This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Science and Technology Desk

New study finds billions more trees than expected, making boreal forests a bigger carbon sink than we thought

Canada’s boreal forests may be far more resilient to climate change than previously believed, with new research showing they contain billions more trees than past estimates, potentially boosting Canada’s natural defences in the fight against global warming.

Spanning from Yukon to Newfoundland, the boreal forest is one of the largest intact ecosystems in the world. It plays a crucial role in absorbing carbon dioxide, protecting biodiversity and supporting Indigenous and rural communities.

A new University of Alberta study provided the most accurate estimate to date of how many trees populate the boreal region, reducing long-standing uncertainties in forest carbon modelling and management.

The result: 277 billion trees across the boreal zone, including 30 billion in Alberta—31 per cent more than estimated in a major 2015 global study.

“Our research provides by far the most accurate and credible answer to the question of how many trees are in our boreal forests,” said study lead Fangliang He, a forest ecologist and Canada Research Chair in Biodiversity and Landscape Modelling.

“Knowing that there are 31 per cent more trees than previously estimated suggests our boreal forests have greater capacity to mitigate climate change.”
Tree counts like this help scientists and policymakers understand how much carbon forests can absorb and store, critical for estimating how large a role boreal ecosystems can play in national emissions strategies.

To improve on the earlier global estimate, He’s team compiled data from a record 4,367 tree plots across Canada and Alaska, compared with just 346 used in the 2015 study.

“This provides a large set of data with extensive geographic coverage in North America,” He said.

To measure trees 10 centimetres or larger in diameter—the same threshold used in the 2015 analysis—He and his team used an artificial intelligence algorithm to develop competition-based models that included tree height, a key indicator of forest competition. The use of AI allowed the researchers to detect patterns that traditional methods might miss.

“These innovative models represent a major advance in improving the accuracy of estimating tree count.”

The researchers also projected future tree density under a range of climate scenarios to see how the boreal forest might respond to a warming planet. The findings were surprising: under increasingly warmer conditions, tree density in the boreal forest would rise overall by at least 11 per cent by 2050.

“This result suggests that boreal forests might be more resilient to climate change than we thought,” He said.

The study, he added, underscores the need for better data and forecasting tools to support forest management and climate policy.

While the federal government has pledged to plant two billion trees by 2030, He said that effort is nowhere near enough.

“That number only accounts for 0.83 per cent of our estimated total number of 240 billion boreal trees in Canada, speaking to the mitigation challenge through tree-planting,” he said.

At current planting rates, he said, it would take centuries to match the natural regeneration and density needed to make a measurable impact.

“Protection of natural forests is the best nature-based solution.”

The study contributes to a growing body of research using artificial intelligence to model complex ecological systems, and could influence Canada’s future forestry and climate strategies.

Science and Technology Desk

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Austin Thompson

Taxing part-time residency is no substitute for genuine housing reform, and may in fact deter investment in new housing.

A recent court decision has cleared the way for Canmore next year to impose a new “Livability Tax”—a 0.4 per cent property tax surcharge for homes left unoccupied for more than half the year. Mayor Sean Krausert called the ruling a “big win for Canmore.” But without addressing the root cause of Canmore’s housing shortage—too few new homes being built—this new tax is simply a costly distraction.

Canmore is not alone in taxing housing that is supposedly underused. Vancouver, Toronto, Ottawa and the federal government have imposed similar taxes. According to proponents, these taxes encourage part-time residents to sell or rent their properties to full-time residents. However, the evidence for this is underwhelming.

A study of Vancouver’s Empty Homes Tax found that it shifted 5,355 homes from part- to full-time residency between 2016 and 2021. While that may seem like progress, during the same five-year period construction started on more than 240,000 new homes. And despite the tax, home prices and rents continued to rise significantly. Again, because new housing construction has not kept pace with population growth, partly due to policies that discourage homebuilding such as high municipal fees, long permit approval wait times, and restrictive rules on what can be built and where—challenges that are familiar to Canmore’s homebuilders. Taxing part-time residency is no substitute for genuine housing reform, and may in fact deter investment in new housing.

Vacant home taxes are also costly for governments to administer. According to Canmore’s latest budget, it will cost $920,000 in the first year and $820,000 in the second year just to administer the Livability Tax. That amounts to between eight and nine per cent of the projected $10.3 million in annual revenue generated by the tax. By contrast, the administrative cost of ordinary property tax administration in Canada is typically about two per cent of revenue. The Livability Tax will apply to Canmore residents that occupy their housing unit for less than 183 days a year.

Crucially, the stakes of vacant home taxation are unusually high for Canmore. A study commissioned by the municipality estimates that one in four homes are likely not occupied full-time . That may increase the tax’s reach, but also its potential harm.

Why? Because deterring part-time residents is a risky proposition. The underlying assumption of the Livability Tax is that full-time residents are more valuable to the community than part-time residents. But the town council’s arbitrary 183-day threshold does not account for a resident’s contribution to Canmore’s economy or civic life. In many communities in North America, particularly in areas with wide ranges in seasonal temperatures and weather, part-time residents may help comprise the lifeblood of the community. Canmore may not realize the full cost of deterring part-time residents until they are gone.

And the Livability Tax comes on top of a recent hike in property tax rates for so-called “tourist homes,” which now pay roughly triple the standard rate. While these measures may appeal to some permanent residents, they risk deterring homebuilding and undermining Canmore’s appeal as a tourist destination.

Meanwhile, the town’s actual housing supply remains stagnant. Only 321 new homes were started in 2024. Some constraints on housing development are unavoidable given that Canmore is hemmed in by mountains and protected land. But other impediments to new housing—rooted in policy and political will—are not.

Rather than targeting part-time residents, Canmore should remove policy barriers that restrict new housing development. The recently approved Gateway and Palliser Lane projects show that relaxing municipal rules—on building heights, setbacks and parking requirements—can unlock more housing development. Building that kind of flexibility into policy and applying it more widely could go a long way toward easing the housing crunch.

If Canmore wants to improve housing affordability, it needs to build—not tax—its way there.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Austin Thompson

Senior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute