How does shifting wood products between uses affect their carbon dynamics and climatic impacts? Leveraging MoSiR, a new carbon accounting tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Achieving climate change mitigation targets set in international pledges requires identifying optimal strategies for forest management and wood utilization. Our study quantified the carbon storage and emission dynamics of the forestry sector using Quebec (Canada) as a case study, focusing on wood products in service and in solid waste disposal sites, over an 80-year period using material flow analysis and a simple decay approach. We assessed carbon stock dynamics and climate change mitigation potential for a business-as-usual (BaU) scenario and seven alternatives. Mitigation potentials were determined by comparing the cumulative climatic effect, expressed as the radiative forcing of greenhouse gas emissions, of each alternative scenario relative to the BaU. These scenarios included variations in wood processing, recycling rates, durability enhancements, and solid waste disposal sites management to evaluate their effects on carbon storage and emissions. Modeling was performed with MoSiR, a new tool developed by Québec’s Office of the Chief Forester, simulating different wood product flows and emissions. Although long-lived wood products provide substantial carbon storage benefits, they currently constitute only a small portion of the wood processing mix. Focusing solely on these products may therefore overlook the broader climate impact of the forestry sector. Our study highlights that the mitigation potential of wood products largely depends on a product mix that prioritizes durability and circularity. Such a mix extends carbon storage duration and reduces the demand for virgin materials, thereby lowering the climate impact of harvesting by reducing the total area disturbed. Although wood product decay is not traditionally a forest management concept, the fact that harvesting is conducted to produce wood products means that the associated GHG emission dynamics, especially those from solid waste disposal sites, should be part of foresters’ considerations. Our findings emphasize the importance of precise modeling of wood product decay and support policies aimed at reducing emissions from solid waste disposal sites, enhancing substitution effects, and prioritizing long-lived wood products.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".