California’s logging industry annually releases 16.8 million metric tons of carbon, contributing between 487 million to 1.4 billion dollars in climate-related damages. In contrast, the total market value of the 2023 timber harvest did not crack $335 million.
Corporate interests create opportunities to expand harmful logging practices while perpetrating dishonest concepts of forest thinning as wildfire risk reduction in order to boost profits, while communities are still left vulnerable. Studies show that, when thinned, forests can become more vulnerable to severe wildfires, not less. Why are we destroying nature’s already efficient design?
Dense, healthy and natural forests are fire-resistant, offer protection from flooding, sequester more carbon, and provide a myriad of other ecosystem services.
Recommended for you
We could be investing in them, but instead have opted to cave to an industry that is driven by profit, rather than the need to combat the effects of climate change.
This occurs despite the fact that timber profits are far exceeded by the costs incurred by climate change.
Clearly, our priorities have been misaligned, and our efforts co-opted by the timber industry. California needs a reset rooted in real, unbiased science that will allow us to harness the full potential of our vast forests.
Thank you Tony. You speak the truth, based in science. I hope we can turn this profit driven and misguided ship turned around. Perhaps you can write a second article telling us what we can do to stop the logging?
Thanks for your letter, Tony, but when I finished reading, I was expecting an “April Fools!” conclusion. Why, you ask? Well, if we evaluate what you assert, then general fire and forest management theory is completely in the wrong, as is Newsom (since he’s spending a fortune, at least he says he will, on fire and forest management, which includes thinning forests) and as is a December, 2023 article on a 20-year study from UC Berkeley researchers which confirm California forests are healthier when burned or thinned (https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/12/12/twenty-year-study-confirms-california-forests-are-healthier-when-burned-or-thinned/). The cited article provides links for additional information, including a link to the published paper. Happy reading!
Wasn’t it California Rep. Tom McClintock who said, “Excess timber comes out of the forest one way or the other: it is either carried out or it burns out.” It sounds like you’d rather excess timber burn out instead of providing an alternative energy source or raw materials for wood products. Wouldn’t it be better if we can make use of trees instead of allowing wildfires to burn these trees? BTW, I believe Trump is opening up national forests for logging. It’s about time we reduced fuel for wildfires. Instead, we can use the wood as fuel.
As for CO2, how much CO2 was emitted from forest fires? Without forest management, more trees will burn resulting in more CO2 emissions. Not only that, how much emissions are generated from firefighting efforts from the ground and from the air? Do folks really care about a “changing” climate, enough to act? Obviously not the folks taking 400+ private jets to attend, of all things, a climate conference to lecture us about carbon emissions. Seems to me priorities for forest management are finally aligning, to the betterment of society and nature.
Thank you for your well thought out article. Eventually all wood in a forest decomposes and emits the same amount of CO2 over time whether it dies naturally, burns or is used as lumber. Forest need to be managed to prevent fires and selective cutting by lumber companies saves some of the tremendous cost of government paying for forest clearing while providing valuable lumber.
Ed - a very close friend of mine, a physicist at Lockheed, now passed, made that very same comment. "Eventually all wood in a forest decomposes and emits the same amount of CO2 over time whether it dies naturally, burns or is used as lumber". He said that burning firewood just speeds things up but ultimately the same emission occurs. Can't beat the science, except those of course who are selective in accepting scientific results.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(4) comments
Thank you Tony. You speak the truth, based in science. I hope we can turn this profit driven and misguided ship turned around. Perhaps you can write a second article telling us what we can do to stop the logging?
Thanks for your letter, Tony, but when I finished reading, I was expecting an “April Fools!” conclusion. Why, you ask? Well, if we evaluate what you assert, then general fire and forest management theory is completely in the wrong, as is Newsom (since he’s spending a fortune, at least he says he will, on fire and forest management, which includes thinning forests) and as is a December, 2023 article on a 20-year study from UC Berkeley researchers which confirm California forests are healthier when burned or thinned (https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/12/12/twenty-year-study-confirms-california-forests-are-healthier-when-burned-or-thinned/). The cited article provides links for additional information, including a link to the published paper. Happy reading!
Wasn’t it California Rep. Tom McClintock who said, “Excess timber comes out of the forest one way or the other: it is either carried out or it burns out.” It sounds like you’d rather excess timber burn out instead of providing an alternative energy source or raw materials for wood products. Wouldn’t it be better if we can make use of trees instead of allowing wildfires to burn these trees? BTW, I believe Trump is opening up national forests for logging. It’s about time we reduced fuel for wildfires. Instead, we can use the wood as fuel.
As for CO2, how much CO2 was emitted from forest fires? Without forest management, more trees will burn resulting in more CO2 emissions. Not only that, how much emissions are generated from firefighting efforts from the ground and from the air? Do folks really care about a “changing” climate, enough to act? Obviously not the folks taking 400+ private jets to attend, of all things, a climate conference to lecture us about carbon emissions. Seems to me priorities for forest management are finally aligning, to the betterment of society and nature.
Thank you for your well thought out article. Eventually all wood in a forest decomposes and emits the same amount of CO2 over time whether it dies naturally, burns or is used as lumber. Forest need to be managed to prevent fires and selective cutting by lumber companies saves some of the tremendous cost of government paying for forest clearing while providing valuable lumber.
Ed - a very close friend of mine, a physicist at Lockheed, now passed, made that very same comment. "Eventually all wood in a forest decomposes and emits the same amount of CO2 over time whether it dies naturally, burns or is used as lumber". He said that burning firewood just speeds things up but ultimately the same emission occurs. Can't beat the science, except those of course who are selective in accepting scientific results.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.