We can't perfectly suppress fire on a natural landscape. And the act of trying increases the risk that when a fire does start it will become huge and uncontroll

We can't perfectly suppress fire on a natural landscape. And the act of trying increases the risk that when a fire does start it will become huge and uncontrollable because small trees and forest undergrowth—which would have burned in a small fire if we’d not suppressed them--act as kindling that speeds the ignition of mature trees. More frequent removals of biomass through controlled burns and selective timber harvest can reduce the risk that a hugely catastrophic wildfire occurs. Hotter and bigger fires consume disproportionately more carbon than a series of "normal" fires, particularly in the soil. So more regular and controlled burns improve the landscape's ability to act as a greenhouse gas sink. I worked with a forester in Oregon on this issue (at the time my work was focused on greenhouse gas accounting). It all gets a lot more complicated and messy, but there's good progress going on right now to try to move toward a more sensible fire management regime rather than the pure suppression. It's also better for animal habitat and human safety. http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/BOARD/docs/2011_March/BOFATTCH_20110309_J_02.pdf http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/BOARD/docs/2011_March/BOFATTCH_201...