As a citizen of both California and the planet
Earth, I am very concerned. The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan does not
support or facilitate carbon dioxide sequestration by forests, and
the need for this is more significant than ever. The current plan
not only removes more carbon but also enhances our forests'
flammability and puts people and property at greater
risk.
The preferred "NWL alternative 3" calls for more
forest thinning. The "overgrown forests" narrative, based on
flawed, misleading data tainted by timber industry influence and
unsupported by the research of independent forest ecologists,
drives the push for thinning. Other than when performed within 100
feet of homes and structures for defensible space or for the
maintenance of evacuation routes, the harms of thinning outweigh
the benefits. In wildfires, only roughly 3% of the un-thinned
forest burns. In other words, most thinning only results in more
greenhouse gas emissions than would be created by
wildfires.
Further, the best available data indicates that
fuel reduction does not reduce fire intensity and harms forest
resiliency.
Forest management practices should de-emphasize
thinning. Also, logging techniques that produce dense young
flammable stands of trees should be discouraged. Forest management
practices should support carbon storage rather than detract from it
by:
1.
Increasing the length of plantation
rotation cycles in previously-established industrial tree
farms.
2.
Banning even-aged logging practices
such as clearcutting. It accelerates climate change,
increases wildfire risk, despoils water supplies, destroys
habitats, and contributes to environmental injustice.
3.
Eliminating salvage logging.
Dead (snag) trees store carbon for decades, retain moisture, and
promote biodiversity.
4.
Retaining more mature trees that are
superstars of carbon sequestration.
Lastly, electric utilities should be required to
insulate or underground the bare wires that have caused so many
wildfire catastrophes in recent years rather than removing adjacent
trees that could be sequestering and storing carbon.
In summary, many existing forest management
practices, our current ways of responding to fire, and our
antiquated utility equipment increase carbon dioxide and further
endanger us all. Instead, California should protect intact and
mature biodiverse forests, stop unnecessary and harmful thinning of
forests, prohibit salvage logging, ban the most harmful logging
practices and decry the removal of trees by electric utilities.
California should promote forest management practices that
sequester more carbon to protect ourselves and our planet better.
As a citizen of both California and the planet
Earth, I am very concerned. The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan does
not support or facilitate sequestration of carbon dioxide by
forests andAs a citizen of both California and the planet
Earth, I am very concerned. The Draft 2022 Scoping Plan does not
support or facilitate carbon dioxide sequestration by forests, and
the need for this is more significant than ever. The current plan
not only removes more carbon but also enhances our forests'
flammability and puts people and property at greater risk.
The preferred "NWL alternative 3" calls for more
forest thinning. An "overgrown forests" narrative, based on flawed,
misleading data tainted by timber industry influence and
unsupported by the research of independent forest ecologists,
drives the push for thinning. Other than when performed within 100
feet of homes and structures for defensible space or the
maintenance of evacuation routes, the harms of thinning outweigh
the benefits. In wildfires, only roughly 3% of the un-thinned
forest burns. In other words, most thinning only results in more
greenhouse gas emissions than would be created by wildfires.
Further, the best available data indicates that fuel
reduction does not reduce fire intensity and harms forest
resiliency.
Forest management practices should de-emphasize
thinning. Also, logging techniques that produce dense young
flammable stands of trees should be discouraged. Forest management
practices should support carbon storage rather than detract from it
by:
1.
Increasing the length of plantation rotation cycles in
previously-established industrial trees farms,
2.
Banning even-aged logging practices such as clearcutting. It
accelerates climate change, increases wildfire risk, despoils water
supplies, destroys habitats, and contributes to environmental
injustice.
3.
Eliminating salvage logging. Dead (snag) trees store carbon for
decades, retain moisture and provide habitats for specific
wildlife.
4.
Retaining more mature trees that are the superstars of carbon
sequestration.
Lastly, electric utilities should be required to
insulate or underground the bare wires that have caused so many
wildfire catastrophes in recent years rather than removing adjacent
trees that could be sequestering and storing carbon.
In summary, many existing forest management practices,
our current ways of responding to fire, and our antiquated utility
equipment increase carbon dioxide and further endanger us all.
Instead, California should protect intact and mature biodiverse
forests, stop unnecessary and harmful thinning of forests, prohibit
salvage logging, ban the most harmful logging practices and decry
the removal of trees by electric utilities. California should
promote forest management practices that sequester more carbon to
protect ourselves and our planet better. enhances the
flammability or our forests and puts people and property at greater
risk.
The preferred “NWL alternative 3”
calls for more forest thinning. An “overgrown
forests” narrative based on flawed, misleading
data that is tainted by timber industry influence and
unsubstantiated by the research of independent forest ecologists
drives the push for thinning. However, other than when performed
within 100 feet of homes and structures for defensible-space, the
harms outweigh the benefits. In wildfires, only roughly 3% of
un-thinned forest is burned. In other words, most thinning only
results in more greenhouse gas emissions.
Further, the best available data indicates, fuel
reduction does not reduce fire intensity and harms improve forest
resiliency.
Forest management practices should de-emphasize
thinning. Also, practices that produce dense young flammable
stands of trees should be discouraged. Forest management
practices should support carbon storage rather than detract from it
by:
1.
Increasing the length of plantation
rotation cycles in previously-established industrial trees
farms,
2.
Banning even-aged logging practices
such as clearcutting. It accelerates climate change,
increases wildfire risk, despoils water supplies, destroys habitats
and, contributes to environmental injustice.
3.
Eliminating salvage logging. Dead (snag)
trees store carbon for decades, retain moisture and, provide
habitats for specific wildlife.
4.
Retaining more mature trees that are the
superstars of carbon sequestration.
Lastly, electric utilities should be required to
insulate or underground the bare wires that have caused so many
wildfire catastrophes in recent years rather than removing adjacent
trees that could be sequestering and storing carbon.
In summary,
many existing forest management practices as well as our current
ways of responding to fire and antiquated utility equipment
increase carbon dioxide and further endanger us all. Instead,
California should protect intact and mature biodiverse forests,
stop thinning forests, prohibit salvage logging, ban the most
harmful logging practices and decry the removal of trees by
electric utilities. California should promote forest management
practices that sequester more carbon.