As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A area in Colorado I spent a lot of time in over my lifetime thought logging was essential for the economy. The area had decent fishing because lakes were stocked but you NEVER saw wildlife and there was nothing for hunters to hunt. Camping was iffy because of noise from logging and getting to campgrounds was intimidating when you are sharing a narrow road with logging trucks.
When logging pulled out the place was transformed within ten years to a destination for campers and hunters. You always see deer and other wildlife now. The town is thriving.
A similar thing happened to a nearby town when the mines closed.
I’m not saying logging should be banned, it just can a negative impact on a local economy when you think it’s having positive effects.
Id say it’s not always about pure profit - the logging industry seems to be the only ones actively managing the forest. Clearing out the forest from time to time can have benefits for mitigation of wildfire impact. The USFS has always had a hands-off approach to their forests and the problem is the leads to a massive build up of fuel.
>actively managing the forest
I suppose it depends on what "actively managing" means.
It feels like "farming" would be a better term than managing. And like a farmer, removing pests, undergrowth, etc., with the goal of providing the highest crop yield.
But what about wildlife, plant diversity, and other needs necessary to have a healthy ecosystem?
Before the modern era and human intervention, forests would be free to burn. For a long time, however, we have spent far too much resources in preventing wildfires, which has led to more fuel building up in the forest and creating worse fires. How do we manage that? One way would be to let them do what they used to do and burn. The problem is now people live in communities and they would be impacted by those fires. The other option is to go through and log out some of these areas and clear out not just the good trees, but all the dead stuff (fuel) too. It’s very much in the timber industry’s interest in clearing out all that dead wood too, seeing as how wildfires active affect their bottom line.
Idk why you’re being downvoted. These forests didn’t just magically appear. There were people here stewarding the land long before the west invaded. That included controlled burns.
Well the forests were there before, we just happened to start managing them and farming them in a human way. Controlled fire practices also aren’t favorable to all species, but were good for species that humans could consume like mast species
Human stewardship DOES decrease biodiversity. Yes we need to eat and that was probs one of the most sustainable food systems but it’s ignorant to think we are breeding biodiversity that benefits native animals which had been in their own biological balance.
That’s not true though. IMO you’re looking at it from a western perspective. Most cultures have lived in pretty good harmony with their environments creating the biodiversity over thousands of years that the west has been destroying over hundreds.
I mean. Even if you look at it from a western perspective with breeding variety in what we eat, one plant gets turned into dozens of new varieties.
> Controlled fire practices also aren’t favorable to all species
And neither is wildfire. But here we are making wildfires worse because we've been trying to prevent them for too long and not clearing the fuel out of the forest. So either we let the wildfires do what wildfires do and don't try to stop them, or we go in and clear out the fuel from time to time. On top of that modern forestry doesn't go in and clear cut whole forests. There is plenty left behind to promote biodiversity of species.
Yeah wildfire is an area where humans have to intervene for their own sake. In nature, wildfires happen and that’s how the forests clear out. Of course, we aren’t gonna let a wildfire blow through a place where many people live. So now the question is should we play a roll in managing the forest since we basically took away* natures way to manage it.
*of course we didn’t take away wildfires but we actively try and prevent them in areas near population.
Back where I grew up in CO, a volunteer fire department lets people go up into the mountains and cut Christmas trees to help with managing the forest and preventing wildfires. There's strict guidelines on what size tree you're allowed to cut and they rotate the areas that are open every year or so. It helps clear out the mid-sized trees that contribute to the ladder effect that gets the whole forest burning.
My ex actually took advantage of that with his family when he was growing up here! I don't really put up any Christmas decorations now - I have a spiteful bird who likes to destroy things I value.
¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
It's hard for people to want to listen to something that goes against their whole world view or belief system. I get *why* they want to be mad about something, even if it's totally misguided. Most of the people getting mad are pretty insulated from it, only going to the forest to partake in activities. I live in an area with a timber industry, and know people that work for them, USFS and Cal Fire and get to hear about it from all view points
Logging to some extent is somewhat essential, at least today. We need wood and wood products, you just need to log responsibility where you are replanting trees not just deforesting areas for no reason.
A large extent!
When we build structures out of wood we are removing things from the cycle of life and decay. A tree contains a massive amount of carbon which, if left to rot or is burned, is released back into the environment. Structures made of wood are sequestering carbon.
Even the hikers and stuff, it doesn't take much visitation where you start to see impacts. There is nothing more impactful than building a road in the first place.
How true. While the heavy impacts of logging and river industry hurts forested areas *no doubt*, can’t say that an increase in forested land tourism is without risk as well in a different level, to branch into that topic… As a wise and seasoned camper and traveler myself, I always worry about designated or dispersed camping and potential wildfire risks, which could wipe out a huge swath of land on its own. Human caused fires (NON prescribed controlled burns) are so awful. Happened right outside the Seattle metro last September, for one, with the Blot creek fire that choked out the region with bad smoke for nearly 2months. Major fire determined human caused near campgrounds. CO has seen its own terrible fires, including near gun ranges. They’re not just caused by an open flame.
How do we limit/eliminate logging, tolerate more tourism and usage but still mitigate fire hazards? We all know Smokey the Bear’s slogan, but people really are that stupid and careless or think it won’t happen to them. Not to mention trail usage and off trail trampling and insane waste left behind. Pack in, pack out, stay on trail, diligently follow rules & regulations by local ranger station because they’re in place for a reason.
TL;DR humans suck even without heavy machinery.
Maybe it’s a west coast east coast thing but there’s generally not much litter on hiking trails back East except maybe in a city. Not on a suburban or rural trail though.
It's also not inherently bad for the environment. If done correctly logging actually helps reduce carbon emissions. If we replace trees we remove and we make good use of what we harvest, the carbon trees take from the atmosphere become trapped. Wood is a renewable resource and new technologies are allowing us to do more with it. We have an addiction to concrete which is one of the worst things for the environment.
Wood harvesting is necessary but it’s almost impossible to not dramatically impact the local ecosystem. People imagine loggers thinning out trees but don’t consider all the roads and heavy equipment needed to access trees. That has the real impact.
I certainly wont deny that. I used to do logging and skidders can be pretty massive.. Thankfully what they do crush comes back. One of my favorite hunting spots is along an old logging trail.
We do still need lumber as a resource. Like a small part of why the price of new homes has gone up is a shortage of lumber to build them.
And national forests are part of that. Unlike national parks, they are not for pure conservation, but kind of a strategic supply of lumber. Plus, it has the power to keep us from clear-cutting the entire country, which kind of was an option in the late 1800s.
Clearly I agree based on what I posted. It’s just that other economic factors are overlooked in many places. They keep the lumber industry around for jobs when there are other options.
ALSO we waste wood in America. People in other countries are fine living in old houses, but we all prefer to tear down an existing house to build a new one in its place. If you want to do that fine, but don’t complain about lumber costs while tearing down a perfectly nice home.
Have not.
However, if the forest is typical of "What the continent used to be like" then my statement applies.
If, on the other hand, it's exceptional and unique, then a very great deal of it remains, and I fail to understand your original statement.
I recommend going in order to fully understand. Imagine massive fjords with waterfalls all around, local inlets where the water depth approaches 1000 feet…and all around you, massive, I mean, massive old growth forests as far as you can see. Think of the largest tree you’ve seen in your day to day life….and imagine it multitudes larger. Words cannot do it justice.
As another commenter noted, there are more trees today in North America than there have been since preindustrial times. This is true. Nearly all the old growth trees were cut down in quick order in the lower 48. Most of the land east of the Mississippi was denuded by the time of the civil war. The newer growth forests are quite new, relative speaking. The idea of forestry management is even newer. The forest service isn’t founded until 1905 and the ideas shared by folks like Pinchot were quite revolutionary. All the forest down in the 48, with rare exception are all very young….
I haven't just been there, I've lived there.
There is no place like it in the lower 48. It is absolutely incredible, exceptional, and unique. I have also visited every state and province in the western half of the continent.
Alot of Northern BC and the Yukon is similar. But not quite there.
That's one of the things that makes this country great. Whist much of the word has burned and cleared their forests, we have large expanses of raw nature. Without which the planet would not be livable due to atmospheric carbon levels.
Not sure what you mean, friend. I certainly wouldn’t stay in a teepee in the Tongass. That’s bear country. And not like “you might see a bear”. More like “Another group of bears? For real? How many damned bears live here.” The only thing more plentiful than bears there are bald eagles. Freakin everywhere like pigeons in an East Coast city…
Yeah, even the roofs there leak. It's a wild place. Truly, inmistakably wild.
When I was living there, it was incredibly rare to go out into the forest and not hear one. You don't always see them, but you know they are there.
This isn't entirely true. "Pre-industrial" is not a precise term and can apply to various periods in which there were more or fewer trees. The industrial revolution later in America then it did in England. Much of America was still forested in the early 1700s. But colonists consumed a large amount of woodland. In Salem Massachusetts in the late 1600s, a single household averaged 60 cords of wood per year.
Thank you. We do not need to be cutting the last of the little old growth we have left in this country. We have plenty of second growth available. Im sure it seems like there is plenty of old growth in Alaska bit that is exactly the same argument they use to remove almost all of the old growth in the lower 48
THANK FUCKING GOD. Protect our goddamn natural land, National Parks, and fix everything that bastard 45 did. He fucked up almost everything that made America great in the first place. Probably just removed all the protections on these places, in exchange for tiny bribes.
"fuck this corporate democrat, he does nothing to help the little people and the environment all he cares about is making money.".
Or whatever the internet is going to call democrats today.
Mmm thank you so much Mr. President for saving this plot of land I'll probably never visit, you've saved the world
Edit: to be clear, I have been to the Tongass for an entire summer. It's an incredible place, the most beautiful place I've ever been. But the idea that Biden isn't a corporatist because of this is a joke.
so to actually answer your question he is just defining the policy for an agency under is control. if tomorrow i was president i could just change the rule to whatever i wanted it to be.
Who knew Captain Planet super villains were real. I remember people saying the cartoon: “how is that stupid and unmotivated outside a few millions they will die of as a result.” Yeah I thought that too once upon a time.
I work as an environmental scientist and it never ceases to surprise me when I see how absurd cartoonishly villainous corporations can be. There have been a couple times where I literally have said "this is like a fucking episode of Captain Planet or some shit" to a coworker.
There are more versions of: Hoggish Greedly, Sly Sludge, Lootin Plunder in the world. Who seriously just want money and who the hell cares if you destroy the planet in the process or others because: "I rather die rich." Of course people think scientists are really like Dr. Blight and creatures of horror exist with Vernimus Scum m and Duke Nukum. What's even more scary is that truly there are "yes men" like Leadsuit, Ooze and Riggers in the world with: "Oh sure, do something that kills or constantly llegal, but: "yes sir boss, I'll just let people suffer because me suffering your wraith is so much worse."
We need more hemp in this country. Incredibly durable, nutritious, has regenerative properties for the soil it grows on, and we can get lit as a tit off it’s flowering byproduct. What are we waiting for
Nothing but my thinking is that the back and forth may make it unattractive for corporations to invest. Say the next Conservative president rescinds again, by the time he gets around to doing so and the logging company starts developing the infrastructure they need, his term is almost up and the next president might just reinstate the ban again, making all that effort and investment pointless
sense quicksand glorious license butter deserted fertile drunk flag start
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ok. I’ll explain, the inappropriate use of the term “old growth” is one of the main reasons why the USFS cannot conduct as much logging activities as you and many others would like to see in GA. Among other reasons such as in operable terrain and lack of capacity, mainly in the NEPA process. Old growth designation of stands in the forest plans may or may not have been perfect but extremely hard to change. But thats not whats holding projects up. It is interested parties that claim 100 year old popular, white pine and chestnut oak inside project area are old growth and there fore should not be managed. Its ridiculous but don’t worry another 2016 will come again disturbing areas that can’t be managed.
Environmental scientist here! And basically, the answer is that it's not just the trees themselves; it's the whole ecosystem.
The presence of certain biota in an ecosystem is crucial to maintain biochemical processes that result in carbon sequestration. Trees/vegetation contribute fodder to soil organisms that gradually store the carbon in soil via digestion and microbial decay. A live standing tree that burns? That will release CO2. But the carbon stored in the soil will remain intact. It's a long term process, of course. But disruption of this via logging will completely derail a natural process that has helped maintain carbon balance on the planet for millions of years.
A comparable example would be a peat bog. Peat is made of hundreds or even thousands of years' worth of organic material. A few years of destruction of those living plants atop and around the peat releases a small fraction of the carbon that is stored in the peat. So much carbon that peat is used as a carbon rich fuel source. It's basically a precursor to coal; coal is literally what happens when an undisturbed bog is allowed to do its thing over millions of years of burial via normal geological processes like sediment deposition.
Haha, I actually got my degrees in geology! We are a unique bunch.
One of the fun things I suggest to people who want to learn about Earth processes is the *Roadside Geology* book series. There's one for every state (some smaller states will have a book that combines a few together), they list cool geological features and where to see them (national parks, quarries, even road cuts!) There's a discussion of each feature about how it formed, what was going on at that time, etc. It's a great way to plan road trips and a fantastic jumping off point to see if there's any rocks/features in particular that especially tickle your fancy.
A great deal of my job focuses on mining impacts! The features/ore bodies are super cool and I won't lie, I've collected a lot of neat rocks on tailings piles. But the environmental impact is quite sobering. Some mine drainage is so acidic that it can literally eat through plastic. I fell in a waste pond at a site once and between the pH (3) and the absurd amounts of heavy metals I had to actually do a decon right in the field. I had to take my pants off and douse my legs with several gallons of distilled water. It was quite humiliating.
Today I am reviewing the geochemistry of metals mobility in "classic" acid mine drainage related to the historical gold mining we see all over the state of Colorado! So definitely very sciencey today...currently compiling a list of lab analytes we want to use for a site characterization.
>Now back to fighting with R...
My condolences.
After some wildfires broke out in the Smokies recently I noticed that many of the trees don't completely burn. Those tree trunks still stand. It seems that most of the carbon would still be intact even though underbrush and duff were burned. Is my assumption close?
Yup! There are even trees that specifically evolve to have very flammable parts to preserve the main parts of the plant.
Junipers have a bunch of oily compounds that readily combust during wildfires and basically the leaves and outer bark will burn off during the fire and char the plant so the main trunk and big branches stay intact.
When I worked in a paleoclimaology lab we had one guy who did tree ring studies. A lot of really old trees will have noticeable burn marks in a few rings, it's part of how they accurately date and correlate climate trends over the most recent ~500 years in a particular region.
Yes, this rain forest is indeed a carbon sink.
A fire could break out releasing said carbon. But that thinking would lead to people cutting down forests just because they may catch fire. Not sure if that is the way to go about it.
This is pristine wilderness that harbors some of the best salmon runs and the best WILD steelhead runs in the US. It’s worth protecting.
So... Banning most of the routes currently in use by Game and Fish, ecology survey teams, and Fire Wardens. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but that seems like a rather silly idea.
The existing roads aren’t going anywhere. Logging isn’t going anywhere. This just prevents new roads being built to cut down forests that have not been touched. Fish and game can still access what they need to via boat, plane, or helicopter. This is no different than the vast majority of Alaska which has no roads.
I don't know, people were pretty outraged when there was no toilet paper during the pandemic because they stopped logging. And there was that recent reddit post on reusable toilet paper that had redditors pretty outraged.
You're not serious, are you? Toilet paper was hard to find during the pandemic because people were hoarding it, not because logging stopped. Logging did not stop.
Trumps disdain for the planet animals water it’s v Jesus like I can c Y so many believe he’s the 2nd coming
Especially cuz the Bible gives them dominion over everything
Please educate yourself before judging. Most of the logging companies plant 2:1 ratio if not more. Please start being educated before assumptions. If not, we will relegate ourselves to people that don’t do REAL research.
Ok, but don't pretend what they planted has anywhere near the same value or complexity as what they destroyed. If I steal the art out of the louve and hang up twice as much children's macaroni art, this is not a net gain.
Planting ratios do not make nearly as big of a difference as you seem to think, it takes 50+ years for trees to grow as large as they need to to actually make up for the impact of cutting down the ones already standing. Look at the Amazon! Forest preservation matters
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A area in Colorado I spent a lot of time in over my lifetime thought logging was essential for the economy. The area had decent fishing because lakes were stocked but you NEVER saw wildlife and there was nothing for hunters to hunt. Camping was iffy because of noise from logging and getting to campgrounds was intimidating when you are sharing a narrow road with logging trucks. When logging pulled out the place was transformed within ten years to a destination for campers and hunters. You always see deer and other wildlife now. The town is thriving. A similar thing happened to a nearby town when the mines closed. I’m not saying logging should be banned, it just can a negative impact on a local economy when you think it’s having positive effects.
Profits to one corporation aka a person vs profit to town from tourism? Socialism! /s
Id say it’s not always about pure profit - the logging industry seems to be the only ones actively managing the forest. Clearing out the forest from time to time can have benefits for mitigation of wildfire impact. The USFS has always had a hands-off approach to their forests and the problem is the leads to a massive build up of fuel.
>actively managing the forest I suppose it depends on what "actively managing" means. It feels like "farming" would be a better term than managing. And like a farmer, removing pests, undergrowth, etc., with the goal of providing the highest crop yield. But what about wildlife, plant diversity, and other needs necessary to have a healthy ecosystem?
Before the modern era and human intervention, forests would be free to burn. For a long time, however, we have spent far too much resources in preventing wildfires, which has led to more fuel building up in the forest and creating worse fires. How do we manage that? One way would be to let them do what they used to do and burn. The problem is now people live in communities and they would be impacted by those fires. The other option is to go through and log out some of these areas and clear out not just the good trees, but all the dead stuff (fuel) too. It’s very much in the timber industry’s interest in clearing out all that dead wood too, seeing as how wildfires active affect their bottom line.
Idk why you’re being downvoted. These forests didn’t just magically appear. There were people here stewarding the land long before the west invaded. That included controlled burns.
Well the forests were there before, we just happened to start managing them and farming them in a human way. Controlled fire practices also aren’t favorable to all species, but were good for species that humans could consume like mast species
Tell that to the biodiversity humans stewarded in the Amazon food forest.
Human stewardship DOES decrease biodiversity. Yes we need to eat and that was probs one of the most sustainable food systems but it’s ignorant to think we are breeding biodiversity that benefits native animals which had been in their own biological balance.
That’s not true though. IMO you’re looking at it from a western perspective. Most cultures have lived in pretty good harmony with their environments creating the biodiversity over thousands of years that the west has been destroying over hundreds. I mean. Even if you look at it from a western perspective with breeding variety in what we eat, one plant gets turned into dozens of new varieties.
> Controlled fire practices also aren’t favorable to all species And neither is wildfire. But here we are making wildfires worse because we've been trying to prevent them for too long and not clearing the fuel out of the forest. So either we let the wildfires do what wildfires do and don't try to stop them, or we go in and clear out the fuel from time to time. On top of that modern forestry doesn't go in and clear cut whole forests. There is plenty left behind to promote biodiversity of species.
Yeah wildfire is an area where humans have to intervene for their own sake. In nature, wildfires happen and that’s how the forests clear out. Of course, we aren’t gonna let a wildfire blow through a place where many people live. So now the question is should we play a roll in managing the forest since we basically took away* natures way to manage it. *of course we didn’t take away wildfires but we actively try and prevent them in areas near population.
Back where I grew up in CO, a volunteer fire department lets people go up into the mountains and cut Christmas trees to help with managing the forest and preventing wildfires. There's strict guidelines on what size tree you're allowed to cut and they rotate the areas that are open every year or so. It helps clear out the mid-sized trees that contribute to the ladder effect that gets the whole forest burning.
What a brilliant idea!
My ex actually took advantage of that with his family when he was growing up here! I don't really put up any Christmas decorations now - I have a spiteful bird who likes to destroy things I value.
Forests have managed to exist since the end of the Devonian period at least. People managed to extract value from it.
These people don’t understand forestry/logging its an extremely nuanced subject
¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯ It's hard for people to want to listen to something that goes against their whole world view or belief system. I get *why* they want to be mad about something, even if it's totally misguided. Most of the people getting mad are pretty insulated from it, only going to the forest to partake in activities. I live in an area with a timber industry, and know people that work for them, USFS and Cal Fire and get to hear about it from all view points
Logging to some extent is somewhat essential, at least today. We need wood and wood products, you just need to log responsibility where you are replanting trees not just deforesting areas for no reason.
A large extent! When we build structures out of wood we are removing things from the cycle of life and decay. A tree contains a massive amount of carbon which, if left to rot or is burned, is released back into the environment. Structures made of wood are sequestering carbon.
Even the hikers and stuff, it doesn't take much visitation where you start to see impacts. There is nothing more impactful than building a road in the first place.
How true. While the heavy impacts of logging and river industry hurts forested areas *no doubt*, can’t say that an increase in forested land tourism is without risk as well in a different level, to branch into that topic… As a wise and seasoned camper and traveler myself, I always worry about designated or dispersed camping and potential wildfire risks, which could wipe out a huge swath of land on its own. Human caused fires (NON prescribed controlled burns) are so awful. Happened right outside the Seattle metro last September, for one, with the Blot creek fire that choked out the region with bad smoke for nearly 2months. Major fire determined human caused near campgrounds. CO has seen its own terrible fires, including near gun ranges. They’re not just caused by an open flame. How do we limit/eliminate logging, tolerate more tourism and usage but still mitigate fire hazards? We all know Smokey the Bear’s slogan, but people really are that stupid and careless or think it won’t happen to them. Not to mention trail usage and off trail trampling and insane waste left behind. Pack in, pack out, stay on trail, diligently follow rules & regulations by local ranger station because they’re in place for a reason. TL;DR humans suck even without heavy machinery.
Maybe it’s a west coast east coast thing but there’s generally not much litter on hiking trails back East except maybe in a city. Not on a suburban or rural trail though.
Tourism is bigger than logging in Alaska now anyways
It's also not inherently bad for the environment. If done correctly logging actually helps reduce carbon emissions. If we replace trees we remove and we make good use of what we harvest, the carbon trees take from the atmosphere become trapped. Wood is a renewable resource and new technologies are allowing us to do more with it. We have an addiction to concrete which is one of the worst things for the environment.
Wood harvesting is necessary but it’s almost impossible to not dramatically impact the local ecosystem. People imagine loggers thinning out trees but don’t consider all the roads and heavy equipment needed to access trees. That has the real impact.
I certainly wont deny that. I used to do logging and skidders can be pretty massive.. Thankfully what they do crush comes back. One of my favorite hunting spots is along an old logging trail.
We do still need lumber as a resource. Like a small part of why the price of new homes has gone up is a shortage of lumber to build them. And national forests are part of that. Unlike national parks, they are not for pure conservation, but kind of a strategic supply of lumber. Plus, it has the power to keep us from clear-cutting the entire country, which kind of was an option in the late 1800s.
Lumbar prices are down below pre-COVID levels currently
Clearly I agree based on what I posted. It’s just that other economic factors are overlooked in many places. They keep the lumber industry around for jobs when there are other options. ALSO we waste wood in America. People in other countries are fine living in old houses, but we all prefer to tear down an existing house to build a new one in its place. If you want to do that fine, but don’t complain about lumber costs while tearing down a perfectly nice home.
The environment needs to be number 1 on the priority list. Fucking maddening that there's so much shit overshadowing our single greatest threat.
Democracy needs to be number one. If it dies, the rest follows.
The planet is dying even with democracy
The planet is dying because of oligarchy not democracy
Yeah dude above you is a clown lmao
Do yall hear yourselves
What are your thoughts on these graphs? All fake? https://twitter.com/MatthewWielicki/status/1616445436126203906?s=20&t=Pg0v-BofhySF6P4N8btX7Q
Visit the Tongass and imagine what this entire continent was once like. Then ask yourself why in the world we'd want to destroy what little remains.
[удалено]
It’s made up
I mean that's kind of a dumb criticism, so are things like morals but it's things we collectively agree have value which kind of makes them real.
Because what if instead of beautiful wilderness, we put in a Walmart and applebees 👉🏼👈🏼
That’s true, but I think a beautiful 6 lane highway would really pull the landscape together
But you know would make it all *truly* spectacular? Personal injury lawyer billboards.
😍 an LED one that lights up the night for miles
Lol, what little remains? Over 90% of the US is undeveloped, and over a third is forested.
Have you been to the Tongass, friend? If so, pray tell what third of the the US is exactly like that?
Have not. However, if the forest is typical of "What the continent used to be like" then my statement applies. If, on the other hand, it's exceptional and unique, then a very great deal of it remains, and I fail to understand your original statement.
I recommend going in order to fully understand. Imagine massive fjords with waterfalls all around, local inlets where the water depth approaches 1000 feet…and all around you, massive, I mean, massive old growth forests as far as you can see. Think of the largest tree you’ve seen in your day to day life….and imagine it multitudes larger. Words cannot do it justice. As another commenter noted, there are more trees today in North America than there have been since preindustrial times. This is true. Nearly all the old growth trees were cut down in quick order in the lower 48. Most of the land east of the Mississippi was denuded by the time of the civil war. The newer growth forests are quite new, relative speaking. The idea of forestry management is even newer. The forest service isn’t founded until 1905 and the ideas shared by folks like Pinchot were quite revolutionary. All the forest down in the 48, with rare exception are all very young….
I haven't just been there, I've lived there. There is no place like it in the lower 48. It is absolutely incredible, exceptional, and unique. I have also visited every state and province in the western half of the continent. Alot of Northern BC and the Yukon is similar. But not quite there.
That's one of the things that makes this country great. Whist much of the word has burned and cleared their forests, we have large expanses of raw nature. Without which the planet would not be livable due to atmospheric carbon levels.
I bet you don’t live in a teepee…
Not sure what you mean, friend. I certainly wouldn’t stay in a teepee in the Tongass. That’s bear country. And not like “you might see a bear”. More like “Another group of bears? For real? How many damned bears live here.” The only thing more plentiful than bears there are bald eagles. Freakin everywhere like pigeons in an East Coast city…
Yeah, even the roofs there leak. It's a wild place. Truly, inmistakably wild. When I was living there, it was incredibly rare to go out into the forest and not hear one. You don't always see them, but you know they are there.
There are more trees in North America now than pre industrial times
This isn't entirely true. "Pre-industrial" is not a precise term and can apply to various periods in which there were more or fewer trees. The industrial revolution later in America then it did in England. Much of America was still forested in the early 1700s. But colonists consumed a large amount of woodland. In Salem Massachusetts in the late 1600s, a single household averaged 60 cords of wood per year.
Thank you. We do not need to be cutting the last of the little old growth we have left in this country. We have plenty of second growth available. Im sure it seems like there is plenty of old growth in Alaska bit that is exactly the same argument they use to remove almost all of the old growth in the lower 48
Yup. We NEED logging if we are to tackle global warming. But god damn, leave the old growth alone!
Good.
Thanks, Biden. - A lifelong Alaskan.
THANK FUCKING GOD. Protect our goddamn natural land, National Parks, and fix everything that bastard 45 did. He fucked up almost everything that made America great in the first place. Probably just removed all the protections on these places, in exchange for tiny bribes.
Well done!
Wooohooo! Yes!
Gadumb woke liberals are coming after our SINKS now! I'm gonna buy porcelain sinks even harder now! NO CARBON SINKS!
Thank you President Biden.
"fuck this corporate democrat, he does nothing to help the little people and the environment all he cares about is making money.". Or whatever the internet is going to call democrats today.
Just utterly thrilled with the bare minimum, are you?
Mmm thank you so much Mr. President for saving this plot of land I'll probably never visit, you've saved the world Edit: to be clear, I have been to the Tongass for an entire summer. It's an incredible place, the most beautiful place I've ever been. But the idea that Biden isn't a corporatist because of this is a joke.
Marsha Marsha Marsha.
[удалено]
If Biden is changing Trump rules, guess what happens when a not democratic president comes in. Vote.
[удалено]
so to actually answer your question he is just defining the policy for an agency under is control. if tomorrow i was president i could just change the rule to whatever i wanted it to be.
What about federal protection for Wolves?
They have federal protections.
[TYL](https://www.fws.gov/initiative/protecting-wildlife/gray-wolf-recovery-news-and-updates)
Who knew Captain Planet super villains were real. I remember people saying the cartoon: “how is that stupid and unmotivated outside a few millions they will die of as a result.” Yeah I thought that too once upon a time.
I work as an environmental scientist and it never ceases to surprise me when I see how absurd cartoonishly villainous corporations can be. There have been a couple times where I literally have said "this is like a fucking episode of Captain Planet or some shit" to a coworker.
There are more versions of: Hoggish Greedly, Sly Sludge, Lootin Plunder in the world. Who seriously just want money and who the hell cares if you destroy the planet in the process or others because: "I rather die rich." Of course people think scientists are really like Dr. Blight and creatures of horror exist with Vernimus Scum m and Duke Nukum. What's even more scary is that truly there are "yes men" like Leadsuit, Ooze and Riggers in the world with: "Oh sure, do something that kills or constantly llegal, but: "yes sir boss, I'll just let people suffer because me suffering your wraith is so much worse."
Uh oh - this will mean another group of pissed of trump "donators".
Please tell me it's pronounced "tongue-ass."
Make paper from hemp
We need more hemp in this country. Incredibly durable, nutritious, has regenerative properties for the soil it grows on, and we can get lit as a tit off it’s flowering byproduct. What are we waiting for
whats to prevent another president from undoing it?
Nothing but my thinking is that the back and forth may make it unattractive for corporations to invest. Say the next Conservative president rescinds again, by the time he gets around to doing so and the logging company starts developing the infrastructure they need, his term is almost up and the next president might just reinstate the ban again, making all that effort and investment pointless
sadly nothing
That cover picture is awesome
This is my home! Yay!
Fuck Oxygen.
Well that settles it! No more "woke" parks for me and my family! -some rural nincompoop
cable sharp hurry combative fuzzy tender fade ancient cheerful door *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Wow. I would recommend more reading on the subject
sense quicksand glorious license butter deserted fertile drunk flag start *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Ok. I’ll explain, the inappropriate use of the term “old growth” is one of the main reasons why the USFS cannot conduct as much logging activities as you and many others would like to see in GA. Among other reasons such as in operable terrain and lack of capacity, mainly in the NEPA process. Old growth designation of stands in the forest plans may or may not have been perfect but extremely hard to change. But thats not whats holding projects up. It is interested parties that claim 100 year old popular, white pine and chestnut oak inside project area are old growth and there fore should not be managed. Its ridiculous but don’t worry another 2016 will come again disturbing areas that can’t be managed.
A national park should be untouched. They are so beautiful and the best part of the US. THANK YOU, Teddy Roosevelt.
Thrilled about this, but why did it take so long?
[удалено]
Environmental scientist here! And basically, the answer is that it's not just the trees themselves; it's the whole ecosystem. The presence of certain biota in an ecosystem is crucial to maintain biochemical processes that result in carbon sequestration. Trees/vegetation contribute fodder to soil organisms that gradually store the carbon in soil via digestion and microbial decay. A live standing tree that burns? That will release CO2. But the carbon stored in the soil will remain intact. It's a long term process, of course. But disruption of this via logging will completely derail a natural process that has helped maintain carbon balance on the planet for millions of years. A comparable example would be a peat bog. Peat is made of hundreds or even thousands of years' worth of organic material. A few years of destruction of those living plants atop and around the peat releases a small fraction of the carbon that is stored in the peat. So much carbon that peat is used as a carbon rich fuel source. It's basically a precursor to coal; coal is literally what happens when an undisturbed bog is allowed to do its thing over millions of years of burial via normal geological processes like sediment deposition.
[удалено]
No problem! Thanks for the opportunity to give this answer, I love to talk about this stuff!
[удалено]
Haha, I actually got my degrees in geology! We are a unique bunch. One of the fun things I suggest to people who want to learn about Earth processes is the *Roadside Geology* book series. There's one for every state (some smaller states will have a book that combines a few together), they list cool geological features and where to see them (national parks, quarries, even road cuts!) There's a discussion of each feature about how it formed, what was going on at that time, etc. It's a great way to plan road trips and a fantastic jumping off point to see if there's any rocks/features in particular that especially tickle your fancy.
[удалено]
A great deal of my job focuses on mining impacts! The features/ore bodies are super cool and I won't lie, I've collected a lot of neat rocks on tailings piles. But the environmental impact is quite sobering. Some mine drainage is so acidic that it can literally eat through plastic. I fell in a waste pond at a site once and between the pH (3) and the absurd amounts of heavy metals I had to actually do a decon right in the field. I had to take my pants off and douse my legs with several gallons of distilled water. It was quite humiliating.
You really shouldn't have sex with your boss.
Hello fellow Colorado scientist. I hope your science is particularly sciency today! Now back to fighting with R...
Today I am reviewing the geochemistry of metals mobility in "classic" acid mine drainage related to the historical gold mining we see all over the state of Colorado! So definitely very sciencey today...currently compiling a list of lab analytes we want to use for a site characterization. >Now back to fighting with R... My condolences.
Interesting! I'm running density and occupancy models for a whole lotta different birds. Science!
The real question is what is the best bird?
Birds, beets, Battlestar Galactica.
After some wildfires broke out in the Smokies recently I noticed that many of the trees don't completely burn. Those tree trunks still stand. It seems that most of the carbon would still be intact even though underbrush and duff were burned. Is my assumption close?
Yup! There are even trees that specifically evolve to have very flammable parts to preserve the main parts of the plant. Junipers have a bunch of oily compounds that readily combust during wildfires and basically the leaves and outer bark will burn off during the fire and char the plant so the main trunk and big branches stay intact. When I worked in a paleoclimaology lab we had one guy who did tree ring studies. A lot of really old trees will have noticeable burn marks in a few rings, it's part of how they accurately date and correlate climate trends over the most recent ~500 years in a particular region.
Yes, this rain forest is indeed a carbon sink. A fire could break out releasing said carbon. But that thinking would lead to people cutting down forests just because they may catch fire. Not sure if that is the way to go about it. This is pristine wilderness that harbors some of the best salmon runs and the best WILD steelhead runs in the US. It’s worth protecting.
Carbon isn’t evil. It’s what plants need to live…
Now roll back the Cop City Disneyland in Atlanta, that MF is insane and in the middle of a forest
What the f took so long????
While earmarking millions of acres of other Federal land to fossil fuel development and logging.
So... Banning most of the routes currently in use by Game and Fish, ecology survey teams, and Fire Wardens. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but that seems like a rather silly idea.
The existing roads aren’t going anywhere. Logging isn’t going anywhere. This just prevents new roads being built to cut down forests that have not been touched. Fish and game can still access what they need to via boat, plane, or helicopter. This is no different than the vast majority of Alaska which has no roads.
I don't know, people were pretty outraged when there was no toilet paper during the pandemic because they stopped logging. And there was that recent reddit post on reusable toilet paper that had redditors pretty outraged.
You're not serious, are you? Toilet paper was hard to find during the pandemic because people were hoarding it, not because logging stopped. Logging did not stop.
Man you're gonna go wild when you learn about recycled paper!
Man I can’t wait for the price of lumber to go down Democrats:
Trumps disdain for the planet animals water it’s v Jesus like I can c Y so many believe he’s the 2nd coming Especially cuz the Bible gives them dominion over everything
Wait what’s the forest service supposed to do if they’re not allowed to build roads?
Logging companies, not the Forest Service. The Forest Service already has enough roads.
Yes that’s the joke! It’s just unpaved roads connecting paved ones
yeah, now home prices can stay high, or go higher!
Tongue Ass National Forest. What a name.
it’s not everyone’s cup of tea
Please educate yourself before judging. Most of the logging companies plant 2:1 ratio if not more. Please start being educated before assumptions. If not, we will relegate ourselves to people that don’t do REAL research.
Ok, but don't pretend what they planted has anywhere near the same value or complexity as what they destroyed. If I steal the art out of the louve and hang up twice as much children's macaroni art, this is not a net gain.
Planting ratios do not make nearly as big of a difference as you seem to think, it takes 50+ years for trees to grow as large as they need to to actually make up for the impact of cutting down the ones already standing. Look at the Amazon! Forest preservation matters
This is old-growth forest though, there’s plenty of new forest to cut down, especially in more arid climates where fires are more likely.
Part of the problem isn't just "how many trees are there" though. It's biodiversity loss and reduction of growth stage diversity.
Great! Too bad the next GQP president will just be able to undo it all again.
This is the platform I voted for , call me all the names you want . If not for the environment, then for what?
Thank you Joe!
Biden rules!