Access options:
Yes, this means a ton of carbon ends up in the atmosphere instead of in the trees. The right move would be thinning and prescribed burns, but this administration isn’t going to do that.
Access options:
Yes, this means a ton of carbon ends up in the atmosphere instead of in the trees. The right move would be thinning and prescribed burns, but this administration isn’t going to do that.
So I just want to chime in here as an outsider. From what I searched, national forests are different from national parks in that, extraction of natural resources from national forests is permitted for commercial and personal use.
Trump’s order cites wildfire, insect and disease outbreak as the reason for this change (Biden also sought more logging to combat fire but apparently timber sales did not change much during his tenure). While I agree that forest management is important, Trump had also put tariffs on Canadian lumber and cut down jobs for national park workers. It’s not hard to question if there are other motivations other than wildfire prevention in this context.
I live in fire country and I can tell you I have zero faith there’s going to be any improvement to wildfire prevention. The “inefficient” forestry jobs have all been cut, and now the trails will be overgrown and the weather forecasts will be spottier. Imagine being in a fire crew in that situation, things will be more dangerous now. This is only about extracting resources.
https://apnews.com/article/doge-musk-trump-wildfire-firefighter-pay-firings-fe125ca00f74adbaf996aa23e5d7b408
real estate development probably, if you think about whats going on in gaza, he wants to do the same there, build properties on untainted lands.
So what you’re saying is that he isn’t using the trees to build properties, but using the land after the trees has been cut to build property. I can’t imagine this would fly legally for national forests though.