×
  • ×

    Cut a Tree, Prevent Intense Wildfires

    For decades environmentalists have equated saving trees with
    saving the planet. Now Jamie Workman of the Environmental Defense Fund says it’s
    not that simple. Writing for Mother Nature Network(May 23,
    2013), Workman argues that overcrowded forests are in fact a cause of
    pollution.

    If Mother Nature had her way, Workman explains, there would
    only be a few dozen trees per acre, even in forests. The rest would burn in
    occasional wildfires started by lightning (or Native Americans, before
    colonization). Then, the cycle of growth would start over again.

    But from the Rockies to Sierra Nevada,
    the typical forest in today’s American West contains 112 to 172 trees per acre.
    Aside from intercepting rain and snow that would otherwise enter the
    groundwater supply, an overabundance of trees threatens native species.
    “Deprived of low-intensity, naturally occurring fires, aspen, lupine, sequoia
    and fireweed can’t reproduce,” writes Workman. “Deer lose edge habitat.
    Threatened owls and raptors can’t navigate through increasingly dense
    thickets.”

    The problem dates back to 1910, when a series of wildfires
    led to (what else?) a war on forest fires. Policy changes brought us Smokey the
    Bear and a fear of natural fires, eventually leading to too many trees and a
    firefighting tab of $2 billion a year. The cost is high, in part, because when
    a forest fire inevitably starts, all those trees become fuel, causing it to
    burn bigger and hotter than it would’ve 100 years ago. What’s more, writes
    Workman, pollution-wise “a big fire is like setting a coal-fired power plant in
    the middle of a forest.”

    There is a way to prevent these raging forest fires:
    thinning. “We need to surgically remove the bulk of the excess, small-diameter
    ‘trash’ trees,” says Workman. He estimates that the process could pay for
    itself, explaining that for every $1,000 invested by local public or private
    institutions, $1,500 worth of water would re-enter the supply. Done right,
    thinning would mitigate fires, cut carbon emissions, replenish area waterways,
    expand wildlife habitat, and create jobs in rural areas. Looks like saving a
    tree isn’t the right answer every time.

    Published on Aug 2, 2013

    UTNE

    In-depth coverage of eye-opening issues that affect your life.