Great to have someone with such a high profile as Dr. Hansen point out what many of us in the grassroots ecosystem advocacy movement have been saying for decades, yet been mostly ignored or defamed for doing so: that "wildfire pretense logging" cannot be used as a Trojan horse to degrade and destroy our last, best ecosystems on public lands!
Thank you for your important and timely op-ed, Dr. Hansen. Our public forests are critical biodiversity and climate infrastructure and we cannot let industry and corporate influences subvert and twist the truth. Thinning forests will not save communities from burning down.
Thank you so much for your standing up for keeping burned forests intact as superior habitat for regrowing burned areas over clear cut harvesting areas that this legislation promotes. In my area, we are faced with a different situation: in many areas of the tallgrass prairie biome, eliminating fire and fragmenting the landscape has resulted in wide scale invasion of prairies by Juniperus virginiana, locally known as eastern red cedar. Not only does this acidify the soil and push out the local mix of forbs and grasses found in tallgrass prairies, it also creates near monoculture Juniperus stands that surround many towns, farms and some cities: a conflagration waiting to happen when the next drought gets accompanied by strong winds. There have been some tentative studies suggesting that mobile biochar burners that sequester carbon from the Juniperus stands could create a win-win situation of reducing fire danger and protecting tallgrass prairie from being eliminated; I thought you might be interested in this and would be interested in what you think.
Yes, biochar is one of the silver buckshots that can help draw down CO2 with other benefits. I bought one ton of biochar, which Sophie and I worked into the (rather impoverished PA clay soil) just outside the then-root zone of newly planted trees. It improved the soil quality and tree health, while providing long term carbon storage. The improved tree health provides additional carbon storage. Even if this is developed on a larger scale, it is only one of the silver buckshots needed.
.... additionally, 'we' need to keep this in mind, without being utter purists for 'current' local species. Those rare endemic species need more than a few university city arboretums to hide in.
Fast-growing trees are taking over the forests of the future and putting biodiversity, climate resilience under pressure
allowing logging without public oversight is undeniably a bad idea. Done wrong, it can exacerbate fire danger and compromise ecosystem integrity. But if Dr Hansen is going to weigh in on this, he needs to be scientifically responsible. Forest/fire ecologists don't all agree about necessary steps, and you appear to listen to opinions not shared by all of us. It is a complex issue and should not be approached with oversimplistic ideas any more that it should be approached without oversight. Dr Hansen, if you want bring your well-earned credibility to this issue, take the time to understand the issues.
Thanks, David Perry, but since you use the trick of pretending to a speak from a higher level of expertise, I address my response to the readers.
The laws of physics, and science in general, are based on observations of the real world. That's why I showed two photos taken within a stone's throw of each other at the same time, several years after the Rim fire. One in the area that was logged, where trees had been planted but were struggling to even survive, and one in the unlogged area where the forest was thriving as it naturally regenerated after the fire, as healthy forest do.
Our op-ed included proper caveats implying that careful "thinning" could be helpful in some situations, but such cases are the exception, not the rule. The Fix Our Forest Act would unleash rapacious destruction of the public's national forests, setting aside large areas for destructive activity without even a fig leaf of environmental review. Please pay attention to the position of your elected representative in this battle.
"the trick of pretending to speak from a higher level of expertise".
Well, I've studied forests for 60+ Years. I'm lead author of the textbook, Forest Ecosystems"(named notable book of the year in 2008). I believe it's fair to say I know something about how forest ecosystems work. What I don't do is claim expertise in other disciplines (e.g. climatology).
Old timers in the environmental movement out here will tell you I played a significant role in helping to protect the last of our oldgrowth. I did that through opeds, testimony to congress, and as a member of scientific panels that made recommendations to lawmakers and managers.
I appreciated your photos of the rim fire comparisons. And in fact have been a coauthor on papers discussing environmental risks of salvage logging.
Here is what concerns me and why I responded to your post. Forest landscapes throughout the country are highly altered. How they are altered varies among forest types, but in the west it has led to much greater fire risk. One group out here is arguing that fire is a natural feature in these systems and should be allowed to burn--ie. no attempts to reduce fuels. Frankly, this scares the hell out of me. My research in dry forests shows that the old growth pine forests, relatively resistant to large crown fires, is being replaced by high densities of fire prone trees species. That started with the extermination of Native Americans and continued with misguided early forest management. In the mesic forests, relatively fire resistant OG has been replaced by fire prone younger plantations.
You mention the laws of physics. Before my PhD in ecology, I got an MS in physics. With one exception, the laws of physics haven't helped me a lot in understanding complex adaptive ecosystems. The exception is nonequilibrium thermodynamics, which tells us about self-organizing systems. My fear is that we have created a situation in which fires will become self-reinforcing. Th warming climate is going to exacerbate that. It has the potential to drive our forests to collapse. That's not to say we shouldn't let some fires burn, but that we should carefully evaluate when and where. But here's a fact: no fire that burns in a highly altered landscape can be called natural. It is not a 'one-size fits all' situation and we have to be very careful about what we do or don't do.
You say: " My fear is that we have created a situation in which fires will become self-reinforcing. The warming climate is going to exacerbate that. It has the potential to drive our forests to collapse. "
Sean: Obviously so, for this is already the case globally. But that in no way undermines the arguments put by Jim and Dan Galpern* against the FOFA - the actual topic here - your point in fact emphasizes the importance of blocking bad laws that make the situation worse, and that are not based on quality analysis.
@David "That's not to say we shouldn't let some fires burn, ....... "
Sean: Would you point out where Jim and Dan* suggested or promoted such a thing in their article? Because the only action I saw being promoted was to block the FOFA law being passed in Congress.
Sean, I didn't see it in the article, but I have heard that argument more than once. If memory serves, Chad has argued that. Perhaps I'm wrong. Memory doesn't always serve.
Wow! You got a solid background David. Kudos to you. Am an alclimist ( my contrived climate quarterback word). I observe and listen to our burning planet, its peoples, and the scientists. When it comes to forest fires it doesn't take a Sheinstein to realize they are dessicated.. primo fire fuel🔥. How would you approach handling the forests' moisture and water supplies for fire fighters?
The best, and only option for increasing water supply to heavily stocked younger even-agd stands is to reduce leaf area---thinning. (Not in old growth which uses water more conservatively) Thinning t also allows more drying winds in stands. Seems like everything is about tradeoffs.
Am of the "the more leaves the better ( more photosynthesis and biogenic aerosols ) mindset. But, tradeoffs like you said are there. More moisture will be lost in evapotransportation. Also, am of "bring the mountain to Mohammed" mindset.. water reservoirs and canals networked in forests. Supplies evaporated water in low atmo. and fire fighting water supply.
@James says: "The laws of physics, and science in general, are based on observations of the real world. "
On the 40th anniversary of the Challenger disaster, it's worth remembering Richard Feynman’s philosophy of scientific integrity emphasizes that Statistical detection/non-detection ≠ physical absence nor presence; CI thresholds are conventions, not ontological truths.
Feynman’s point is not merely philosophical; it is a scientific warning: Agreement with data does not equal understanding.
He was not opposing institutions for sport. He was insisting on a principle that applies equally to science, policy, and communication: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”
As such, the integrity of science requires reporting the full story — including what contradicts your preferred conclusion —and resisting the temptation to protect a tribe.
Which is what Jim and Dan Galpern* did: "Our op-ed included proper caveats implying that careful "thinning" could be helpful in some situations, but such cases are the exception, not the rule. "
absolutely not. Management needs guidance and oversight, but that guidance needs to be open minded and attentive to what ecological scientists --and Native Americans--are telling us. In my experience, opinions vary widely, even among environmental groups. I fear that feedback will be so diverse and contradictory that managers will be like deer in the headlights.
I've been on several panels, commissions, etc charged with evaluating forest management policies and making recommendations, which sometimes have actually been followed. Maybe we need such a panel now to evaluate the situation and help put some sideboards on the options. . . Perhaps a council of 'elders' would help. I don't know. It would have to be a group respected by all sides.
David "Forest/fire ecologists don't all agree about necessary steps, and you appear to listen to opinions not shared by all of us."
If ecologists don't all agree, then it's plainly obvious whatever **Opinions** one has will NOT be shared by all of them. I have no reason to believe your "opinions" are better than anyone else's.
My point being, James Hansen has taken time out of a very busy intense schedule to raise this issue in the premier national newspaper for the good of all. The last thing he or this issue needs or deserves is to be criticized for not being "absolutely perfect" according to your or anyone else's yardsticks.
Jim is no man's fool. Cut him some slack here and do not undermine him or this cause. That's my "opinion". Take it or leave it. But if you have the time, please submit your own OPED to the Boston Globe or NYTs on this critical issue of Govt of the People being totally out of control--as usual ever since 1789.
Thanks for shedding light on this and sharing your expertise. This is one of the reasons why we love this platform so much. Great information. Keep it up!
Thank you for speaking up in support of forests, Dr Hansen and your longstanding work to raise awareness of the climate emergency. Just wondering if you are aware of the work of eminent Russian physicist, Anastassia Makarieva, one of the authors of the Biotic Pump Theory. Her research provides additional support for the importance of protecting forests, particularly pristine forests that have their natural functions still intact, and those that connect to the ocean and draw moisture inland. She is on Substack https://substack.com/@anastassiamakarieva?r=15krko&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
Dr. Hansen's climate research is phenomenal. Unfortunately, this piece misses some points. I remember reading about how managed forest areas came through much better than unmanaged areas in the crazy fires we had a few years ago in Northern California. Long term studies confirm this:
The current laws make reasonable forest management difficult to implement. Maybe the Fix our Forests isn't perfect, but it enables management in critical areas for limiting the spread and damage of wildfires, which also lowers the carbon emissions. If the area he was in had been better managed BEFORE the wildfire, damage to the soils and ecosystem would not have been so severe.
The "Fix Our Forests Act" does not prescribe forest "management". Rather, it's intent is to eliminate dissent. It allows a number of destructive practices, but bans environmental legal challenges.
I am not comfortable with any law whose sole purpose seems to be to eliminate legal challenges — especially considering the disdain the current administration shows for any impediment to its power.
Here are the good things the Fix Our Forests Act does:
Simplifies and expedites the most critical forest management projects while maintaining strong environmental standards, for example by eliminating redundant agency consultations
Reduces delays to these critical actions due to litigation over insignificant impacts
Adds new ways for communities to provide input early and often in planning and implementation
Provides agencies with emergency tools to increase the pace & scale of forest management
Invests in innovative fire detection, suppressant technologies, modernizing construction standards
Creates an interagency Fireshed Center
Provides support for wildland firefighters
Hardens utility rights-of-way against wildfire
Creates a national strategy to increase the capacity of tree nurseries to address the nationwide shortage of tree seedlings
Establishes a program to explore biochar innovations and opportunities
I share your concern regarding the horrible attitude of the current administration towards environmental protection. The Fix Our Forests Act was moving through Congress before the current administration and was approved by many Democrats in the House. We need to get things done rather than keeping everything bottlenecked in courts while wildfires get worse and worse.
The notion that denser forests will consistently burn at high intensities, and that mechanical thinning will reliably reduce fire intensity is simply not consistent with a large body of scientific evidence, especially landscape-scale studies that avoid the common problem of cherry-picking at small spatial scales in many thinning studies. For example, in a study of several hundred wildfires across the Pacific Northwest (mesic and dry forests, both), U.S. Forest Service scientists (Lesmeister et al. 2021) found that denser forests had lower fire intensity, and more open forests (such as those resulting from thinning) had higher fire intensity with “hotter, drier, and windier microclimates, and those conditions decrease dramatically over relatively short distances into the interior of older forests with multi-layer canopies and high tree density…”
More fundamentally, the entire conversation about mechanical thinning as a wildfire management strategy is misplaced. Half a century of scientific studies establish that there is no need to remove trees prior to burning, even in the densest forests and even in forests that have not burned in over a century. The burning is simply done during fire season, generally at the earlier part, in milder fire weather. Even the US Forest Service now admits this, and further admits that mechanical thinning is several times more expensive per acre than fire alone. See:
People have been in the Australian wilderness for generations. But can people be considered part of the natural landscape or will they always have an impact?
* Can we trust scientific papers?
Peer review is seen as the assurance that scientific papers come with trust. But is the process rigorous?
--Joel Deaves: There's a lot of mob that are restoring landscapes with these methods, their own ways of treating the land with fire and with other things too.
Lesley Head: Yeah, certainly. Rhys Jones was very influential in my own work, including the paper he wrote about fire stick farming.
--In the same way as Australian ecology and paleoecology has really challenged northern hemisphere frameworks of vegetation succession and you know, whether fire is an external disturbance to the environment or something that's integral to the environment.
--Joel Deaves: the country needs to be spaced out and needs room to grow and grow proper. And it just needs that balance between all them right species that belong there. We need to recreate that environment for them trees again to flourish, not weeds and not erosion and not all this stuff.
Robyn Williams: You showed us actually, it was fascinating, how actually to have COOL FIRE, in other words you're burning clumps of grass at the right time in the right way and you get WHITE SMOKE coming up, not black smoke, when black smoke comes up you know you've got a problem and so that then has A FIRE GOING DOWN THE HILL rather than up the hill,
Joel Deaves: SCIENTISTS we try to work together and there is some projects in the future that we do want to work on because we're at the point now where the environment is in a state where we need that old knowledge from our culture, certain parts that's allowed to be shared, because there is sacred things that we cannot share.
Joel Deaves: When I do comprehend science, when I'm looking at it, it does come to the same kind of outcome or the same kind of thing. Whether it be a climate event that happened 15,000 years ago here, you know, we have stories about that. They have archaeological, geological evidence. We have oral evidence of the landscape changing, you know.
So science is a modern way to explain it. Our culture is our way and it's coming from the spirit of the country and the people.
However, this old way of doing things, which is going in and TREATING IT WITH FIRE, IT WORKS. It's worked for so long. Our people wouldn't be here if it didn't work because we had WILDFIRES. When the lightning strikes come, all the other places, THEY WERE TREATED.
One thing I didn't see when I browsed it was indigenous involvement and consent.
They are generally closer to the needs of the forest, whereas white settlers are generally more interested in their wants from the forest. Even your list looks more like "maintaining OUR resource" rather than treating it like a sovereign entity.
In Canada, such a bill would be DOA without indigenous support.
I'm not sure about indigenous support, but that would make sense to get. When I search on it, it seems to be mixed. "Opinions among California tribes and indigenous representatives regarding the "Fix Our Forests Act" (2025/2026) are mixed, balancing a desire for more active forest management with concerns over sovereignty and environmental protection. "
One other really interesting link on the history of how we got into this mess is here:
Logging of mature and old-growth trees, and post-fire clearcutting, on public lands are not "critical actions". Such logging would be increased and expedited by the logging provisions in the Fix Our Forests Act, which would severely weaken environmental laws and restrict the courts from upholding the law against otherwise illegal logging projects.
Rob: "Hardens utility rights-of-way against wildfire?" No. That's a Fail.
Forests in a rapidly warming drying world and Infrastructure do not Fit Rationally well together.
Therefore get rid of the Utility Rights completely and maybe half the fires will never start from fallen power lines in storms and lousy maintenance standards. Logic and evidence are amazing partners when forming judgments.
That is not the Standard that Selects for Political Office. Fix your Ideological Values, or Burn seems to be the basic Logic here.
Harden the LEGAL RIGHTS OF FORESTS TO SURVIVE in a warming drying world for generations ahead.
Rob: "The current laws make reasonable forest management difficult to implement. Maybe the Fix our Forests isn't perfect, ........"
The James Hansen and Dan Galpern's* news article made good sense and ended in a rational call to action. If the current Laws are no good, and the FoF is also not good enough, then go back to the blackboard and start over writing a good evidence and community supported law.
To do that requires integrity. Not much of that in the WH or Congress, is there. Of course this is the biggest problem you have in the US. Actually writing good Laws. The first step seems to be defining which Laws and why they are Bad. Actually even before that creating a functional political system should be the first thing to Fix.
Maybe you need a "Fix our F****** Governance Act." :-/
I remember that some of the privately managed areas had much less spreading during the Camp fire in California, which was devastating to unmanaged areas and towns. Not that private management practices have been ideal either, but we need to enable greater management in areas that are critical for limiting the spread of fires, which is what the Fix Our Forests Act targets. Here is a nice article on management in general:
What was the wind, temp, and humidity at the time of spread through the private lands relative to the weather conditions when it burned through public lands? Were the public lands also treated? And, what is “devastating” about wildfires burning in forests?
The claim that the Camp fire burned slower or less intensely through the more heavily logged private lands is flatly false. The private forests, where the heaviest pre-fire logging occurred, is where the Camp fire spread fastest, based on the fire progression data. See the map and accompanying information on the Camp fire, and similar results from other large fires, here:
Hi Chad. Regarding page 20 and the Camp Fire, it doesn't really show much about pre-burn thinning. It does indicate that post-burn thinning didn't help much. I would say for other image pairs such as image pair #6, the results would be mixed at best. I would rather see good practices incorporated in legislation rather than keeping everything jammed up in court proceedings, especially for thinning near roads and power lines. I agree that we preferably want to keep large trees and thin out smaller ones.
Dear All, Arriving at good climate laws (and laws that protect our forests) is a very interdisciplinary matter. As an attorney who spent 36 years enforcing our nations environmental laws at USEPA (retired 2024), I am cautious about approaching topics on which I am not an expert, but I also believe it is my obligation as a citizen to assess the information provided by those with relevant expertise.
Having spent the last several months studying the wording and potential impacts of the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA), I believe Dr. Hansen has done this appropriately here. Given the very significant impact of the health of our forests on climate, I am grateful to Dr. Hansen for adding his voice and raising the profile of the important question of whether the Fix Our Forests Act will be helpful or harmful to preserving a livable climate for future generations and to reducing wildfire risks.
Despite some evidence that thinning and controlled burns may have time-limited benefits to the health of some forests in some circumstances, my review of the wording of FOFA and the papers I cite above, along with many others, have convinced me that FOFA, if it becomes law, creates a serious additional risk of harm to our climate, our wildfire risk reduction efforts, and the health of our forests.
FOFA would create an expedited process that insulates "responsible officials," selected by political appointees, from meaningful public and scientific review. FOFA would authorize these officials to promote broad-scale thinning of our national forests under the label "Harardous Fuels" removal, creating a long-term carbon-storage deficit that undermines our climate goals. FOFA creates financial incentives for this activity through the so-called "Good Neighbor Authority," which provides reimbursement to state, local and tribal governments for contracting with timber harvest companies to carry out this activity. This of course has generated major logging industry support for FOFA! See American Loggers Council September submission to Congress at: https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118582/witnesses/HHRG-119-AG15-Wstate-DaneB-20250910-SD002.pdf#:~:text=The%20Fix%20Our%20Forests%20Act%20(FOFA)%20is,forest%20management%20objectives%20for%20the%20National%20Forests).
I'm grateful to all who take the time to carefully consider this important question and to contact their representatives so that Congress takes notice. Much appreciated!
2.3.1. Broad-Scale Thinning to Reduce Fire Severity Conflicts with Climate Goals
A reaction to the recent increase in the intensity and frequency of wildfires is to thin forests to reduce the quantity of combustible materials. However, the amount of carbon removed by thinning is much larger than the amount that might be saved from being burned in a fire, and far more area is harvested than would actually burn [42,46,47,48,49]. Most analyses of mid- to long-term thinning impacts on forest structure and carbon storage show there is a multi-decadal biomass carbon deficit following moderate to heavy thinning [50]. For example, thinning in a young ponderosa pine plantation showed that removal of 40% of the tree biomass would release about 60% of the carbon over the next 30 years [51]. Regional patchworks of intensive forest management have increased fire severity in adjacent forests [49]. Management actions can create more surface fuels. Broad-scale thinning (e.g., ecoregions, regions) to reduce fire risk or severity [52] results in more carbon emissions than fire, and creates a long-term carbon deficit that undermines climate goals.
As to the effectiveness and likelihood that thinning might have an impact on fire behavior, the area thinned at broad scales to reduce fuels has been found to have little relationship to area burned, which is mostly driven by wind, drought, and warming. A multi-year study of forest treatments such as thinning and prescribed fire across the western U.S. showed that about 1% of U.S. Forest Service treatments experience wildfire each year [53]. The potential effectiveness of treatments lasts only 10–20 years, diminishing annually [53]. Thus, the preemptive actions to reduce fire risk or severity across regions have been largely ineffective.
Effective risk reduction solutions need to be tailored to the specific conditions. In fire-prone dry forests, careful removal of fuel ladders such as saplings and leaving the large fire-resistant trees in the forest may be sufficient and would have lower carbon consequences than broad-scale thinning [54]. The goals of restoring ecosystem processes and/or reducing risk in fire-prone regions can be met by removing small trees and underburning to reduce surface fuels, not by removal of larger trees, which is sometimes done to offset the cost of the thinning. With continued warming and the need to adapt to wildfire, thinning may restore more frequent low-severity fire in some dry forests, but could jeopardize regeneration and trigger a regime change to non-forest ecosystems [53].
While moderate to high severity fire can kill trees, most of the carbon remains in the forest as dead wood that will take decades to centuries to decompose. Less than 10% of ecosystem carbon enters the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in PNW forest fires [21,46]. Recent field studies of combustion rates in California’s large megafires show that carbon emissions were very low at the landscape-level (0.6 to 1.8%) because larger trees with low combustion rates were the majority of biomass, and high severity fire patches were less than half of the burn area [55,56]. These findings are consistent with field studies on Oregon’s East Cascades wildfires and the large Biscuit Fire in southern Oregon [57,58].
To summarize, harvest-related emissions from thinning are much higher than potential reduction in fire emissions. In west coast states, overall harvest-related emissions were about 5 times fire emissions, and California’s fire emissions were a few percent of its fossil fuel emissions [59]. In the conterminous 48 states, harvest-related emissions are 7.5 times those from all natural causes [60]. It is understandable that the public wants action to reduce wildfire threats, but false solutions that make the problem worse and increase global warming are counterproductive.
Thank you for calling out the FOFA – we need responsible and accountable scientists to educate the public and elected officials around this travesty that would increase and accelerate logging of our vital forest ecosystems. The FOFA would degenerate the forests, eliminate their vital greenhouse gas sequestration potential, and reduce biodiversity. “Thinning" is another excuse for logging that rides on fearmongering around wildfires. It opens up the forest canopy, allowing the forest floor to dry out, and wind to carry embers farther thereby often making fires faster, hotter, and larger.
We need to cut greenhouse gas emissions and protect the forests for biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. The FOFA would do the opposite: add emissions from logging and land conversions, while eliminating sequestration potential and biodiversity support.
I've been involved in the struggle to protect forests for decades. It will not end, ever, while a tree is left standing. The model is to compromise into oblivion. Reasonable people will reason away the world.
The editor of the Globe does not make edits intended to make my opinions fit their editorial perspective. Most readers of Sophie's Planet will be surprised at what the New York Times did to my op-eds. Even Nature magazine would not let me defend my "alternative scenario" against the orthodoxy of IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. The liberal media (most of the media is liberal) does not behave in an unbiased, scientific, democratic way in reporting science, and that includes some scientific publications that front and center express political views. Then they are shocked when at least some of Trump's positions turn out to be closer to reality. It is wonderful to be a political independent, free to critique all sides. Best of all, more and more young people are becoming political Independents. It gives me optimism and energy to work for the future. I am confident that things can turn for the better in the next few years, but not without effort.
Boston has a very high flood risk. NOAA says that at 3 feet of sea level rise 100,000 homes will flood everyday at high tide. Climate Ready Boston indicates that the storm drain sewers in the South End were designed for the 20th century. They estimate a 30% chance, by mid-century, that an atmospheric river nor'easter will back the South End storm sewers up, flooding all the storm sewers, streets, basements and first floors. The average time frame for a construction project like storm drains, from getting engineering plans draw and environmental studies done, till the sewers are ready to work, is 18 years. What that means is that if city government voted this year to fund the project, there would still be something like a 20% chance the South End will flood before the new storm drains open. Every year they wait the risk increases. People who study the insurance industry expect that soon it will no longer be possible to buy flood insurance, because the risk is too great to the insurance companies. I sent this all in to the Globe as a 700 word op-ed. The climate editor replied within an hour. He praise the article effusively. They didn't print it, however.
The HEALTHY "older" trees sequester more carbon exponentially than many afold saplings to replace them. Do the geometry and math. They are tall. Have many layers of branches with leaves. Big root systems. Saves soil from erosion. It's a sin to destroy them. They provide evapotranspiration and biogenic aerosols that cool us.. and we still don't know how much they cool and the studies are nebulous ( pun intended ) on their role in cloud formation.
I remember a short lived TV series about a maverick on a motorcycle going town to town fixing messes and doing what is right- " Then Came Bronson".
Dr Hansen has been doing this everyday fighting the whims of the ignorant or proudful with the truth of the climate fiasco. He got me to ask myself as Earth 🔥, "Watt?! Me 2?!"
Great to have someone with such a high profile as Dr. Hansen point out what many of us in the grassroots ecosystem advocacy movement have been saying for decades, yet been mostly ignored or defamed for doing so: that "wildfire pretense logging" cannot be used as a Trojan horse to degrade and destroy our last, best ecosystems on public lands!
Thank you for your important and timely op-ed, Dr. Hansen. Our public forests are critical biodiversity and climate infrastructure and we cannot let industry and corporate influences subvert and twist the truth. Thinning forests will not save communities from burning down.
Thank you so much for your standing up for keeping burned forests intact as superior habitat for regrowing burned areas over clear cut harvesting areas that this legislation promotes. In my area, we are faced with a different situation: in many areas of the tallgrass prairie biome, eliminating fire and fragmenting the landscape has resulted in wide scale invasion of prairies by Juniperus virginiana, locally known as eastern red cedar. Not only does this acidify the soil and push out the local mix of forbs and grasses found in tallgrass prairies, it also creates near monoculture Juniperus stands that surround many towns, farms and some cities: a conflagration waiting to happen when the next drought gets accompanied by strong winds. There have been some tentative studies suggesting that mobile biochar burners that sequester carbon from the Juniperus stands could create a win-win situation of reducing fire danger and protecting tallgrass prairie from being eliminated; I thought you might be interested in this and would be interested in what you think.
Yes, biochar is one of the silver buckshots that can help draw down CO2 with other benefits. I bought one ton of biochar, which Sophie and I worked into the (rather impoverished PA clay soil) just outside the then-root zone of newly planted trees. It improved the soil quality and tree health, while providing long term carbon storage. The improved tree health provides additional carbon storage. Even if this is developed on a larger scale, it is only one of the silver buckshots needed.
.... additionally, 'we' need to keep this in mind, without being utter purists for 'current' local species. Those rare endemic species need more than a few university city arboretums to hide in.
Fast-growing trees are taking over the forests of the future and putting biodiversity, climate resilience under pressure
https://phys.org/news/2026-01-fast-trees-forests-future-biodiversity.html#google_vignette
... and thank you for your current and past work ()()()()()()()()
Dr. Hansen's position is soundly supported by hundreds of US climate scientists and ecologists. See, e.g.:
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Biden-MOG-scientist-letter-27Feb24-final.pdf
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ScientistLetterOpposingLoggingProvisionsInBBB_BIF4Nov21.pdf
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/200TopClimateScientistCongressProtectForestsForClimateChange13May20.pdf
allowing logging without public oversight is undeniably a bad idea. Done wrong, it can exacerbate fire danger and compromise ecosystem integrity. But if Dr Hansen is going to weigh in on this, he needs to be scientifically responsible. Forest/fire ecologists don't all agree about necessary steps, and you appear to listen to opinions not shared by all of us. It is a complex issue and should not be approached with oversimplistic ideas any more that it should be approached without oversight. Dr Hansen, if you want bring your well-earned credibility to this issue, take the time to understand the issues.
David Perry
Professor (emeritus)
Oregon State University
Thanks, David Perry, but since you use the trick of pretending to a speak from a higher level of expertise, I address my response to the readers.
The laws of physics, and science in general, are based on observations of the real world. That's why I showed two photos taken within a stone's throw of each other at the same time, several years after the Rim fire. One in the area that was logged, where trees had been planted but were struggling to even survive, and one in the unlogged area where the forest was thriving as it naturally regenerated after the fire, as healthy forest do.
Our op-ed included proper caveats implying that careful "thinning" could be helpful in some situations, but such cases are the exception, not the rule. The Fix Our Forest Act would unleash rapacious destruction of the public's national forests, setting aside large areas for destructive activity without even a fig leaf of environmental review. Please pay attention to the position of your elected representative in this battle.
"the trick of pretending to speak from a higher level of expertise".
Well, I've studied forests for 60+ Years. I'm lead author of the textbook, Forest Ecosystems"(named notable book of the year in 2008). I believe it's fair to say I know something about how forest ecosystems work. What I don't do is claim expertise in other disciplines (e.g. climatology).
Old timers in the environmental movement out here will tell you I played a significant role in helping to protect the last of our oldgrowth. I did that through opeds, testimony to congress, and as a member of scientific panels that made recommendations to lawmakers and managers.
I appreciated your photos of the rim fire comparisons. And in fact have been a coauthor on papers discussing environmental risks of salvage logging.
Here is what concerns me and why I responded to your post. Forest landscapes throughout the country are highly altered. How they are altered varies among forest types, but in the west it has led to much greater fire risk. One group out here is arguing that fire is a natural feature in these systems and should be allowed to burn--ie. no attempts to reduce fuels. Frankly, this scares the hell out of me. My research in dry forests shows that the old growth pine forests, relatively resistant to large crown fires, is being replaced by high densities of fire prone trees species. That started with the extermination of Native Americans and continued with misguided early forest management. In the mesic forests, relatively fire resistant OG has been replaced by fire prone younger plantations.
You mention the laws of physics. Before my PhD in ecology, I got an MS in physics. With one exception, the laws of physics haven't helped me a lot in understanding complex adaptive ecosystems. The exception is nonequilibrium thermodynamics, which tells us about self-organizing systems. My fear is that we have created a situation in which fires will become self-reinforcing. Th warming climate is going to exacerbate that. It has the potential to drive our forests to collapse. That's not to say we shouldn't let some fires burn, but that we should carefully evaluate when and where. But here's a fact: no fire that burns in a highly altered landscape can be called natural. It is not a 'one-size fits all' situation and we have to be very careful about what we do or don't do.
@David: Kudos for your life achievements.
You say: " My fear is that we have created a situation in which fires will become self-reinforcing. The warming climate is going to exacerbate that. It has the potential to drive our forests to collapse. "
Sean: Obviously so, for this is already the case globally. But that in no way undermines the arguments put by Jim and Dan Galpern* against the FOFA - the actual topic here - your point in fact emphasizes the importance of blocking bad laws that make the situation worse, and that are not based on quality analysis.
@David "That's not to say we shouldn't let some fires burn, ....... "
Sean: Would you point out where Jim and Dan* suggested or promoted such a thing in their article? Because the only action I saw being promoted was to block the FOFA law being passed in Congress.
* edit
Sean, I didn't see it in the article, but I have heard that argument more than once. If memory serves, Chad has argued that. Perhaps I'm wrong. Memory doesn't always serve.
Wow! You got a solid background David. Kudos to you. Am an alclimist ( my contrived climate quarterback word). I observe and listen to our burning planet, its peoples, and the scientists. When it comes to forest fires it doesn't take a Sheinstein to realize they are dessicated.. primo fire fuel🔥. How would you approach handling the forests' moisture and water supplies for fire fighters?
Thanks Jeff
The best, and only option for increasing water supply to heavily stocked younger even-agd stands is to reduce leaf area---thinning. (Not in old growth which uses water more conservatively) Thinning t also allows more drying winds in stands. Seems like everything is about tradeoffs.
For firefighters. I don't know
Am of the "the more leaves the better ( more photosynthesis and biogenic aerosols ) mindset. But, tradeoffs like you said are there. More moisture will be lost in evapotransportation. Also, am of "bring the mountain to Mohammed" mindset.. water reservoirs and canals networked in forests. Supplies evaporated water in low atmo. and fire fighting water supply.
@James says: "The laws of physics, and science in general, are based on observations of the real world. "
On the 40th anniversary of the Challenger disaster, it's worth remembering Richard Feynman’s philosophy of scientific integrity emphasizes that Statistical detection/non-detection ≠ physical absence nor presence; CI thresholds are conventions, not ontological truths.
Feynman’s point is not merely philosophical; it is a scientific warning: Agreement with data does not equal understanding.
He was not opposing institutions for sport. He was insisting on a principle that applies equally to science, policy, and communication: “The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.”
As such, the integrity of science requires reporting the full story — including what contradicts your preferred conclusion —and resisting the temptation to protect a tribe.
Which is what Jim and Dan Galpern* did: "Our op-ed included proper caveats implying that careful "thinning" could be helpful in some situations, but such cases are the exception, not the rule. "
edit*
o.k., I accept that. And yet you are happy to hand over portions of our national forests to logging with zero environmental review?
absolutely not. Management needs guidance and oversight, but that guidance needs to be open minded and attentive to what ecological scientists --and Native Americans--are telling us. In my experience, opinions vary widely, even among environmental groups. I fear that feedback will be so diverse and contradictory that managers will be like deer in the headlights.
I've been on several panels, commissions, etc charged with evaluating forest management policies and making recommendations, which sometimes have actually been followed. Maybe we need such a panel now to evaluate the situation and help put some sideboards on the options. . . Perhaps a council of 'elders' would help. I don't know. It would have to be a group respected by all sides.
Dr. Hansen's position is soundly supported by hundreds of US climate scientists and ecologists. See, e.g.:
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Biden-MOG-scientist-letter-27Feb24-final.pdf
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ScientistLetterOpposingLoggingProvisionsInBBB_BIF4Nov21.pdf
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/200TopClimateScientistCongressProtectForestsForClimateChange13May20.pdf
David "Forest/fire ecologists don't all agree about necessary steps, and you appear to listen to opinions not shared by all of us."
If ecologists don't all agree, then it's plainly obvious whatever **Opinions** one has will NOT be shared by all of them. I have no reason to believe your "opinions" are better than anyone else's.
My point being, James Hansen has taken time out of a very busy intense schedule to raise this issue in the premier national newspaper for the good of all. The last thing he or this issue needs or deserves is to be criticized for not being "absolutely perfect" according to your or anyone else's yardsticks.
Jim is no man's fool. Cut him some slack here and do not undermine him or this cause. That's my "opinion". Take it or leave it. But if you have the time, please submit your own OPED to the Boston Globe or NYTs on this critical issue of Govt of the People being totally out of control--as usual ever since 1789.
David,
Dr Hansen EARNED his credibility with EXTREME diligence, care, and respect of the unbiased broad sited scientific method.
Where is your op-ed to REALLY save the forests? Where is your Senate testimony?
Connect the pale blue dots.
Thanks for shedding light on this and sharing your expertise. This is one of the reasons why we love this platform so much. Great information. Keep it up!
Thank you for speaking up in support of forests, Dr Hansen and your longstanding work to raise awareness of the climate emergency. Just wondering if you are aware of the work of eminent Russian physicist, Anastassia Makarieva, one of the authors of the Biotic Pump Theory. Her research provides additional support for the importance of protecting forests, particularly pristine forests that have their natural functions still intact, and those that connect to the ocean and draw moisture inland. She is on Substack https://substack.com/@anastassiamakarieva?r=15krko&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=profile
Dr. Hansen's climate research is phenomenal. Unfortunately, this piece misses some points. I remember reading about how managed forest areas came through much better than unmanaged areas in the crazy fires we had a few years ago in Northern California. Long term studies confirm this:
https://news.berkeley.edu/2023/12/12/twenty-year-study-confirms-california-forests-are-healthier-when-burned-or-thinned/
The current laws make reasonable forest management difficult to implement. Maybe the Fix our Forests isn't perfect, but it enables management in critical areas for limiting the spread and damage of wildfires, which also lowers the carbon emissions. If the area he was in had been better managed BEFORE the wildfire, damage to the soils and ecosystem would not have been so severe.
I read your linked article.
It does not say what you say it says.
The "Fix Our Forests Act" does not prescribe forest "management". Rather, it's intent is to eliminate dissent. It allows a number of destructive practices, but bans environmental legal challenges.
I am not comfortable with any law whose sole purpose seems to be to eliminate legal challenges — especially considering the disdain the current administration shows for any impediment to its power.
Here are the good things the Fix Our Forests Act does:
Simplifies and expedites the most critical forest management projects while maintaining strong environmental standards, for example by eliminating redundant agency consultations
Reduces delays to these critical actions due to litigation over insignificant impacts
Adds new ways for communities to provide input early and often in planning and implementation
Provides agencies with emergency tools to increase the pace & scale of forest management
Invests in innovative fire detection, suppressant technologies, modernizing construction standards
Creates an interagency Fireshed Center
Provides support for wildland firefighters
Hardens utility rights-of-way against wildfire
Creates a national strategy to increase the capacity of tree nurseries to address the nationwide shortage of tree seedlings
Establishes a program to explore biochar innovations and opportunities
I share your concern regarding the horrible attitude of the current administration towards environmental protection. The Fix Our Forests Act was moving through Congress before the current administration and was approved by many Democrats in the House. We need to get things done rather than keeping everything bottlenecked in courts while wildfires get worse and worse.
The notion that denser forests will consistently burn at high intensities, and that mechanical thinning will reliably reduce fire intensity is simply not consistent with a large body of scientific evidence, especially landscape-scale studies that avoid the common problem of cherry-picking at small spatial scales in many thinning studies. For example, in a study of several hundred wildfires across the Pacific Northwest (mesic and dry forests, both), U.S. Forest Service scientists (Lesmeister et al. 2021) found that denser forests had lower fire intensity, and more open forests (such as those resulting from thinning) had higher fire intensity with “hotter, drier, and windier microclimates, and those conditions decrease dramatically over relatively short distances into the interior of older forests with multi-layer canopies and high tree density…”
More fundamentally, the entire conversation about mechanical thinning as a wildfire management strategy is misplaced. Half a century of scientific studies establish that there is no need to remove trees prior to burning, even in the densest forests and even in forests that have not burned in over a century. The burning is simply done during fire season, generally at the earlier part, in milder fire weather. Even the US Forest Service now admits this, and further admits that mechanical thinning is several times more expensive per acre than fire alone. See:
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/JMP-fact-sheet-Fire-Alone-29Nov24-1.pdf
@Chad: "More fundamentally, the entire conversation about mechanical thinning as a wildfire management strategy is misplaced. "
1) The rainforests are burning 2019
This fire season has seen something that had been unthinkable — wilderness rainforests burning in savage forest fires.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-10/mt-nardi-fire-community-defenders/11766036
2) ABC The Science Show 2025 - Robyn Williams
* Do people have a place in wilderness?
People have been in the Australian wilderness for generations. But can people be considered part of the natural landscape or will they always have an impact?
* Can we trust scientific papers?
Peer review is seen as the assurance that scientific papers come with trust. But is the process rigorous?
https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/scienceshow/black-white-and-green/105307804
--Joel Deaves: There's a lot of mob that are restoring landscapes with these methods, their own ways of treating the land with fire and with other things too.
Lesley Head: Yeah, certainly. Rhys Jones was very influential in my own work, including the paper he wrote about fire stick farming.
--In the same way as Australian ecology and paleoecology has really challenged northern hemisphere frameworks of vegetation succession and you know, whether fire is an external disturbance to the environment or something that's integral to the environment.
--Joel Deaves: the country needs to be spaced out and needs room to grow and grow proper. And it just needs that balance between all them right species that belong there. We need to recreate that environment for them trees again to flourish, not weeds and not erosion and not all this stuff.
Robyn Williams: You showed us actually, it was fascinating, how actually to have COOL FIRE, in other words you're burning clumps of grass at the right time in the right way and you get WHITE SMOKE coming up, not black smoke, when black smoke comes up you know you've got a problem and so that then has A FIRE GOING DOWN THE HILL rather than up the hill,
Joel Deaves: SCIENTISTS we try to work together and there is some projects in the future that we do want to work on because we're at the point now where the environment is in a state where we need that old knowledge from our culture, certain parts that's allowed to be shared, because there is sacred things that we cannot share.
Joel Deaves: When I do comprehend science, when I'm looking at it, it does come to the same kind of outcome or the same kind of thing. Whether it be a climate event that happened 15,000 years ago here, you know, we have stories about that. They have archaeological, geological evidence. We have oral evidence of the landscape changing, you know.
So science is a modern way to explain it. Our culture is our way and it's coming from the spirit of the country and the people.
However, this old way of doing things, which is going in and TREATING IT WITH FIRE, IT WORKS. It's worked for so long. Our people wouldn't be here if it didn't work because we had WILDFIRES. When the lightning strikes come, all the other places, THEY WERE TREATED.
+80,000? https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jul/19/dig-finds-evidence-of-aboriginal-habitation-up-to-80000-years-ago
Merging Science & Indigenous Wisdom Fuels New Discoveries https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nOFnOYfj8k
Thanks for the list.
One thing I didn't see when I browsed it was indigenous involvement and consent.
They are generally closer to the needs of the forest, whereas white settlers are generally more interested in their wants from the forest. Even your list looks more like "maintaining OUR resource" rather than treating it like a sovereign entity.
In Canada, such a bill would be DOA without indigenous support.
I'm not sure about indigenous support, but that would make sense to get. When I search on it, it seems to be mixed. "Opinions among California tribes and indigenous representatives regarding the "Fix Our Forests Act" (2025/2026) are mixed, balancing a desire for more active forest management with concerns over sovereignty and environmental protection. "
One other really interesting link on the history of how we got into this mess is here:
https://baynature.org/magazine/fall2022/logjam-fighting-fire-with-mills-bay-nature/#:~:text=The%20largest%20single%20fire%20in,than%2050%20acres%20of%20land.
Logging of mature and old-growth trees, and post-fire clearcutting, on public lands are not "critical actions". Such logging would be increased and expedited by the logging provisions in the Fix Our Forests Act, which would severely weaken environmental laws and restrict the courts from upholding the law against otherwise illegal logging projects.
Rob: "Hardens utility rights-of-way against wildfire?" No. That's a Fail.
Forests in a rapidly warming drying world and Infrastructure do not Fit Rationally well together.
Therefore get rid of the Utility Rights completely and maybe half the fires will never start from fallen power lines in storms and lousy maintenance standards. Logic and evidence are amazing partners when forming judgments.
That is not the Standard that Selects for Political Office. Fix your Ideological Values, or Burn seems to be the basic Logic here.
Harden the LEGAL RIGHTS OF FORESTS TO SURVIVE in a warming drying world for generations ahead.
Rob: "The current laws make reasonable forest management difficult to implement. Maybe the Fix our Forests isn't perfect, ........"
The James Hansen and Dan Galpern's* news article made good sense and ended in a rational call to action. If the current Laws are no good, and the FoF is also not good enough, then go back to the blackboard and start over writing a good evidence and community supported law.
To do that requires integrity. Not much of that in the WH or Congress, is there. Of course this is the biggest problem you have in the US. Actually writing good Laws. The first step seems to be defining which Laws and why they are Bad. Actually even before that creating a functional political system should be the first thing to Fix.
Maybe you need a "Fix our F****** Governance Act." :-/
a few ideas to get you started https://globalgovernanceforum.org/
https://globalgovernanceforum.org/governing-planet-why-we-need-an-earth-system-council-now/
edit*
What do you mean by managed forests “came through better” than unmanaged areas?
I remember that some of the privately managed areas had much less spreading during the Camp fire in California, which was devastating to unmanaged areas and towns. Not that private management practices have been ideal either, but we need to enable greater management in areas that are critical for limiting the spread of fires, which is what the Fix Our Forests Act targets. Here is a nice article on management in general:
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/californias-massive-park-fire-would-be-less-severe-if-we-proactively-reduced-fuels
What was the wind, temp, and humidity at the time of spread through the private lands relative to the weather conditions when it burned through public lands? Were the public lands also treated? And, what is “devastating” about wildfires burning in forests?
Dr. Hansen's position is soundly supported by hundreds of US climate scientists and ecologists. See, e.g.:
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Biden-MOG-scientist-letter-27Feb24-final.pdf
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/ScientistLetterOpposingLoggingProvisionsInBBB_BIF4Nov21.pdf
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/200TopClimateScientistCongressProtectForestsForClimateChange13May20.pdf
The claim that the Camp fire burned slower or less intensely through the more heavily logged private lands is flatly false. The private forests, where the heaviest pre-fire logging occurred, is where the Camp fire spread fastest, based on the fire progression data. See the map and accompanying information on the Camp fire, and similar results from other large fires, here:
https://johnmuirproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/CPP-DN-2-Objection-2-12Dec24.pdf
Hi Chad. Regarding page 20 and the Camp Fire, it doesn't really show much about pre-burn thinning. It does indicate that post-burn thinning didn't help much. I would say for other image pairs such as image pair #6, the results would be mixed at best. I would rather see good practices incorporated in legislation rather than keeping everything jammed up in court proceedings, especially for thinning near roads and power lines. I agree that we preferably want to keep large trees and thin out smaller ones.
Dear All, Arriving at good climate laws (and laws that protect our forests) is a very interdisciplinary matter. As an attorney who spent 36 years enforcing our nations environmental laws at USEPA (retired 2024), I am cautious about approaching topics on which I am not an expert, but I also believe it is my obligation as a citizen to assess the information provided by those with relevant expertise.
Having spent the last several months studying the wording and potential impacts of the Fix Our Forests Act (FOFA), I believe Dr. Hansen has done this appropriately here. Given the very significant impact of the health of our forests on climate, I am grateful to Dr. Hansen for adding his voice and raising the profile of the important question of whether the Fix Our Forests Act will be helpful or harmful to preserving a livable climate for future generations and to reducing wildfire risks.
I encourage those studying this controversy to consider the paper by several forest ecologists, including Beverly Law of Oregon State University (published 2022) ( https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/721 ) (see excerpt below) as well as the "Working from the Home Outward: Lessons from California for Federal Wildfire Policy" paper on how to address wildfire risk at the urban wildland interface (https://environmentnow.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Home-Outward-report-2021-1.pdf).
Despite some evidence that thinning and controlled burns may have time-limited benefits to the health of some forests in some circumstances, my review of the wording of FOFA and the papers I cite above, along with many others, have convinced me that FOFA, if it becomes law, creates a serious additional risk of harm to our climate, our wildfire risk reduction efforts, and the health of our forests.
FOFA would create an expedited process that insulates "responsible officials," selected by political appointees, from meaningful public and scientific review. FOFA would authorize these officials to promote broad-scale thinning of our national forests under the label "Harardous Fuels" removal, creating a long-term carbon-storage deficit that undermines our climate goals. FOFA creates financial incentives for this activity through the so-called "Good Neighbor Authority," which provides reimbursement to state, local and tribal governments for contracting with timber harvest companies to carry out this activity. This of course has generated major logging industry support for FOFA! See American Loggers Council September submission to Congress at: https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/118582/witnesses/HHRG-119-AG15-Wstate-DaneB-20250910-SD002.pdf#:~:text=The%20Fix%20Our%20Forests%20Act%20(FOFA)%20is,forest%20management%20objectives%20for%20the%20National%20Forests).
I'm grateful to all who take the time to carefully consider this important question and to contact their representatives so that Congress takes notice. Much appreciated!
Beverly Law et al excerpt from the Strategic Reserves paper at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/5/721
2.3.1. Broad-Scale Thinning to Reduce Fire Severity Conflicts with Climate Goals
A reaction to the recent increase in the intensity and frequency of wildfires is to thin forests to reduce the quantity of combustible materials. However, the amount of carbon removed by thinning is much larger than the amount that might be saved from being burned in a fire, and far more area is harvested than would actually burn [42,46,47,48,49]. Most analyses of mid- to long-term thinning impacts on forest structure and carbon storage show there is a multi-decadal biomass carbon deficit following moderate to heavy thinning [50]. For example, thinning in a young ponderosa pine plantation showed that removal of 40% of the tree biomass would release about 60% of the carbon over the next 30 years [51]. Regional patchworks of intensive forest management have increased fire severity in adjacent forests [49]. Management actions can create more surface fuels. Broad-scale thinning (e.g., ecoregions, regions) to reduce fire risk or severity [52] results in more carbon emissions than fire, and creates a long-term carbon deficit that undermines climate goals.
As to the effectiveness and likelihood that thinning might have an impact on fire behavior, the area thinned at broad scales to reduce fuels has been found to have little relationship to area burned, which is mostly driven by wind, drought, and warming. A multi-year study of forest treatments such as thinning and prescribed fire across the western U.S. showed that about 1% of U.S. Forest Service treatments experience wildfire each year [53]. The potential effectiveness of treatments lasts only 10–20 years, diminishing annually [53]. Thus, the preemptive actions to reduce fire risk or severity across regions have been largely ineffective.
Effective risk reduction solutions need to be tailored to the specific conditions. In fire-prone dry forests, careful removal of fuel ladders such as saplings and leaving the large fire-resistant trees in the forest may be sufficient and would have lower carbon consequences than broad-scale thinning [54]. The goals of restoring ecosystem processes and/or reducing risk in fire-prone regions can be met by removing small trees and underburning to reduce surface fuels, not by removal of larger trees, which is sometimes done to offset the cost of the thinning. With continued warming and the need to adapt to wildfire, thinning may restore more frequent low-severity fire in some dry forests, but could jeopardize regeneration and trigger a regime change to non-forest ecosystems [53].
While moderate to high severity fire can kill trees, most of the carbon remains in the forest as dead wood that will take decades to centuries to decompose. Less than 10% of ecosystem carbon enters the atmosphere as carbon dioxide in PNW forest fires [21,46]. Recent field studies of combustion rates in California’s large megafires show that carbon emissions were very low at the landscape-level (0.6 to 1.8%) because larger trees with low combustion rates were the majority of biomass, and high severity fire patches were less than half of the burn area [55,56]. These findings are consistent with field studies on Oregon’s East Cascades wildfires and the large Biscuit Fire in southern Oregon [57,58].
To summarize, harvest-related emissions from thinning are much higher than potential reduction in fire emissions. In west coast states, overall harvest-related emissions were about 5 times fire emissions, and California’s fire emissions were a few percent of its fossil fuel emissions [59]. In the conterminous 48 states, harvest-related emissions are 7.5 times those from all natural causes [60]. It is understandable that the public wants action to reduce wildfire threats, but false solutions that make the problem worse and increase global warming are counterproductive.
Well articulated my fellow heated citizen! We need more people like you.
Thank you for calling out the FOFA – we need responsible and accountable scientists to educate the public and elected officials around this travesty that would increase and accelerate logging of our vital forest ecosystems. The FOFA would degenerate the forests, eliminate their vital greenhouse gas sequestration potential, and reduce biodiversity. “Thinning" is another excuse for logging that rides on fearmongering around wildfires. It opens up the forest canopy, allowing the forest floor to dry out, and wind to carry embers farther thereby often making fires faster, hotter, and larger.
We need to cut greenhouse gas emissions and protect the forests for biodiversity and the provision of ecosystem services. The FOFA would do the opposite: add emissions from logging and land conversions, while eliminating sequestration potential and biodiversity support.
Where's the "Fix Our President Act?
This is the reason I started photographing forests 6 years ago, to support rewilding and reforestation projects.
I've been involved in the struggle to protect forests for decades. It will not end, ever, while a tree is left standing. The model is to compromise into oblivion. Reasonable people will reason away the world.
This is very nice, as well as important. Just out of curiosity, what made you choose the Globe to publish?
The editor of the Globe does not make edits intended to make my opinions fit their editorial perspective. Most readers of Sophie's Planet will be surprised at what the New York Times did to my op-eds. Even Nature magazine would not let me defend my "alternative scenario" against the orthodoxy of IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. The liberal media (most of the media is liberal) does not behave in an unbiased, scientific, democratic way in reporting science, and that includes some scientific publications that front and center express political views. Then they are shocked when at least some of Trump's positions turn out to be closer to reality. It is wonderful to be a political independent, free to critique all sides. Best of all, more and more young people are becoming political Independents. It gives me optimism and energy to work for the future. I am confident that things can turn for the better in the next few years, but not without effort.
David, that is a good question. Is it the target audience or the economics of cost per reader. The Globe has a well educated readership.
Boston has a very high flood risk. NOAA says that at 3 feet of sea level rise 100,000 homes will flood everyday at high tide. Climate Ready Boston indicates that the storm drain sewers in the South End were designed for the 20th century. They estimate a 30% chance, by mid-century, that an atmospheric river nor'easter will back the South End storm sewers up, flooding all the storm sewers, streets, basements and first floors. The average time frame for a construction project like storm drains, from getting engineering plans draw and environmental studies done, till the sewers are ready to work, is 18 years. What that means is that if city government voted this year to fund the project, there would still be something like a 20% chance the South End will flood before the new storm drains open. Every year they wait the risk increases. People who study the insurance industry expect that soon it will no longer be possible to buy flood insurance, because the risk is too great to the insurance companies. I sent this all in to the Globe as a 700 word op-ed. The climate editor replied within an hour. He praise the article effusively. They didn't print it, however.
To make it more tragic is this is probably true about most our coastal cities. If they had only listened to Dr Hansen in '88...
They didn't print it, however.
The Truth no longer sells, or generates the "right" algorithms nor the corporate support and funding every investor relies upon.
The HEALTHY "older" trees sequester more carbon exponentially than many afold saplings to replace them. Do the geometry and math. They are tall. Have many layers of branches with leaves. Big root systems. Saves soil from erosion. It's a sin to destroy them. They provide evapotranspiration and biogenic aerosols that cool us.. and we still don't know how much they cool and the studies are nebulous ( pun intended ) on their role in cloud formation.
Feel like hugging a tree now..
You can't judge a tree on its albedo.
🤣💪💪
Then came Hansen...
I remember a short lived TV series about a maverick on a motorcycle going town to town fixing messes and doing what is right- " Then Came Bronson".
Dr Hansen has been doing this everyday fighting the whims of the ignorant or proudful with the truth of the climate fiasco. He got me to ask myself as Earth 🔥, "Watt?! Me 2?!"