ɫɫ��

Sweden, like Canada, sits atop vast boreal forests — part of the same great green belt circling the Northern Hemisphere. These forests act as planetary lungs, storing more carbon than even the Amazon. But the Swedish government’s��, En robust skogspolitik för aktivt skogsbruk (SOU 2025:93), is heading in a troubling direction: grow more trees, cut them faster, and burn or export more biomass in the name of “green energy.”

It sounds like a climate solution. But here’s the problem: forests are not factories.

Most of the��isn’t stored in the trees at all. It’s locked underground — in roots, fungi, humus, and delicate microbial networks built up over thousands of years. When forestry is intensified — shorter harvest cycles, heavier machines, wider clear-cuts — that underground bank of carbon is steadily drained. The trees grow back, yes, but the soil can take centuries to recover, if it recovers at all.

And when soils degrade, forests lose their power to fight climate change. Biodiversity thins. Water cycles shift. Wildfire risks climb. The entire system weakens.

If Sweden — long marketed as a global model of “sustainable forestry” — chooses this path, it sets a dangerous precedent: that in the race to decarbonize, it will��sacrifice soils, species, and Indigenous stewardship in the name of “green growth.”

For Ontario, that hits close to home.

Ontario’s boreal forests — stretching from Sudbury to the James Bay Lowlands — face mounting pressures. Logging roads carve deeper into old-growth stands and caribou habitat. Peatlands, which hold staggering amounts of carbon, are increasingly vulnerable to both industrial disturbance and record-breaking wildfires. And while Indigenous nations across northern Ontario have long advocated for stronger stewardship, provincial forestry policies often sidestep meaningful consultation.

Meanwhile, the impacts are showing up right here in the GTA. Summer brings��.��ɫɫ��’s air quality��plummets into the “high risk” category again and again.��Hospitals across the region reports surges in��. Rapidly, Ontario’s forests — usually critical carbon sinks — became carbon sources.��

And yet, Queen’s Park has shown little appetite to rethink this approach. Premier Doug Ford’s government has cut environmental programs, including later rescued by federal funding, and has offered no meaningful forestry strategy aligned with climate solutions. While his government champions nuclear power and electric vehicle batteries, it has done little to address how Ontario manages its forests in a warming world.

There is a better way forward, for Sweden and for Ontario. Forestry must accept that management needs to be founded on sustainable — not merely renewable — models: practices that preserve soils, biodiversity and long-term carbon storage rather than maximizing short-term yield. Renewable is not the same as sustainable. A tree can regrow in decades — but how often can that be repeated in quick succession? And a degraded soil can take centuries to rebuild — if it can be restored at all. Practically, that means managing for resilience, not just revenue: longer harvest cycles so soils can replenish, mixed-species stands to resist pests and storms, and strict protections for peatlands and wetlands — our most powerful natural carbon vaults. The value of a healthy forest as a carbon sink cannot be overstated; once degraded, no amount of replanting can quickly restore its ability to lock away greenhouse gases.

Encouraging mixed-species forests makes ecosystems more resistant to pests, storms, and fires. Learn from Indigenous stewardship practices that have sustained these landscapes for millennia — not as a token gesture, but as a foundation for policy.

Do Sweden’s decisions matter in Ontario? If one of the most respected forestry nations doubles down on short-term extraction, it emboldens those who argue for treating boreal as a timber warehouse rather than a living system.

But forests are not warehouses. They regulate water, shelter biodiversity, store carbon, and sustain cultures. They are living infrastructures, not infinite resources.

The world at large is at a crossroads.

If Sweden gets this wrong, it won’t just undermine Europe’s climate goals. It will make it harder for Ontario — already grappling with wildfire smoke, biodiversity loss, and growing development pressure — to chart a more sustainable path.

Because what happens in Sweden’s forests will not stay in Sweden’s forests. And what happens in Ontario’s won’t stay in Ontario, either.