On a seaside hike in Colombia, under a sweltering sun, the rare passages in the forest were the only real moments of breath. The heat remained, but the air changed: cooler, more humid, less aggressive, as if the trees had suddenly made the land habitable. This immediate sensation says something about the services that forests render to mankind, helping to reinforce the powerful imagination we associate with them. In many cultures, from indigenous spiritualities to the Andean idea of Pachamama, nature is more than just a backdrop: it protects, nourishes, regulates and connects the living. Today, this imaginary world has become part of very real issues: in the face of heatwaves and heat islands, the re-vegetation of cities seeks to reintroduce the capacity of living things to cool, filter the air, retain water and make spaces habitable. Yet these same forests are also called upon to make an active contribution to the energy transition, providing wood materials, renewable heat and partial alternatives to fossil fuels. Herein lies the ambivalence: how can we mobilize the forest as a climate solution without weakening the very thing that underpins its ecological, symbolic and vital value?
Forests play a dual role in the face of climate change: they help to slow it down, while helping human societies to adapt to it.
Firstly, it acts as a carbon sink: over the period 2021-2025, the forest's net absorption reached 0.8 Gt of CO2 per year, equivalent to the annual emissions of a large country like Indonesia. However, this role is weakening: during the previous decade, this absorption was almost double the current level (1.4 Gt), according to the FAO. The main reason for this decline is deforestation and forest conversion: when trees are cut down, burnt or the soil turned over, some of the accumulated carbon is released back into the atmosphere. This climatic role is therefore based on a delicate balance: when a forest is degraded, burnt or converted to farmland, it can become a source of emissions instead of a carbon reservoir.
In addition to mitigation, forests are also a lever for adapting to climate change: not only do they absorb carbon, they also concretely reduce a region's exposure to climatic shocks. Forests stabilize soils, slowing runoff and limiting erosion, thereby reducing the risk of flooding, landslides and torrential erosion. This function is becoming a real risk management issue for insurers, banks and large companies exposed to natural disasters. Mangroves are the most quantified example: these coastal forests reduce flood-related damage by over $65 billion a year, and protect over 15 million people.
Finally, forests also play an adaptive role through their ability to cool inhabited spaces, an issue that has become central with the increase in heatwaves. In cities, trees provide shade, humidify the air through evapotranspiration, filter pollutants and reduce the heat islands produced by concrete and asphalt. A study of 93 European cities estimates that increasing tree cover to 30% would reduce the average urban temperature by 0.4°C, with local effects of up to 5.9°C, and prevent 2,644 premature deaths linked to heat islands (European Commission, 2025). Urban revegetation thus shows that the forest, or more broadly the tree, is becoming an adaptation infrastructure as essential as water, energy or transport networks.
If forests are so precious, why are they continuing to decline? In many parts of the world, wood remains an essential source of energy for heating and cooking. However, this energy role poses a paradox that we'll detail below: can wood really be considered a renewable energy when its combustion immediately releases CO₂, while its regeneration takes decades?
Beyond this tension, most deforestation is driven by more destructive economic logics. Since 1990, some 420 million hectares of forest have disappeared, and nearly 10 million hectares continue to be lost every year - an area the size of Iceland. Agricultural expansion (crops, livestock, soya, palm oil, cocoa) remains the main driver of this destruction, to which are added political and criminal factors, particularly in Amazonia: land grabbing, illegal gold panning, drug trafficking and poor control of territories. Last but not least, climate change is itself exacerbating the pressure on forests, by multiplying droughts, fires and disease.
Wood energy occupies an ambivalent position in the transition. It is officially classified as a renewable energy when it comes from sustainably managed forests, as the carbon emitted during its combustion can, in theory, be reabsorbed by the growth of trees. But this logic is disputed: burning wood releases CO₂ immediately, while forest regeneration takes decades. Added to this are emissions of fine particles and the risk that excessive demand for wood energy will increase pressure on soils, biodiversity and forest stands. That's why several reports have called for moderate, local development focused on co-products rather than on dedicated energy exploitation.
This controversy does not condemn wood energy, but it does force us to place it in a broader context: that of the cascade of uses. This principle is defended by the European RED III directive, and calls for biomass to be used according to its highest economic and environmental added value: first in wood products, then in reuse and recycling, and only then in energy. This hierarchy makes it possible to overcome the opposition between profitability and climate protection: the most economically interesting uses (construction, carpentry, furniture, panels) are also often those that prolong carbon storage and maximize substitution effects.
The figures justify this hierarchy. Long-lasting wood products prolong carbon storage: a timber frame, a timber-framed wall or solid wood flooring can store carbon for up to 100 years, compared with around 20 years for some furniture and 8 years for a pallet. Above all, wood material avoids more emissions than wood energy: material substitution would avoid around 20.4 MtCO₂ per year in France, or 5% of 2017 national GHG emissions (FCBA, 2021).
However, wood energy remains highly relevant when it replaces gas, fuel oil or coal in local heat uses: wood chips emit around 25 kgCO₂/MWh in the life cycle, compared with 241 kgCO₂/MWh for natural gas. But its role must come at the end of the chain, to valorize residues, sawmill by-products, pruning wood or end-of-life products.
The energy transition and economic logic are based on the same idea: not burning up a precious resource too quickly.
In contrast to the major tropical deforestation fronts, the French forest has grown significantly since the 19th century, and today covers around 17 million hectares, or 31% of mainland France. Annual removals remain at around 48 Mm³, for an estimated gross biological production of 91 Mm³: on a national scale, the French forest is therefore not overexploited.
And yet, the French forestry and timber industry will post a trade deficit of €7.8 billion by 2024. This paradox can be explained less by a lack of resources than by a lack of local processing:
Beyond timber, a new way of valuing forests is emerging: forest carbon. The forest carbon market refers to all the mechanisms for financing reforestation, preservation or sustainable forest management projects in exchange for carbon credits. A carbon credit generally corresponds to one tonne of CO₂ avoided or stored thanks to a certified project. These credits can then be purchased by companies or investors to contribute to their climate objectives or offset part of their residual emissions. However, forest carbon credits are mainly part of the voluntary carbon market.
However, forest carbon credits cover different realities.
This market is still in the structuring phase. It is characterized by highly heterogeneous standards and methodologies used to measure the carbon actually stored or avoided, as well as by a variable level of maturity depending on geographical zone and project type. Recent debates on the quality and credibility of certain carbon credits, particularly in relation to issues of permanence, additionality and measurement, have contributed to undermining the confidence of some economic players.
Nevertheless, this market represents a precursory economic signal: that of the gradual monetization of ecosystem services. By assigning a financial value to carbon storage, it initiates a broader movement to integrate nature into economic decisions and investment strategies. In 2024, it represents 84.4 MtCO₂e traded, for a total value of around $535 million, or an average price of $6.34/tCO₂e. In this market, Forestry and Land Use credits occupy a disproportionate place: they account for 37 MtCO₂e, or around 44% of traded volumes, but $342.5m, or almost 64% of the total market value, with an average price of $9.27/tCO₂e (Ecosystem Market Place, 2025). This over-representation shows that forests are already perceived as strategic carbon assets: they attract buyers because they combine carbon storage, biodiversity protection and social co-benefits. In 2024, forestry credits remain very heterogeneous: REDD+ credits sell for around $6/tCO₂e, IFM credits for around $15/tCO₂e and ARR credits for around $20/tCO₂e, whereas UNEP believes that a price of $30-50/tCO₂e would be needed to support truly credible and incentivizing nature-based projects.
So, protecting forests is not just a matter of environmental responsibility for companies: it's also a strategic choice. The World Economic Forum estimates that over $44,000 billion in economic value - more than half the world's GDP - is moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services. Preserving forests, which store carbon, secure water, reduce certain physical risks and stabilize supply chains, is therefore tantamount to protecting part of the economic value on which businesses depend. As investors, regulators and consumers demand greater transparency on natural capital, protecting forests becomes a lever for resilience, access to finance and long-term competitiveness.
At a time when the forest is becoming a climate refuge, an energy resource and a financial asset all rolled into one, the real challenge is no longer simply to assign a value to it, but to choose which value we want to preserve: that of the wood cut, that of the carbon stored, or that of a living ecosystem capable of making territories habitable.
Share this article