"Forest thinning" and "fuel reduction" are supposed to reduce wildfire, according to the timber industry. But instead they make our forests more flammable
Thanks for this excellent and informative interview. Hanson shows how complex ecosystems are and how simplistic our understanding is. Here in the northwest, clearcutting is still practiced and almost everything has been turned to plantation. The system is drying out and the salmon are dying and everyone blames CO2, with the elephant in the room, "forest management," left out of the picture.
I feel your pain. No kidding. How do we make change? My passion is to help people with their communication skills. If I succeed, it will result in our message expanding exponentially because more people will be more equipped to carry their preferred message to their chosen community.
This subject was very much discussed at the Embracing Nature's Complexity conference in Munich. Maybe this is something we can discuss in our interview.
We had thousands upon thousands of acres in the Rocky Mountain Region that died of beetle kill. These areas needed to be cut but the USFS had little funding to do the necessary clearances and so the trees were left standing till they rotted.
You never built anything of wood? You never noticed the utility poles that brought lighting and telephone and power to your neighborhood? Even the indigenous here used wood products. Those dead poles if harvested timely make great vigas for traditional adobe homebuilding.
No Hart, from a person schooled also in Forest Ecology and having been a professional forester among other careers over a 40 year period. I never "worked" for the wood products industry.
I can think of a lot of ecological reasons to refrain from cutting down trees dead from beetle kill. I cannot think of any ecological reasons to cut them down. Can you?
Yes. Rather we promote the Archangel Tree Project for carbon sequestration. Redwoods are da bomb!
Also, regarding this year's climate panickers. The Tonga volcano eruption sent a greenhouse gas (water vapor) into the stratosphere. NOAA noted in a paper it provided on line (now scrubbed) that heat increases would occur over a four year period.
Trying to make sense of this. What do you want me to say? Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it seems you’re just here to argue, but without having a clear point.
Till I review his published science and incorporate it I have little to add. I will tell you this though. I was a Group Chairman of a Sierra Club. We were very preservation of our ecosystems minded. My last fight was with a County that wanted to make fracking a permitted activity in our sole source acquifer. Point being the ecosystems were protected for humans.
I was a signatory to the scientists call for a climate emergency. I had spoken in the 1990s with a panel of other scientists Ph.D's. They all couldn't see the proverbial forest for the trees. My stance was any anthroprogenic climate issues were not insurmountable and made my presentation that used their own data to show a 50% or better reduction was feasible without any major need for reindustrialization. In fact the numbers showed most, if not all nuclear power plants could be shuttered as King Salmon and many others that were accidents waiting to happen. Post COP24 I came to realize that science can and is falsified for political purposes and removed my name from sponsoring the document. Why? The Project Drawdown book showed that I was on the right track in the 1990's. Climate change is ongoing and will continue whether forest thinning is stopped or not. And the fearmongering won't solve anything but create opportunity for malinvestment and little opportunity in my opinion for good responses at the household level. The last thing I now want to see is a forcing on the public of a climate health emergency.
Hope that sort of explains where I am coming from. I enjoy living not far from one of the largest riparian cottonwood forests in the nation where I have planted trees that I will never see grow to maturity.
What do you want me to say? How would you like me to respond? Is there a question? If you were wanting a dialogue, there would be a question. If you were trying to be clear or persuasive, you could do that, but that’s not happening.
No, it seems you have an environmentalists agenda. As forester I would identify dead trees needed for wildlife. They were not cut. We stopped most clearcuts a generation ago. As for fire enhancement it really depends on the thinning and clearing and species types.Take Ponderosa for example. It's bark allows for most ground fires to run past the stand and never crowning.
As for "climate change". Just a few thoughts to ponder. Western rainfall is given primarily from k-feldspar dust nuclei. The source is in western China. China is both planting trees in this desert biome and doing petroleum production. Read The Dust Detective, High Country News.
Thanks for this excellent and informative interview. Hanson shows how complex ecosystems are and how simplistic our understanding is. Here in the northwest, clearcutting is still practiced and almost everything has been turned to plantation. The system is drying out and the salmon are dying and everyone blames CO2, with the elephant in the room, "forest management," left out of the picture.
I feel your pain. No kidding. How do we make change? My passion is to help people with their communication skills. If I succeed, it will result in our message expanding exponentially because more people will be more equipped to carry their preferred message to their chosen community.
This subject was very much discussed at the Embracing Nature's Complexity conference in Munich. Maybe this is something we can discuss in our interview.
Absolutely! What subject?
communication.
How can I help?
Could you send me the video file for your interview. I'd like to post about it today. Thanks.
We had thousands upon thousands of acres in the Rocky Mountain Region that died of beetle kill. These areas needed to be cut but the USFS had little funding to do the necessary clearances and so the trees were left standing till they rotted.
What purpose would be served by cutting down the trees?
I don’t think my guest would agree with the need to cut the trees.
You never built anything of wood? You never noticed the utility poles that brought lighting and telephone and power to your neighborhood? Even the indigenous here used wood products. Those dead poles if harvested timely make great vigas for traditional adobe homebuilding.
This sounds like industry talking points.
No Hart, from a person schooled also in Forest Ecology and having been a professional forester among other careers over a 40 year period. I never "worked" for the wood products industry.
I can think of a lot of ecological reasons to refrain from cutting down trees dead from beetle kill. I cannot think of any ecological reasons to cut them down. Can you?
Dead trees are very valuable ecologically.
Have you watched the video yet?
Yes. Rather we promote the Archangel Tree Project for carbon sequestration. Redwoods are da bomb!
Also, regarding this year's climate panickers. The Tonga volcano eruption sent a greenhouse gas (water vapor) into the stratosphere. NOAA noted in a paper it provided on line (now scrubbed) that heat increases would occur over a four year period.
Trying to make sense of this. What do you want me to say? Trying to give you the benefit of the doubt but it seems you’re just here to argue, but without having a clear point.
Till I review his published science and incorporate it I have little to add. I will tell you this though. I was a Group Chairman of a Sierra Club. We were very preservation of our ecosystems minded. My last fight was with a County that wanted to make fracking a permitted activity in our sole source acquifer. Point being the ecosystems were protected for humans.
I was a signatory to the scientists call for a climate emergency. I had spoken in the 1990s with a panel of other scientists Ph.D's. They all couldn't see the proverbial forest for the trees. My stance was any anthroprogenic climate issues were not insurmountable and made my presentation that used their own data to show a 50% or better reduction was feasible without any major need for reindustrialization. In fact the numbers showed most, if not all nuclear power plants could be shuttered as King Salmon and many others that were accidents waiting to happen. Post COP24 I came to realize that science can and is falsified for political purposes and removed my name from sponsoring the document. Why? The Project Drawdown book showed that I was on the right track in the 1990's. Climate change is ongoing and will continue whether forest thinning is stopped or not. And the fearmongering won't solve anything but create opportunity for malinvestment and little opportunity in my opinion for good responses at the household level. The last thing I now want to see is a forcing on the public of a climate health emergency.
Hope that sort of explains where I am coming from. I enjoy living not far from one of the largest riparian cottonwood forests in the nation where I have planted trees that I will never see grow to maturity.
What do you want me to say? How would you like me to respond? Is there a question? If you were wanting a dialogue, there would be a question. If you were trying to be clear or persuasive, you could do that, but that’s not happening.
No, it seems you have an environmentalists agenda. As forester I would identify dead trees needed for wildlife. They were not cut. We stopped most clearcuts a generation ago. As for fire enhancement it really depends on the thinning and clearing and species types.Take Ponderosa for example. It's bark allows for most ground fires to run past the stand and never crowning.
As for "climate change". Just a few thoughts to ponder. Western rainfall is given primarily from k-feldspar dust nuclei. The source is in western China. China is both planting trees in this desert biome and doing petroleum production. Read The Dust Detective, High Country News.