A serious climate opportunity

For years, politicians have waged war on coal, stifled oil and gas production, and advocated carbon taxes and other extreme measures to reduce carbon dioxide, while ignoring one of the most important things they could do to help.

It reminds me of my own lifelong battle with weight and the associated health issues. I get so frustrated that I sometimes swear I would do anything – anything! – to lose weight. Well, anything except eat less and exercise. But anything else.

That same kind of hypocrisy surrounds rants about our carbon dioxide emissions. Even people who are “deeply concerned” about dangerous manmade climate change drive cars, heat their homes, and sometimes even turn on lights. They embrace modern living standards, while also embracing faddish environmental claims and policies that contribute mightily to problems they insist disturb them greatly.

A popular bumper sticker screams, “TREES ARE THE ANSWER.” Yet when it comes to managing our national forests, many of those same advocates look away, while millions of acres of once healthy trees die, fall down, rot or burn up.

It’s ironic, because those forests provide the world’s greatest resource for cleaning carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere; because the rotting and fires themselves emit greenhouse gases; and because atmospheric carbon dioxide makes all plants grow faster and better and with improved tolerance to drought.

As Colorado State Forester Mike Lester testified recently before a state legislative committee, “When so many trees die and large wildfires follow, our forests quickly turn from a carbon sink into a carbon source.” Trees absorb carbon dioxide as people absorb oxygen, and that balance is critical to sustaining life, as we all learned in grade school.

Yet instead of doing everything in our power to make sure we have abundant thriving forests of healthy trees, we allow them to die and burn and thus belch millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air.

Lester’s excellent testimony accompanied the release of the Colorado State Forest Service’s annual Report on the Health of Colorado Forests. This year’s assessment is the worst ever, and hardly anybody noticed. There was no outcry from global warming alarmists around the world, as there should have been. In fact, their silence on this issue is deafening. And it’s not just Colorado. It’s every state, and beyond.

The more concerned people are about climate change, the more they should be interested in active management to restore forest health. Yet many of the groups pushing urgent climate policies are the same groups that continue to fight logging, tree thinning and other management necessary for healthy forests. The result is more of the same disasters we have seen unfolding for over 20 years: dead and dying forests, catastrophic wildfires, habitat devastation, loss of human property and lives, and destruction of wildlife.

The new forest health report shows that over the last seven years, the number of dead standing trees in Colorado forests increased almost 30 percent, to an estimated 834 million dead trees. There are billions across the other Rocky Mountain States.

The report makes clear that this continuing trend of tree mortality can lead to large, intense wildfires that totally incinerate and obliterate forests, soils and wildlife. In fact, it is only a matter of time before this happens, if the U.S. Forest Service does not act.

Ironically, the most productive forest health restoration projects in Colorado have been partnerships of the State Forester with water providers like Denver Water, Northern Water Conservancy District and Colorado Springs Utilities. That’s because 80 percent of Colorado’s population depends on water that comes from the national forests.

However, the U.S. Forest Service, which owns almost all of the forestland in the State, continues to work with its hands tied behind its back, its timber programs woefully underfunded and vast sums syphoned off every year for fire suppression. Fire control ought to be funded separately, so that active management of healthy forests is not the perpetually lowest priority.

The Forest Service spends a fortune on planning, writing reports, and defending itself against environmental lawsuits, leaving few funds for what it is really supposed to be doing.

What a golden opportunity for the new Congress and Trump Administration. Reversing this demoralizing trend would restore forests, protect and increase wildlife, bring back thousands of forest products jobs, revitalize rural economies, and do more to reduce carbon dioxide than any previous policy.

The previous Administration created the Office of Sustainability and Climate Change, and Regional Climate Change Hubs, maintained a Climate Change Adaptation Library, mapped drought frequency and intensity, and created massive reports blaming humans for climate change. One study was a vulnerability assessment for the Southwest and California, titled “Southwest Regional Climate Hub and Climate Subsidiary Hub Assessment of Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies.”

All this activity is impressive, and scientific study will always play a role. But none of it actually affects climate change. Growing healthy trees would. Can we get back to that?

Or like me and my weight problem, are we willing to do anything to address climate change and improve our forests and wildlife habitats, except the one thing that might help the most?

Greg Walcher is president of the Natural Resources Group and author of “Smoking Them Out: The Theft of the Environment and How to Take it Back.” He is a former secretary of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources.

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    I’d like to see something done for the forests as well. However it would be hard, risky work requiring armies of ambitious people. Think of a forest as a garden. Clean it up but it won’t stay that way. Also, the Sierra Club doesn’t want anyone meddling with nature (ban firebreaks!) The Warmists might say that wood is renewable (unless it’s the Amazon rain forest) and their main goal is to hijack fossil fuels to fund socialist causes. That would be a miracle.

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    The trouble is that the far-left believes that EVERYTHING works better when they’re in control…Even nature. They believe that they alone can write and interpret all science. They also believe that they can force economics to obey their every command, as if they were maestro conductors of a billion piece orchestra. The hubris is absurd.

    Leftists are certain they can rewrite the laws of nature, science, and economics to validate and empower their far-flung agendas. However, scientific and economic laws are stubborn things, not suited for human manipulation.

    NASA once built a research fighter jet, the X-29, that had reverse-forward swept wings. The correct theory was that such a configuration would make the jet extremely maneuverable, but the trade-off was that the jet defied the laws of aerodynamic stability, and without constant control inputs (thousands per second) from an on-board super computer, the aircraft would disintegrate in flight in less than two seconds if the computer malfunctioned.

    Leftists are essentially telling us that THEY are qualified to defy the laws of science and economics, and that collectively THEY can be the enlightened mega-super-computer that oversees every action to achieve their desired results.

    My experience is that leftists have difficulty organizing a one-car funeral procession, so choose wisely.

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      Mixing egotism with enthusiasm can get expensive. Other people’s money gets recycled through the Big Bright Green Recycling Machine.

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    The author seems to have brought into the climate change fraud. He is dead wrong there. We have no need to control carbon dioxide. However, I agree that healthy forests are important.

    The author missed one of the big problems that is destroying forests. That is to cut them down to make way for new developments. It seems as if the developers own county governments and can get anything they want.

    A more fundamental cause is the market for new developments is being driven by an expanding population. This is caused by immigration which this country should have stopped decades ago.

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    My neighbor destroys trees for a living. He showed me a video of his pride and joy , a giant chipper being fed whole trees by an excavator. Making room for a new subdivision. My first thought was more urban heat, less shade.

Comments are closed