26 ms·
Wouldn't it be better to practice proper forestry and harvest the timber, rather than let it burn and release hundreds of kilotons more CO2 and pollutants into
by shower-curtain 8y ago
Wouldn't it be better to practice proper forestry and harvest the timber, rather than let it burn and release hundreds of kilotons more CO2 and pollutants into the atmosphere?
- fredley 8y agoOther than making sure forest fires pose minimal risks to man-made infrastructure, what is 'practicing proper forestry'? These forests existed for millions of years before humans started managing them.
- foxyv 8y agoMostly making forests friendlier to humans. In their natural state the forests were perpetually burning and a lot of plants depended on those burns. But when you build million dollar houses in the middle of the pretty forest that likes to burn every 5 years...
- fredley 8y agoThe blame here seems to be squarely on the system that allows expensive houses to be built in places that naturally need to burn every now and again.
- Rodneyj 8y agoSo you shouldn't be able to build a house in land you own if the government decides there may be a fire in the future?
- jbattle 8y agoIn large parts of north america, for thousands of years, humans intentionally set fires to manage the landscape. It isn't actually super clear what the "natural state of the forests" really looks like.
- werdnapk 8y agoIt's natural for forests to burn from time to time. Preventing such is actually much worse in the long run.
- shower-curtain 8y agoThe current frequency of major fires due to climate change is not natural, and we have to compensate.
- Rodneyj 8y agoYes, let's blame everything on climate change.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Ninjaneered 8y agoI don't think climate change is the dominating variable here, like the article describes, the devastating fires are a product of our encroachment into forests and aggressive firefighting practices. If you have some references though, I'd be very interested in learning more.
- clarkevans 8y agoStephen Pyne, an environmental historian who studies fire, emphasized that logging would not keep wildfires at bay. “Logging takes the big trunks and leaves the small stuff because there’s no market for it,” he said. “Fire burns the little and leaves the big.”
- shower-curtain 8y agoGreat quote, but that's just not true. I suggest you research modern logging practices.
- ceejayoz 8y agoSince you're the expert (contesting the named expert cited in the article), why don't you point us in the right direction? Googling "modern logging practices" brings up Wikipedia, some industry websites, and a variety of random articles.
- StephenConnell 8y agoNot the parent, but what I've recently seen in Northern California is all underbrush and low branches gone. They were specifically prepping the area to manage fire. Quincy area.
- io_io 8y agoThis would equate to forest management practices, not logging. They likely chipped or burned the underbrush and low branches after removing them from the forest, which wouldn't be a profitable business practice.
- StephenConnell 8y agoTrue, it was forest management, not just commercial logging.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wyattpeak 8y agoOne of the goals stated in the article of proper forest management is returning of nutrients from the burned trees to the ground. That wouldn't be accomplished by harvesting the timber. Besides which, sustainable fires (i.e. ones which don't, in the long run, substantially change forest coverage or makeup) are by definition carbon neutral.
- shower-curtain 8y ago>Besides which, sustainable fires (i.e. ones which don't, in the long run, substantially change forest coverage or makeup) are by definition carbon neutral. Not when the rate of fires exceeds the rate of regrowth due to climate change.
- admax88q 8y agoThe burnt forest will regrow, absorbing that CO2 back out of the atmosphere.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoYeah, that's kind of the definition of "non-sustainable."
- neolefty 8y agoDoing that is part of the problem, as pointed out in the article. We harvest from those forests currently — the problem is we harvest the big healthy trees because their wood is the most desirable. They're also the most resistant to burning. The smaller, shade-tolerant trees that we leave behind are both less commercially valuable and more vulnerable to fire.