Creative Carbon Accounting. A reply to “The Wood, the Trees, or the Forest? Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest: A Response to Comments'
Dean, C, Creative Carbon Accounting. A reply to 'The Wood, the Trees, or the Forest? Carbon in Trees in Tasmanian State Forest: A Response to Comments', International Journal of Forestry Research, 2012 pp. 1-3. ISSN 1687-9368 (2012) [Contribution to Refereed Journal]
Moroni et al. (2012) made forty claims which misrepresent my earlier reply to their work (Dean, 2011) and if left unrefuted,
might mislead all but the most expert reader—I cover seven of the most important ones here. Firstly, in my earlier paper I had
calculated a conservative carbon deficit in State forests due to logging of the most-targeted forest types—mature wet-eucalypt—
by clearfell, burn and sow to yield even-aged eucalypt regeneration. That deficit was conservative as a range of stand ages were
used even though most carbon flux through logging has been from the old-growth subset. It was additionally conservative at the
landscape-scale as inclusion of conversion to plantation and logging of other primary-forest types would have yielded a larger
carbon deficit, not a smaller one, as implied in Moroni et al. (2012). Secondly, their claim that I applied "carbon saturation" at
the landscape-scale is incorrect. Instead I applied carbon carrying capacity at that scale and included different stands ages in its
calculation (by definition). Conversely, Moroni et al. (2012) produce the "confusion" which they claim to observe by advocating
the use of "carbon saturation" at the landscape-scale, which can have no practical usage.