University of Washington panel: students and faculty present competing empirical and model analyses on forests, wood products and carbon

Dr. Andronel Ganguly and three University of Washington students presented research showing that managed working forests and long-lived wood products can contribute to carbon sequestration and substitution of higher‑emission materials, while noting trade-offs linked to forest productivity and management choices.

Ganguly opened the panel by defining biogenic carbon pools, carbon flux and the distinction between emission reductions and negative emissions, arguing that "forests do that anyway" when describing how trees sequester CO2 (Dr. Andronel Ganguly). He framed the climate role of forestry as threefold: increase and maintain forest carbon pools, expand biogenic carbon stored in the economy (long‑lived wood products), and reduce fossil emissions through substitution.

Graduate student Matthew Werner presented an economic and workforce perspective, saying Washington has "about 42,600,000 acres of forested land" and noting roughly 37% is privately owned. Werner argued that modest increases in land dedicated to timber production could generate substantial local jobs; he presented an illustrative estimate that a 1% expansion in production area could create on the order of 75,000–150,000 jobs depending on assumptions. He also said reinvesting in local milling capacity would improve wildfire response and rural economic resilience (Matthew Werner).

Undergraduate Rena Ishii focused on extended rotations and model limitations. Citing a Northwest Natural Resource Group FVS‑model result that longer rotations could, in some scenarios, increase timber production by 52% and sequester large amounts of carbon, Ishii contrasted that with USDA Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) data showing lower realized carbon per acre for older stands. She warned that FVS extrapolation from young plantations can overestimate sequestration in older stands, and noted co‑benefits (reduced runoff and erosion) and risks (insect infestation, wildfire, sawmill compatibility) tied to longer rotations (Rena Ishii).

PhD student Lika Drog presented a model built on empirical FIA growth curves and a displacement‑factor database. Drog reported that, for higher‑productivity Douglas‑fir sites in Washington, a harvest scenario that accounts for accelerated post‑harvest regrowth and substitution into long‑lived wood products produced net climate benefits over the modeled horizon — she cited results in the range of about 70–90 tons of carbon benefit per hectare for particular site classes. Drog emphasized that site productivity, product mix, and displacement factors are central to whether harvest or no‑harvest scenarios yield larger climate benefits (Lika Drog).

Panelists repeatedly cautioned that results vary by site productivity, time horizon and assumptions about product lifetimes and substitution. Ganguly and the students urged audience questions but noted time was limited; an attendee later praised the students and acknowledged pushback the researchers had faced when their empirical results conflicted with some models.

The panel closed with thanks to the student presenters and an invitation for further discussion. No formal motions or votes were recorded.