If environmentalism is a new secular religion (Mother Earth, anyone?) than the day of calm discussion may not happen for centuries.

Yours,
Wince

This very much reminds me of something I saw on a similar blog, not long ago: http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/005658.html#005658.

Agree with Wince re Saint Enviro being the new mandatory deity. Lomborg's crucifiction in Scientific American a couple of years ago destroyed that magazine's credibility as one related to scientific matters. SA made no pretense of open-minded evaluation of his book, just excommunicated him using hired asassains, giving no right of reply. Go Bjorn!

The Healthy Forests Initiative strategy proposed by Bush was similarly met with derision, when it was acknowledged at all. I remember back about five years ago, watching an excellent NOVA special on Western fire managment. I also live not-too-far from a place that was scorched in 1988- you may have heard of Yellowstone. The bottom line was- we're hosed. Fire suppression has screwed up the forests beond belief and the only thing that might help is widespread selective clearing and thinning to reduce the sheer quantity of fuel, which of course is utterly impractical given the size of the forests we're talking about. Lo, and behold, that's what the Bush administration is offering, and it is the only real solution, as inadequate and expensive as it may be.

Because the Administration has adopted the idea, it's automatically ridiculed by enviros- furthermore it allows the eeevil timber industry to make a buck (nevermind that they're the only ones with the know-how to do it). However, now even the environmentally-conscious state of California has realized the enormous danger we're in and people there are demanding it be done You never hear about that, either. The media does not want to point out how right this policy is.

Actually, a lot of people (lefty dems included) are in favor of controlled clearing...it's just the methodology of the Bush administration that we have a problem with. The general sentiment is that if you let loggers, who have a vested interest in making as much profit as possible, into these areas, then they need to have strict oversight to prevent them from getting grab-happy. This is where (rational) people have concerns about the Bush plan.

Your point is well-taken, Patrick, although I'd like to know what percentage qualifies as "a lot" of lefty enironmentalists who believe in this plan. The problem is that selective thinning is not a terribly profitable venture for timber companies. It will be a fine line to walk between letting them cut enough to make it worth their while, and taking out too much. If they can't turn a profit, they won't do it- and the outcome of that will be a whole lot worse than if they cut a little too much, IMHO.

Getting back to the point of Dean's post though, you would never guess that some environmentalists have come around to agreeing with Healthy Forests. The media won't cover it. Some folks just can't have a discussion with the administration because they can't believe that Dubya could actually back a GOOD idea.

patrick, Dani makes an excellent point, and I'd like to develop it further.

Greens have a problem with how the Bush plan limits the cutting (and by extension, damaging the forest, yes?). My question is this:

Is this worse than the devastation caused by massive forest fires?

While I have never heard a single "lefty" acknowledge the merit of selective thinning, he does make a valid point.

I don't think the choice comes down to a digital choice between:

1) allowing the logging companies to selectively thin at a profitable level, or;
2) not having them thin at all, thereby subjecting the forest to catastrophic fires.

The logging companies could theoretically:

3) be subsidized at a level which would make the project profitable for them, while still costing the taxpayer less than the in subsidy money than would otherwise have to be spent in fighting fires.

It strikes me that there is plenty of rational room to discuss how much and under what circumstances loggers are allowed to do clearing work.

It also strikes me that this clearing work is absolutely vital for the environment, and that simply being obstructionist on the matter is the most dangerous option of all. If we let the companies in and they go too far, we can do something about it well before they do irreparable damage. Failure to act at all, however...

Heard on NPR this morning (I think): "Despite the wintery conditions in parts of the country, forecasters are predicting this will be an extremely warm winter. They say that the earth's temperature has risen at least 1 degree in the last century, and the rate has increased in the past 30 years. Forecasters blame the rise on the greenhouse effect." That's a paraphrase, but pretty much word-for-word.

Casey:
"Is this [selective thinning] worse than the devastation caused by massive forest fires?"

One would like to hear the answer to that, especially since there are certain bird and plant species that thrive best in burned out areas that are regrowing. Preserve Every Species types surely need to munch that over.

Hey Sean:

Add to that a weird factoid (unconfirmed fact) I heard from a friend of mine who's got a relative who fights forest fires, who said that there are certain species of pines whose cones only open and release their seeds in ambient temperatures greater than 300 degrees F. Evidently it's an evolutionary (or God-designed) mechanism to prevent excessive thickening of the canopy.

I don't know if this is true, but it intrigues me.

I don't know specifically what percentage of 'lefties' support some type forest thinning, but I do know the Sierra club supports it, Outside magazine did an article in favor of it, and virtually everyone in forestry and the park service acknowledge it's importance.

I think the reason you don't see this is because (as usual) large media outlets only pick-up on the more vocal extremists... as opposed to the more moderate (and I think, rational) concern expressed by the average opponent to Bush's plan. Unfortunately, rational discourse doesn't sell very well.

Aside from the ancient redwoods and sequoias and bristlecone pines, trees grow back in fairly short order. They are a crop, not a patrimony.

I think a lot of the problem is that most people don't seem to know a lot about the lumber industry. As Bill Dooley pointed out trees are a crop. If you look at any of the lumber companies operating in the US, that is how they treat it. The clear a section, replant it, and clear another. There is a whole science of forestry management that they use to maximize the numbers of trees grown which are both healthy and yield better lumber. They are not interested in just clearcutting land and moving on.

Thinning is not so much a lumber harvesting technique as a forestry management one. Lumber companies have spent a lot of time and money learning what does and doesn't create healty forests. It is silly that people reject and dismiss that knowledge completely based on their bigotry towards the industry.