden was in the bottom group globally,

the influential Swedish forest industry called for new ways to count.

And that is what happened.

Instead of giving real protection to natural forests, the industry

started playing with figures and mixing different concepts to

make it look like Sweden has achieved its protection goals.

So now you can also add nature considerations on clearcuts

and you can add low productive areas. Usually, they are mires

or raised bogs. So there are two stories, two narratives.

One which I would say is correct from a conservation biology point of view

and there is a narrative that wants to maximize how much

we do not use for production. But actually, not using for production

can be interpreted as protected.

And of course, if you include more categories

then you have protected more. Creative bookkeeping.

The forest industry claims that more than 30 percent of the Swedish forests are protected

or exempt from forestry. But let us examine their figures deeper.

About 6 percent are so-called consideration on clear cuts.

However, most of these areas do not actually exist today.

The figure is based on two things:

1. New areas will be set aside to the same extent in the future.

2. Old areas will remain untouched in all future harvesting.

To have this realised in the entire landscape it actually takes a rotation time.

So it takes 80 or 100 years for this to happen.

16.7 percent is made up of low productive tree bearing rocky surfaces, mires and bogs.

Uninteresting for forestry because they are low yielding.

Most of these areas are not included in the formally

protected forest land. These lands are not representative of

the forest habitats found on productive land and do not have

the same high species diversity as productive natural forests.

So it is not honest to include this when you count how much has

been protected in Sweden, then you should focus on the productive area.

4.3 percent is an estimate of unprotected

so-called voluntary set aside areas.

No comprehensive maps or exact data are available for these areas.

This figure is relatively irrelevant, since forest owners

can set aside forests one day, then change their minds and cut it down the next.

The last 3.9 percent consists of formally protected forest land.

So how much is really protected?

If you consider all forest, including low productive forest land

and sub-alpine woodlands, the figure of formally protected forests is 9 percent.

Only 6 percent of the productive forest land has formal protection.

And in the vast majority of Sweden's forest land,

outside the mountain region, the figure is as low as 3.5 percent.

If this is Sweden. It is a tall country. We have the mountains in the north

and below that we have productive forests.

And the convention for biodiversity talks about setting aside,

protecting in some way at least 17 percent.

In Sweden, if we look at the situation below the mountains,

we have set aside through formal protection and voluntary set-asides,

about 7 to 9 percent depending on the region.

Which means that there is 8 percentage points left.

So the gap that we need to fill by landscape restoration would be 8 to 10 percentage points.

Again, Sweden.

The convention on biodiversity does not talk only about numbers,

but it talks about functionality.

So, do patches of voluntary set-aside and formally protected areas

actually form a network of habitat that works with species?

Of course, this is a very rough estimate,

but if you think about what is actually functional,

it is very hard to set exact figures

but it is much less. It is a few percent,

which means that the gap becomes even bigger.

So, the challenge now is actually to work with landscape restoration,

to recreate habitat and to do this in a spatially explicit way,

so you maximize functionality.

"We set aside 20 percent of our forest land for nature conservation,

and that is in different scales.

But the rest of the forest, the 80 percent we will

use very efficiently and in a long-term sustainable way."

If we look at the plans that exist for the future, how the forest will be transformed,

we may end up with perhaps 60 percent, which will be monocultures of pine trees.

For southern Sweden, it is Norway spruce that is planted in monoculture stands.

Conifer monocultures off to the horizon.

There, rapid measures are needed to stop this.

With today's slow rate of protection and rapid rate of logging,

research has estimated that virtually all unprotected

continuity forests in the Northern two thirds of Sweden

will be gone within just a couple of decades.

Then we have replaced our natural heritage with biofuels, disposable paper and cardboard.

The Swedish red list is an assessment of the relative risk

of species to go extinct in Sweden.

The main reason for a species being red-listed

is the extensive forestry that we see today, which causes the loss of habitat,

structures and substrates that species require.

And basically we see a transformation of ancient woodlands

to industrial stands.

Well, it is obvious that the area of more natural,

what we call high conservation value forest,

is too low to secure the forest species in general

and of course, in particular those species that are demanding.

We can take a look at the development of the

Swedish red list of threatened species. And we can take a look

on the national reports to the EU. They all point in the same direction,

that the situation is not getting better. It is actually getting worse over time.

The boreal trees, they rely to almost a hundred percent

on the mycorrhizal fungi for their nutrient and water uptake.

Almost every species we pick in the forest,

they are mycorrhizal fungi, and that is due to that

they get the sugar from the trees

and thereby they can produce large spore cups.

So we are talking about 2,000 different species of which the majority are rare.

They are to 100 percent dependent on this symbiosis with the trees.

So when the trees are cut, the sugar flows down to the root system

and the energy supply to the fungi is cut off.

So they disappear.

They will survive on the roots of the stumps for about a year,

depending on how dry the conditions are. And then they die.

Basically clearcutting, when all trees are cut down,

results in every single mycorrhizal fungi, all the mycelium, everything that is in the soil is gone.

10 percent of the ectomycorrhizal species in Sweden, for example,

are red-listed. And that is mainly due to clear cutting and

that old-growth forest that has had the continuity and where the

normally long lived mycelia of individual species that can stay on the same spot

for probably a century or many centuries.

They disappear at a time of clearcutting and the likeliness for them to

reestablish is almost non-existent.

As scientists emphasize the importance of mixed forest and deciduous trees for biodiversity,

the forest industry catches on and markets a number of claims.

One is that we have more deciduous trees nowadays.

If this is true, is it a merit of the forestry?

From the 1950s until the end of the 1970s, we used herbicides in Sweden

and especially in Northern Sweden on a very large scale.

That was connected to the era of the start of the clearcutting.

So we used airplanes spraying with herbicides,

2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, in Sweden called Hormoslyr,

in North America called Agent Orange.

And it was sprayed over enormous areas northern Sweden,

just to get rid of the deciduous trees.

And when that stopped, the deciduous trees started to come back again.

But as you understand, it is from a very low level.

And if we go a little bit further back in time during the World Wars,

a lot of the deciduous forest was cut in Northern Sweden,

and in Sweden in general, because it was used as fuel wood

during the times of fuel scarcity during the Wars.

Luckily, the deciduous trees are coming back,

but they are not at all in the range of what we had

earlier in history in Sweden.

Some of the most important structures in a forest are the really big trees

and the really old trees and the dead wood.

And the dead wood in different stages.

As the understanding of dead woods importance for biodiversity increases,

the forest industry is quick to follow.

The volume of dead wood in the forest,

and I am talking more specifically about the Northern part of Sweden,

it decreased a lot at the beginning of the 1900s.

We had very large volumes of dead wood in the forest

before the year 1900.

We had much, much more dead wood in the forest than we have today.

The curve looks like a very advanced slope like this.

So we see in northernmost Sweden that we actually have a decline in the volume of dead wood

and a large fraction of the increase of dead wood happened in the last decade,

actually was associated with a number of

major storm events in southernmost Sweden.

That is where we see the main increase.

We are now around eight to nine cubic meters per hectare

and that is to be compared with perhaps 80 to 100 cubic meter per hectare in natural forest condition.

And as the forest industry has noticed biologists

and scientists emphasizing the importance of old-growth forest for biodiversity,

they now also market the idea that we have more old forests than a hundred years ago.

When we define old forests today, we are just talking about trees exceeding a certain age.

Most of the time you are talking about forest older than 150 years

or 160 years. Or sometimes even 120 years.

And that is not an old forest from an ecological perspective.

The Scots pine can be up to a thousand years old.

So, if we look at the forest from such a perspective,

we had much, much more really old forest, a hundred years ago than we have today.

We can also show that the numbers of large trees

were much, much higher. And especially when we are talking about really large trees.

And of course the really large trees are most often very old.

We had fairly large numbers of really large trees

all over the forest before the exploitation.

And if we compare it to today, we are not even close to those numbers today.

The Swedish Forest Agency is a national authority

responsible for control and review of notions for logging.

In a much criticised decision, Herman Sundqvist, a representative of the forestry,

was appointed Director General.

The Agency then stopped conducting inventories of woodland key habitats

in Northwestern Sweden.

Now the Agency has declared it will also stop

registering key habitats for felling notified forests.

A decision heavily criticized even by officials within the Agency itself.

This basically paves the way for clearcutting

without consideration of indicator species and red-listed species.

The problem does not stop there.

Other types of impact apply, for example, to watercourses.

Large emissions through ditching, clearcutting, this soil preparation can

cause leakage of mercury that has been deposited for a long time

from atmospheric precipitation.

If it is done near watercourses, you can get a methylation that also affects fish.

Another problem related to forest floor damage

is transport wounds by logging harvesters and forwarders.

You get such these severe soil damages and it is allowed according to Swedish law.

At the same time, we have legislation stating that you are not allowed to drive off-road vehicles

and damage the soil with ATVs, for example.

Discrepancies in the legislation that are quite astonishing.

Recently, the forest industry started to claim that they no longer clearcut forests.

"Large, bare clearcuts are not part of the Swedish forestry model today.

Of course you can find examples with the right camera angle and stuff."

In an effort to improve public relations, other terms are being used.

In 2017, when state-owned forest company Sveaskog clearcut Brännvinsberget,

a unique natural old pine forest,

it was called mosaic cutting.

"We try to create forests that tomorrow are even richer in

biodiversity than we have today."

Nobody has so far shown that this extensive forestry

that we see today is sustainable in the long run.

Actually, we have models that show that many species

will continue to decline.

Nobody has shown that it is a sustainable forestry.

When it comes to safeguarding the biological diversity,

different species have different needs of preserved habitats, which is living space.

It varies, it can be up to 30 percent and down to 10 percent for different species

and we have already felled the old forests to a large extent.

There are only a few single percent left.

So, it is about restoring semi-natural forest back to the natural state.

If you leave an area and let the deciduous trees come in,

you can create new values in a couple of decades,

but to create the old pine trees, which are 350 years,

actually it takes 350 years.

And if you want the dead wood to it, then you have to wait perhaps 500 years.

Biodiverse forests are the basis for many ecosystem services we all depend on.

Pollination, soil formation, water regulation and cleansing,

climate regulation and carbon storage, air purification etc.

They provide us with food, drinking water and much more.

"In both agriculture and forestry, we clear and thin out to ensure better growth.

If we did not do that, the effect would be the reverse."

Lobbyists from the Swedish forestry sometimes claim that forests must be managed

and that planted forest deliver the same values and

ecosystem services as natural forests.

Let's check with the scientists.

90 percent is clearcut and planted.

This gives increased risks of outbreaks by e.g.

Gremmeniella on Scots pine, root rot on Norway spruce.

That is what will increase if we get warmer, perhaps wetter climate.

So in addition to the obvious benefits that old-growth forests provide in terms of carbon storage,

which can be massive, and biodiversity,

they are also really important for regulation of the water cycle.

Forests hold a lot of water and they help release water slowly over time.

They protect the soil because they have got a deep litter layer.

They have not been scraped over by equipment.

Last summer, there were quite a few fires, and if we would have had

lanes with more preserved deciduous trees for example, and preserved more wetlands,

had less ditching, this could stop some of these fires.

On a global scale, more frequent and intense wildfires caused by climate change and mismanagement

is a huge problem.

but a normal frequency of fires is a natural part of boreal forest dynamics.

In an effort to defend the practice of clearcutting

the industry claims that clearcuts mimic the natural disturbance of wildfires.

There is a very big difference between a clearcut area and a burned area

and we can see this illustrated very clearly here where we are.

After a fire, the amount of dead wood is very, very high.

The second thing is that there is usually quite a survival of living trees.

And a third thing after fire, the soil is usually totally black

and open for colonisation of species.

If we have these monocultures, then these will be eliminated.

It is not the case of if they will be eliminated, they will be eliminated

and it implies an economic loss for the landowner.

But the engine that can absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere is also eliminated.

Why is this being done?

These are traditions. Old traditions and stubborn

opposition from the forest industry against change.

Research shows that they are wrong about what is happening today.

Protected natural forests, and an ecosystem based management

means more opportunities for a larger variety of employment and

multiple use such as reindeer husbandry, ecotourism, timber,

berry and mushroom harvesting.

If forests are managed sustainably and not cut down,

they are a great long-term asset to society for generations.

The forest industry often claims it is an important part of the economy and job creation.

"Swedish timber has created wealth in Sweden for a long time."

"Jobs do not grow on trees is what they usually say. But in a way they do in Sweden

thanks to the forestry industry."

So how much does it actually contribute?

The importance of the forestry for the Swedish economy has been big,

but that it still would be, is a myth.

About 2-3 percent of GDP in Sweden comes from the forest industry.

The revenues for tax for Swedish welfare if we include corporation tax,

income tax and VAT.

It is about 2 percent.

That number does not include tax revenues from earnings on shares.

Because a large part of the money is probably distributed in shares.

We have a large net export revenue.

It is about just over SEK 100 billion SEK per year.

But the strange thing is that somewhere along the way, this money disappears.

If you subtract the electricity subsidies, there will be

a few billion that actually goes into Swedish welfare.

If you look at the jobs, it is about 1.4 percent

of the employees in Sweden that work in the whole forest sector,

about 70,000 people of nearly 5 million people.

Of these 70,000 people, about 16,000 people

actually work in the forest. The rest work in industry and sawmills.

And 16,000 people, that is roughly equivalent to the municipal employees in a larger Swedish city.

So before, the forestry was important for the countryside when they

had employees who worked with chainsaws and so forth.

But now this is gone.

Then we also have other activities in the forest that are negatively affected.

Where we now stand is reindeer grazing land. Here there were reindeer last winter

and then the site was prepared by soil scarification and a large part of the lichen is gone.

Ground lichen, they depend on this lichen for their grazing.

If you calculate that since the clearcutting and plantation forestry started,

somewhere between 30 to 50 percent of the winter grazing land

for reindeer has been lost.

"Forestry also helps to preserve significant national and cultural values

and creates opportunities for indigenous peoples to live and work."

These forests in the north are among the last remnants of a former European forest cover

and there would be conditions for nature tourism,

but the more you harvest and convert forests into plantations,

the worse the conditions will be.

If you look at the employment within the total tourism sector (incl. nature tourism) in Sweden,

it is larger than the employment in the forestry sector.

It also has an approximately similar share of GDP.

So this is a future industry that is really being destroyed

in a way that causes major environmental damages and climate impact.

Multiple studies show that being in forests is highly beneficial for physical and mental health.

Natural, old-growth forests are perceived as beautiful with their biodiversity,

natural water streams and old trees.

While dense managed tree stands or clearcuts are perceived as uninviting.

Consequently, forestry advertisements often portray Swedish forestry

with happy people in beautiful, old-growth forests,

hardly reflecting the reality of Sweden's industrial tree farm dominated landscape.

This forest we see here, it is moss on the ground,

there are big trees, but they are in straight lines, which indicates that they were planted.

Societies’ evaluation of forest changes over time.

And of course, when the forest industry started to grow,

there was lots of wood in the forest. The market was not saturated.

And actually this went on until the 1950s.

So Swedish industry has been very, very good and clever at making

use of this wood, doing valuated products.

And this is the strategy still today.

But now the society's values have changed and we want more.

And actually, when you look at the general citizen,

they rank wood production and especially energy wood very, very low.

They want recreation. They want biodiversity,

they want a nice forest to be in.

And not even having to go there because it is just the value that it exists is important to people.

So consequently, the forest industry strives to shift this attitude

and spends millions on targeting the general public

when promoting forestry and forest products, as something desirable.

"Forestry, for a sustainable future."

”You can even make make-up of forest.”

"The Swedish forest, where the future grows."

In an effort to sell the Swedish forestry model as sustainable,

the forest industry often claims we have more forest than ever.

"Is there any danger that we will run out of forest? No..."

”We can both store more carbon and we have the opportunity to take out more.”

How is this possible when more forest is logged and the timber production has increased?

For the most part, when we discuss how the forest has changed in Sweden,

we use the national forest inventory

and that started in 1923 and it was published in 1932.

The national forest inventory began more than 60-70 years after intensive

forest management began in some parts of Sweden.

Then in the boreal, the wood volume has now come back to the

situation in the 1850s.

So those who say that the wood volume has increased,

that there was lots of felled forest a long time ago,

for the boreal forest, this is not true.

The 1920s is a time

when we have had a commercial exploitation of the forest

for a long time, and when we built up this forest industry,

especially in Northern Sweden.

So we had much more forest before 1920.

In 1850, we had one of the richest forests in terms of old trees

and timber volume, in all of Europe.

Sveaskog: ”From a historical perspective, we

almost had deforested Sweden in the 1850s."

We had very old forest. We had forest with very large Scots pine trees.

The trees could be up to 500-600 years of age at that time.

And this was an accumulated forest resource that had been

growing for many, many hundreds of years and had developed

and was at that time accessible for the saw mill industry in Northern Sweden.

So it seems like a forest industry myth

that we have more forest now than ever.

But to examine the industry claims further,

we need to ask ourselves again, what is a forest?

When discussing issues like this it is important to be

clear about the nomenclature, that is, what you mean.

In Sweden, tree covered areas are usually divided into what

is called cultural forest and natural forest.

And that is not in line with the international division

because internationally it is divided into three different main types of tree covered areas.

Natural forest, semi- natural forest and plantations.

In Sweden, people do not talk about plantations even though we have plantations.

And we in Sweden look down on, for example,

Southeast Asia where oil palm plantations are planted,

or Brazil where eucalyptus plantations are planted.

But we do the exact same thing.

But some how we get away with this by calling it a cultural forest.

In other words, we have plantations in Sweden and to be aware of

the negative effects is extremely important.

A managed forest in Sweden has two species of trees.

long needles and short needles.

Scots pine, and Norway spruce.

The space for species in a natural forest is very large,

but the space for species in a managed forest is very, very small.

But now we are moving into a situation where we are

actually starting to clearcut forest which were clearcut once in the past.

We do not have much forest left, which has never been clearcut.

So we are losing that component in the forest landscape.

A common slogan to reinforce the sustainable image

of Swedish forestry is that we plant more trees than we cut down.

”We plant at least two new trees for each that is felled.”

"Three new trees are planted for every one cut down."

"Two saplings are being planted for every tree that is cut down."

The method for this is to clearcut, scarify the soil.

Then you buy plants from the greenhouse and put them in rows.

After about ten years, the naturally regenerated trees are cleared away,

down to about 10 percent.

Therefore, it is reasonable to also count these monocultures in Sweden,

conifer monocultures for what they are:

Tree plantations.

So planted seedlings are not planted to build a new forest,

but to create a tree stand that can be harvested again as soon as possible.

And even as an industrial stand, the claimed figures

are highly exaggerated since a large portion of the

planted seedlings are soon removed by thinning.

This claim was spread during the World Economic Forum.

It is only during the last about 50 years

that we really have been doing extensive planting of

forest in Sweden and in Northern Sweden.

Before that, most of the regeneration was natural regeneration.

Just trees felling their seeds, and you got trees from that.

So that is absolutely not true.

Apart from traditional marketing and lobbying,

the forest industry has realised the value

of funding and controlling research projects.

"Then we have to trim the Volvo so that we increase the growth of the forest."

"Here we have the turbo."

Professor Erik Westholm was a part of Future Forests,

the biggest forest research program in Swedish history,

and afterwards he made a critical case study of it.

In 2010, I attended World Forestry Congress in Buenos Aires and was completely

astonished by the enormous concern about the forests of Australia,

the Mediterranean, Canada and the United States.

Every session almost started with addressing the climate.

And that was not at all what we where accustomed to hear in Sweden. In Future Forests, it sounded more like,

well, if it gets 4 degrees C warmer on Earth

and we get a fertilizer-friendly policy

"If we start now and plant more 'turbo trees' on clear-cuts -

preferably in combination with fertilisers"

then we can produce much more forest

and we could increase the export earnings with several billion.

It has been the same at the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry for a long time

and there is a very close alliance between the Faculty of Forest Sciences

at the University of Agricultural Sciences and the forest industry.

It is like a culture which supports the focus on volume increase

that has dominated in Sweden but with different arguments.

What became increasingly clear to me was that this program

was established in order to rectify

the forest agenda in Sweden.

It is about gaining increased legitimacy and increased political support

for the focus on Swedish forest production

and even more on more intensively cultivated forests.

There was a certain power struggle in the beginning over the influence between

Mistra, the state-owned financier, and the forest companies over board seats.

For the board it also meant a certain amount of power over what was done in the project.

You had money in the board that you could spend on certain orders and such.

In that way, the research also came to be governed

not by research motives or scientific motives,

but by the interests of the funders.

Then you may ask why all these researchers lined up for such a thing,

but it was actually quite concealed.

In the future studies, you often talked

about a method called Back casting.

You talk about where you would like to reach and then the research process is about

mapping how to get there.

But this goal was of course not openly communicated.

The researchers themselves do not know that the program has a goal that is

agreed with the funders.

The University was a way to reach the increased support

for the Swedish forest production.

There is a great power in that we should not change anything and

if we are going to change anything, it is just to increase the speed

in the forest production.

It is volume that has mattered.

Another picture of the Swedish forestry model has emerged.

Since 1950, it has converted more than

60 percent of the Swedish forest landscape into clearcuts,

young managed forests, industrial stands and plantations.

In the past, it has sprayed Agent Orange to kill deciduous trees,

destroyed countless streams, put many plants, animals, and fungi on the red list

while marketing its own methods as sustainable.

This industry now claims it is motivated not by profit,

but by concern for climate change.

It seems to be one of the greatest lies of our time.

Forestry needs to be reformed,

the Swedish clearcutting and plantation model

replaced by ecosystem based multiple-use,

which will provide a greater variety of benefits, jobs

and contribute more to our society than today's

unsustainable forest exploitation.

We are losing so much and so quickly.

And I think that there is going to be a real pushback on the

traditional lobbyist, talking points

about how we have to cut the forest to save it,

and that we are going to replace everything with all these products with wood.

People can do the math themselves.

They can figure out that we only have a little bit of this precious forest heritage left.

Old-growth forests are our best defence against the climate.

We have to stop cutting them and we have to start really protecting them.

And this is why it is important to maintain the last pieces of natural dynamic forest

and also to begin the restoring.

And actually the boreal forest is quite a good place to do that.

If consumption continues to increase, we must also increase the production

and the emissions will continue to increase.

In economics, it is usually called Jevons Paradox.

Some environmental problems related to resource use

cannot be solved technically.

It cannot be solved with increased production.

What would also be needed in order to make this happen

is that harmful subsidies are withdrawn.

We would need to plug the ditches and get more wetlands.

If we look at the emissions from ditched forest land in Sweden,

it is about almost six million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

This can be compared with the car traffic corresponding to approximately

10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.

This can be fixed quite easily. So there are solid, simple ways

to actually make a difference.

People need to stand up to the forest products industry

and they need to stand up to the politicians

who are in thrall to the forest products industry.

When they are marching in the streets for climate,

they need to be marching for forests as well.

Now the clock is ticking, so to speak.

We only have very little time, so the old reasoning fails.

We simply have to change the discussion to

the emergency situation we face.

If we continue above the 1.5 degree C target,

towards 2-3 degrees C, then we may risk crossing boundaries

where the environment begins to generate greenhouse gases by itself

without us being able to control it at all.

We cross so-called tipping points.

The dynamics shift to an enhanced greenhouse effect by itself.

Then it is too late. And therefore, the forestry

in Sweden and the world simply has to change its attitude quickly.

It is still thought that the forest grows back.

Yes, but it is in a hundred years.

Then it is too late.

Who are you going to trust on climate,

the forest products industry or the IPCC?

Personally, I would trust the scientists.

The IPCC has made it clear that restoring and

expanding forests is our best hope for fighting climate change.

In addition, of course, to dramatic reductions in emissions.

We all have to learn to use less, and we have to

leave the forest in place to provide a home for animals,

plants, and the rest of the life on earth.

And if we do not, we are going to learn that we are really sorry.

English subtitles: Amanda Tas