Greenwashed Forest Management And Wildfire Resilience
Journal Article
Overview
abstract
As wildfires become more intense, frequent, and destructive, agencies face growing pressure to take action. The longer season drains agency resources that are scarce to begin with, and fast-moving fires threaten people’s lives and health. Smoky the Bear is now seen as a relic of a bygone era, one in which the realities of climate change had not yet fully materialized and “fire season” had not entered the parlance of residents of the American west. <br><br>While most experts agree that moving away from a suppression-only approach leads to better outcomes, there is no accepted one-size-fits-all replacement to that approach. In Oregon, the BLM has responded to wildfire risk in a few ways. A common method of mitigating wildfire risk is through fuels reduction. This involves minimizing the quantity of flammable material and diminishing the speed at which a fire may move through spacing and barrier construction. Another common method is post-fire response, where dead or dying trees are removed after a fire moves through an area. This is known as salvage logging. <br><br>Two recently proposed fire mitigation programs in Oregon help to illustrate public concerns when it comes to forest management in an era of climate change. One program relies on a complicated structure involving different analyses and authorizations, the other depends on logging healthy trees to pay to remove dead ones. In both cases, some local residents have wondered which interests these programs are designed to prioritize: the public’s safety and quality of life, or the timber industry’s bottom line? This paper explores these questions against the backdrop of a state long synonymous with logging as it reckons with a changing climate.
