The issue was summarized by the Western Governors’ Association in their 2006 Biomass Task Force Report which noted:
…over time the fire-prone forests that were not thinned, burn in uncharacteristically destructive wildfires, and the resulting loss of forest carbon is much greater than would occur if the forest had been thinned before fire moved through. …failing to thin leads to a greater greenhouse gas burden than the thinning created in the first place, and that doesn’t even account for the avoided fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions due to the production of energy from the forest thinnings. In the long term, leaving forests overgrown and prone to unnaturally destructive wildfires means there will be significantly less biomass on the ground, and more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Of course not. Many reasons, not thinning forests, people moving into forests without adequate technology/plan to keep their house safe and their brushes trimmed, pg & e having 3rd world nation power lines (enriching themselves and their employees while letting everything else go to shit), a wet winter (which is good) causing more growth => more shrubs to burn if forest service isn't proactive, etc. etc. Climate change isn't one of them.
patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,190,216 comments by 13,855 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President online now