Seeing the Forest for the Trees

Having lived in the Southwest for many years and seeing firsthand the destruction of wild fires, I fully support forest thinning. Nature thins forests naturally through lightning strike induced fires thereby reducing combustible fuels such as over-crowded trees, leaf litter, pine needles, and thick stands of bramble. Without thinning, forest fires burn hotter and devastate all. With thinning, forest fires stay close to the ground and burn at cooler temperatures.

Then there's clear cutting, or to put it bluntly, razing. Flying over Washington state can give anyone a clear picture of what this entails - the literal removal of any and all trees over a vast area, usually on mountain slopes. Clear cutting is akin to unethical fishing techniques that entail dragging the ocean bottom thereby rendering that biome a lifeless moonscape for hundreds of years. Considered a "renewable resource," trees take several decades to grow. Clear cutting exposes the Earth's surface to direct sunlight which increases ground temperature. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that when it's hot outside, the temperature is cooler in the shade. Without root systems and foliage, torrential rains erode nutrient-laden soil - soggy soil moves down slope in the form of mudslides. Finally, trees produce more oxygen than any other plant. Most living creatures on this planet, humans included, breathe oxygen, not carbon. If you think you can handle carbon, you'd be able to breathe your car's exhaust without ensuing medical emergency or your death.

So, just because one can't see the forest for the trees doesn't mean that the forest should be razed.