‘Social acceptance’ of fire needed in ‘climate-changing forests’

Biomass can either be burned for energy or as forest fires. Guess which option the enviros choose.

Climatewire reports,

The future of managing wildfires in the face of climate change is going to require different tools and strategies, but also something a bit more difficult to swallow — encouraging burning instead of stifling it.

In the future, forest managers will need to “try to work with fire, rather than fighting it,” said David Peterson, research biologist at the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Station. “If we allowed more wildfires to burn, that could be beneficial,” he added. Fire is considered part of a natural cycle in forest ecology, and encouraging small fires could help prevent bigger, more damaging ones.

The U.S. Forest Service has issued a report on how to address forest management in the face of climate change, looking at resource management on national forests and, potentially, other federal lands. Fire management, pest control and watershed management are some of the areas where practices will need to change, said report co-author Peterson in an interview with ClimateWire…

But the enviros disagree:

… The future of managing wildfires in the face of climate change is going to require different tools and strategies, but also something a bit more difficult to swallow — encouraging burning instead of stifling it.

In the future, forest managers will need to “try to work with fire, rather than fighting it,” said David Peterson, research biologist at the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Station. “If we allowed more wildfires to burn, that could be beneficial,” he added. Fire is considered part of a natural cycle in forest ecology, and encouraging small fires could help prevent bigger, more damaging ones.

The U.S. Forest Service has issued a report on how to address forest management in the face of climate change, looking at resource management on national forests and, potentially, other federal lands. Fire management, pest control and watershed management are some of the areas where practices will need to change, said report co-author Peterson in an interview with ClimateWire…

6 thoughts on “‘Social acceptance’ of fire needed in ‘climate-changing forests’”

  1. SO ITS OK TO BURN IN MY FIREPLACE NOW? LET IT ALL BURN AND DESTROY A RE=NEWABLE RESOURCE
    DAVID PETERSON CALLS HIMSELF A RESEARCH BIOLOGIST.. HE MUST HAVE FLUNKED COMMON SENSE
    CLASS. A NUT CASE TO BE HAD….

  2. Oops, the copy and paste has misfired — the US Forest Service and the enviros are saying the same thing, word for word — or is plagiarism involved? In this situation, they can hardly be said to ‘disagree’!

  3. Remember that most of the research on the subject concludes that burning biomass is a primary cause of the infamous Asian brown cloud of pollution.

  4. “Oh forest fires, in the words of Laurence Welk’ are wonderful, wonderful wonderful!’. They do not emit ANY CO2, they do not emit any smoke, they do not harm wildlife or wildlife habitat. Burn baby burn!!”

    And they expect us to believe this?

  5. I’ll have to disagree with your implications in the introduction. Forest management requires us to allow natural burns. While scooping up millions of cubic yards of material to be burned in an incinerator sounds like a good idea, it simply isn’t practical to collect +99% of it. Your cynical side is showing

  6. Ben: Steve & co. would have no forests and other untamed land whatsoever. They want the land sold off, cleared and put into profitable production.

Comments are closed.