This paper examines how compounding uncertainty in forest management may be moving through harvest allowances, carbon credits, EPDs, EC3 data, and green building claims with more precision than the underlying field evidence can support. Drawing from published science, field observation, and a 400-kilometre survey corridor in interior British Columbia, it asks whether forest carbon accounting has been measuring from the original standard, or copying from assumptions already in

Carbon accounting errors are distorting climate policy, green building claims, and material choices across the built environment. This post examines why getting the carbon math right is not a technical footnote, but a moral obligation.