Joe Biden Plans To Ban Logging in US Old-Growth Forests in 2025 (theguardian.com) 181
Joe Biden's administration last week announced a new proposal aimed at banning logging in old-growth forests, a move meant to protect millions of trees that play a key role in fighting the climate crisis. From a report: The proposal comes from an executive order signed by the president on Earth Day in 2022 that directed the US Forest Service and the land management bureau to conduct an inventory of old-growth and mature forest groves as well as to develop policies that protect them. "We think this will allow us to respond effectively and strategically to the biggest threats that face old growth," the US agriculture secretary, Tom Vilsack, told the Washington Post. "At the end of the day, it will protect not just the forests but also the culture and heritage connected to the forests."
The US Forest Service oversees 193m acres of forests and grasslands, 144m of which are forests. In its inventory conducted after Biden's executive order, the agency found that the vast majority of forests it oversees, about 80%, are either old-growth or mature forests. It found more than 32m acres of old-growth forests and 80m acres of mature forests on federal land. The land management bureau defines old-growth forests as those with trees that are in later stages of stand development, which typically means at least 120 years of growth, depending on species. The giant sequoias in California, for example, are old-growth trees. Mature forests, meanwhile, have trees that are in the development stage immediately before old growth.
The US Forest Service oversees 193m acres of forests and grasslands, 144m of which are forests. In its inventory conducted after Biden's executive order, the agency found that the vast majority of forests it oversees, about 80%, are either old-growth or mature forests. It found more than 32m acres of old-growth forests and 80m acres of mature forests on federal land. The land management bureau defines old-growth forests as those with trees that are in later stages of stand development, which typically means at least 120 years of growth, depending on species. The giant sequoias in California, for example, are old-growth trees. Mature forests, meanwhile, have trees that are in the development stage immediately before old growth.
Wonderful news. (Score:3, Insightful)
We will not be logging on any of the forest land that we have not logged on in the last 100 years or more.
Logging on the 20 % (32 m acres) that we have been logging on for the last 100 years will continue exactly the same.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This will at best go in effect if and after he wins the elections. Consider it part of the election campaign and not much more.
As opposed guaranteeing that Mexico will pay for the wall he never stole enough to finish?
Re: (Score:3)
If the polls hold up, it's a lot more likely old Joe himself will be banned in 2025.
Re: (Score:3)
The pollsters have all been busy changing their weighting methodologies over the last few years, trying to figure out how they can better represent Trump voters after failing to predict the 2016 election. It's possible they've over-corrected, and/or that Trump voters are louder than they were in 2016.
Not that I think he can't lose. He's certainly the wrong pick for the Democrats. The best thing going for him is he's not Trump, which is a sad state of affairs. If they nominated someone with a strong, transfo
Re: (Score:3)
Biden said something recently that I think summed it really well, "If Trump wasn't running I might not be either" (and I take that as he definitely would not be).
If Trump fell out favor with Republicans after 2020 (like he should have) chances are we are watching Democratic primary debates now and the recent Newsom/DeSantis debate is a probable reality for the office.
I don't think the Democrats have a viable candidate again Trump and that's unfortunate. Stack that with the existential dread a 2nd Trump ter
What makes a viable candidate? (Score:3)
I don't think the Democrats have a viable candidate again Trump and that's unfortunate
Trump's main message lately has been that all democrats are evil and must be destroyed in every way possible. If the democrats subbed in a 35 year old with no political experience as the next candidate for POTUS from their party, Trump and his cult would still label that person as evil and part of the "deep state", and his followers would be riled up to vote for Trump to "save America" from this person.
There is no substance to Trump's campaign. This makes it really, really, difficult to run against.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We tried that, it was called Bernie Sanders and he lost twice, as much as I liked him,
He also dropped the ball by not actually building up any successors to all the support he built up over those campaigns and the DSA has squandered it's gains and is looking more like a joke everyday unfortunately.
Who is the Bernie supporter to pick up the mantle for 2024? There isn't one unfortunately.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kind if mind boggling that Trump even has a chance after last time, and with all his legal problems. But then again look at Argentina.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What DJ Trump accomplished was to add 7 trillion dollars to the deficit [propublica.org], handing money directly to the wealthy class & their corporations in the form of tax cuts and stock buyouts. That I didn't like. And he didn't *do* anything else aside from all the cruel shit, like separating families, caging little kids, banning Muslims, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
What percentage of that was a result of COVID. Just a simple request for information if anyone happens to have the answer handy?
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem with "winner takes all" systems. In representative democracy it's much harder for really dumb things to happen, but in countries that don't have that you get Brexit and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Allow me to translate for you. The GP is saying nobody wants to log those forests anyway, and likely never will, and this ban changes exactly nothing.
I disagree with them, actually, because if you click past the predictably trash journalism of guardian article, the proposal isn't a ban on logging.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, like I said, if you actually clicked past the article and read the executive order and the letter from the director of the forest service, you might realize that its not a ban. Not only that, but selective logging is an integral part of any forestry restoration project, like the forestry restoration projects being called for. The national forests are being logged, and will continue to be logged under the proposal. Please note that national forests and national parks are not the same thing,
Pro Strat (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
32 million acres out of 144 million acres is fine (Score:5, Insightful)
So out of the 144 million acres that the federal government has an agency to oversee (and the federal government generally has way too much land overall, especially in the west, but that's a different topic), 32 million of it qualifies as "old growth", and they don't want that stuff logged.
That seems just fine. That seems like a totally normal policy that won't mess up anything, because 32 million acres is really small compared to the total forested acreage in America (like 800+ million acres), and even small compared to the 144 million acres in question.
This government policy seems totally fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree.
Logging old growth forests does substantially more damage than logging on land that's already being used for that purpose. Even if it's only a small percentage of the total area, this is an important step to protecting what little natural habitat we have left.
This government policy does, in fact, seem totally fine.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:3)
Understandable (Score:4, Funny)
In his youth Biden actually planted many of these forests.
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. Good. Old growth forests are carbon neutral. Losing as much mass to death and decay as they absorb from the atmosphere. Better to cut them down and replace them with young, faster growing species.
Re: (Score:2)
Is a lower orifice your source?
Re: (Score:2)
You seem obsessed with buttholes. You must be a lefty.
Re: (Score:2)
Am I correct then that your source is in your imagination? (See what I did there, asshat?)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I correct then that your source is in your imagination?
Looks to me like it's your imagination, perv.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you distracting from the point that you have no source that old growth sequesters no net carbon?
Re: (Score:2)
It's like only a 2 second google search away...
"As forests age, the rate of net carbon uptake by trees levels off or decreases". Source https://oldgrowthforestecology... [oldgrowthf...cology.org]...
Good job Blue Trane.. Good job. You're a credit to the species.
Re: (Score:3)
Not totally correct to be fair based on some analysis:
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
Our results demonstrate that old-growth forests can continue to accumulate carbon, contrary to the long-standing view that they are carbon neutral. Over 30 per cent of the global forest area is unmanaged primary forest, and this area contains the remaining old-growth forests.
Half of the primary forests (6×108 hectares) are located in the boreal and temperate regions of the Northern Hemisphere. On the basis of our an
Re: (Score:2)
Young trees grow fast, but old trees store a disproportional amount of carbon.
And then they die, fall over and rot. Walk through an old growth forest some time. It's fewer, large trees with a lot of windfall between them. And all that stuff lying on the ground goes two places. It decomposes, expelling CO2 into the atmosphere. And it provides a nutrient source for the remaining trees. Which may be adding carbon, but increasingly from stuff lying on the ground. Not atmospheric CO2. So old growth forests become a closed system, carbon-wise.
We expect,
How about actually measuring it.
however, that much of this carbon, even soil carbon, will move back to the atmosphere if these forests are disturbed.
Soil carbon doe
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not think the decay of the forest wasn't factored into those studies? Can you point that out please?
Do you have a counterfactual that old growth forests are neutral or carbon positive?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not think the decay of the forest wasn't factored into those studies? Can you point that out please?
When studies use terminology like "We expect", I can assume that not much rigorous analysis was done.
Do you have a counterfactual that old growth forests are neutral or carbon positive?
Yes. I've been in forests. And the difference between a thousand year old forest and a 10,000 year old forest just isn't evident. There isn't 10 times the mass in tree growth or topsoil.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you know how much carbon nurse log trees get from the atmosphere? Guesswork?
Re: (Score:2)
So to you the term counterfactual means "i went and looked around and this is wat I think?"
As Malarkey Joe would say "c'mon man"
Re: (Score:2)
"i went and looked around and this is wat I think?"
Yes. Science and modeling can only attempt to represent reality. When they disagree, reality wins.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not think we can measure the amount of CO2 in a forest and therefore the amount of carbon that will be released over time? Or at the very least estimate to a degree you can build policy around?
If anything your position is the one that needs to show a positive effect of logging, leaving the forest unlogged is the status quo.
Re: Good (Score:2)
I have an idea of how one could measure it. Pick a section of old growth forest, say a quarter acre, and build a dome around it. Then measure the ins and outs for about 10 years. Repeat a half-dozen or so times. Replicate for different stages of growth (maybe 50 or 100 total domes built). Compare. Also compare against free-air measurements of gas concentrations that typically undergird these kinds of analyses.
Total cost to run something like this would be in the $20-60m range.
If something of that scale has
Re: (Score:2)
Old growth forests are carbon neutral. Losing as much mass to death and decay as they absorb from the atmosphere
[citation needed]
Before you don't bother to go looking for a citation for your bullshit let me just save you no time and tell you that only applies to rainforests.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change (Score:2)
And maybe when we replant those forests, we plant different species, that are faster growing, and more suited to the warmer environment we have now and will have in the near future.
Re: (Score:3)
This kind of hubris has never bitten humanity in the ass before.
Re: (Score:3)
wait a second (Score:2)
if they stop logging how will they keep track of how many tress are cut down, geez... some people never think
Bad policy long term, but good for votes (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the reasons the western US has such a problem with wildfires is that those lands have been somewhat mismanaged for decades, and one of the big examples of mismanagement is the prevention of clearing out growth that should be cleared out. Thus, when the fires inevitably come, they are far worse because you have thousands of miles of very dry fuel.
Similarly, many previously healthy forests are being overrun by destructive beetles and other invasive bugs. Again, uncleared old growth is a major factor.
All of this has grown into a vicious cycle too: natural, managed burns are good for the long term health of the forests. They help stop the spread of invasive bugs and burn off a lot of dead fuel before it turns into an unmanageable bomb. While the state and federal teams do try to allow natural burns to happen, they often have to aggressively put out the fires sooner than is ideal for the natural ecosystem, because the massive amount of unconsumed fuel means greater odds that the fire can get out of control.
We've all seen the horrors of too much logging, and I'm 100% against that. But if you truly care about the environment, then there is actually a decent amount of logging that can happen that is appropriate, helpful, and probably required. Just like a blanket green light on unlimited logging would be terrible policy, any blanket ban on logging is equally bad in the long term. Hopefully whatever policies they settle on will allow for the right balance to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Is old growth more resistant? Have forests ever dealt with fires and global warming before? Why not just let nature take its course?
Re: (Score:3)
Great question! The problem is that we want nature to take its course... but only to a point. We interfere to try and prevent loss of life, destruction of buildings and other property, and to keep in place forests we deem desirable (e.g. a national park we find pretty).
So what we're after - and this is why it's a tricky problem - is a policy that lets nature do its thing as much as possible, while allowing us to interfere to meet our "unnatural" goals, and then deal with the effects of that interference in
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just insure everyone and let nature manage itself?
Re: (Score:2)
I'll assume you're asking in good faith, so here goes: I already mentioned a few reasons (loss of life isn't exactly something insurance helps with if you're the one dying), but also insurance has to be economically viable to work. Just as insurance companies are starting to pull out of the southeast US due to recurring hurricane damage, the same would happen if we didn't try to prevent property destruction from forest fires, and then basically everyone in those areas would become uninsurable.
So the short a
Re: (Score:2)
How economically viable were credit default swaps until the Fed printed trillions to support their prices? Why not use the same trick to insure everybody?
What is untenable about paying attention so you get out of the way of fires and rebuilding simply if need be?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you redefining pro-environment in hu-man terms though? So what if forests take their own sweet time to undo all the hu-man interference? What is your hurry?
Re: (Score:2)
Is old growth more resistant? Have forests ever dealt with fires and global warming before? Why not just let nature take its course?
Old growth is actually more fire resistant. The problem is, for many decades, government agencies did NOT "let nature take its course" - the policy was to suppress all fires as much as possible. It's pretty widely accepted, now, that was a mistake because it led to the brush and other undergrowth not being cleared out - leading to longer, hotter fires that trees can't survive.
The policies have changed more recently, and they even will now set proscribed burns to try and correct the problem. But a problem th
Re: (Score:2)
It does seem that Biden wants to repeat the mistakes of the past. We went all out for fire suppression and eventually got really big fires. One example;
https://www.nps.gov/yell/learn... [nps.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't call for mass deforestation - maybe you were replying to a different comment?
Good (Score:2)
Even without climate change it's mad to deforest (even if we re-plant) given the epic scale it was done in the past.
US Forest Old Growth because no roads (Score:2)
The entire point of the US Forest is to responsibly grow trees for harvesting. The agency was created because timber barons stripped the trees and moved west leaving desolated non-replanted land in their trail. The old growth trees on US Forest land are old growth because it is simply too costly to construct a road for harvesting that
Obvious really (Score:2)
"let's not further destroy the only carbon sequestration mechanism we have working."
The question is why is he promising to do it after the elections? Why not now?
And are Republicans making similar promises? If not, why?
Pointless gesture (Score:3)
Most of the lumber are planned forest farms.
Re: Any Biden policy will be gone if he loses (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the reasons this may be reversed is because the rules will be overly broad and do more bad than good. Look at California wildfires proliferated because of bans of managing the underbrush near habited areas and nearly half a century of aggressive suppression of natural wildfires.
I agree we shouldnâ(TM)t just be cutting down old forests on a whim, but the US has 30% more tree coverage than during the Industrial Revolution. What is considered âold forestâ(TM), what does it mean to be
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not so much, for this reason:
Researchers attributed the lower severity of fires in old-growth forests to various factors. Multilayer canopies provide shading, cooler temperatures, moist air and soil, and larger, sturdier trees. These attributes limit the spread of severe wildfires and improve resilience. [resourcewise.com]
Recently harvested forests have a lot of undergrowth, which dries quicker and is more prone to ignition, while old growth forests have less undergrowth, and that which is there remains wet and unlikely to ca
Re: Any Biden policy will be gone if he loses (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Why do you want others to pay your insurance for you?
Re: Any Biden policy will be gone if he loses (Score:5, Informative)
What is considered old forest
The US Forest Service already has categories and already catalogs this, they literally put out an inventory
Mature and Old-Growth Forests: Definition, Identification, and Initial Inventory on Lands Managed by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management [usda.gov]
does it prevent things like making buffer zones to prevent or manage wildfires, diseases etc
No, this about logging. This is pretty straightforward, it's even in the announcement:
“Our forest ecosystems and communities are struggling to keep up with the stresses of climate change, whether it’s fire, drought, or insect infestations, it is clear that we must adapt quickly,” said USDA Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment Homer Wilkes. “The USDA and our federal, tribal, state, local and community partners are working together to meet these challenges, pooling knowledge, sharing resources and discovering new ways to conserve resources, protect communities and ensure future generations can enjoy the countless benefits our forests provide.”
Re: (Score:2)
BLM and the Forest Service are Executive Branch, this already has an EO behind it so it's as real as anything.
Your blind distrust in the government is just as silly as having total complete trust in it. This order is as simple to follow as "don't write any new logging contracts for these areas"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The biggest problem all of them have, although the really right people are the loudest, is that they feel like the tech/cars aren't really ready for prime time yet and they hate the thought of the federal/state governments mandating that they can't buys gas cars starting in year X.
I think what's lost in that conversation is that "year X" is 12-15 years down the road, plenty of time to get them and the infrastructure "ready for prime time". And "can't buy gas cars" is a bit of a misnomer. Assuming nothing changes (not likely) you won't be able to buy a NEW dino-burner in about 15 years. Nobody's talking about the used car market getting up-ended.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok well let's revisit this in 2035 and if there are no EV's that fit peoples use cases we can revisit.
But to be technically correct (the best kind) there is no law forcing anyone to buy an EV today.
Re: (Score:2)
This is how the system was designed and intended to (barely) work. If both sides can't find a solution
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, when someone's being "evil", generally you want them to stop doing that. That transcends politics.
As far as not being able to work across the aisle, there's one party in the US who's made obstruction their signature strategy. They recently decided to remove their Speaker in the US house because he dared to try negotiating a budget with the other party as the deadline was coming up.
That's just a very recent, egregious, top-level example that got major news coverage, but I could continue giving examples
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, when someone's being "evil", generally you want them to stop doing that. That transcends politics.
As far as not being able to work across the aisle, there's one party in the US who's made obstruction their signature strategy. They recently decided to remove their Speaker in the US house because he dared to try negotiating a budget with the other party as the deadline was coming up.
That's just a very recent, egregious, top-level example that got major news coverage, but I could continue giving examples. As I sit here trying to think of an example from the other party, I'm drawing a blank. Maybe the both-sides brigade will reply here and educate me, but I'm not holding my breath. Not taking a stand, lack of conviction, and ignorance are what the bothsides brigade are made of.
Disagreeing with something doesn't make it "evil". It's truly delusional that you believe only one party practices politics.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're forgetting that many Republicans are also very stupid. It's the stupid that is fucking up the country, since even evil people try not to shit in their own bed. (The biggest current example of this is the red states that refuse to implement the Obamacare Medicaid policies.)
Basically you're saying that the Democrats' name-calling is as bad for comety as Republican name-calling (eg, groomer, Pedo Joe, etc.), obstruction (up to the point of national insolvency) and an attempted autogallope. Sometimes 'stupid' is charitable conclusion.
Yeah, AOC and Maxine Waters are geniuses. There is enough stupidity and senility to go around
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Any Biden policy will be gone if he loses (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The majority of those California fires were on [nbcnews.com] federal lands [politico.com], not state [latimes.com]. So long as Teslas stay out [yahoo.com], things will be fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Does California practice controlled burns?
That's when you deliberately set fire to a portion of the forest in winter, reducing the load and allowing various seeds that are only propagated by fire to germinate.
Re: Curious If This Will Cause Bigger Fires (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell that to the thousands of people whose homes were burned in the last few years. The ones that are still alive, at any rate.
100% of those wildfires were caused by mismanagement on the part of the state, whether it was poor forest management, not enforcing building codes requiring cleared areas around neighborhoods, or letting utilities get away with ignoring their responsibilities to keep transmission lines clear for years, or some other form of malfeasance.
More and more, I can't help but if it's deliber
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying you didn't know what you signed up for?
Re: (Score:2)
Gonna need a little more context to have any clue what nonsense you're jerking off to on this, perv. I suspect you will, too.
But enjoy your wank. You're clearly obsessed with my butthole now, following me around hoping for some attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't you know about the fire risk? Are you too busy projecting?
Re: Curious If This Will Cause Bigger Fires (Score:3)
How does your preferred political party do forest management in your state? This is about this dumbest issue to politicize. Nobody has forest management nothing in their party platform and one of them is dead set against spending tax dollars on anything as frivolous as forest management.
This is what happens when you cut education funding, we get more taustins in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
The people who wanted brush and trees on their doorstep made a choice, I don't see why federal or state government has to take the blame. It's a local issue.
Forest management for wild forest is a farce, brush clearing and controlled fires only affect a tiny amount of forest ... until they inevitably go out of control, then the uncontrolled controlled fire cleans house. Uncontrolled fire is inevitable. Distance is the only security. Have manicured forests near communities, dig a mile wide firebreak around th
Re: (Score:2)
From the master of poopytalk. If at least part of what you have to say is poopytalk, all of it probably is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>Part of the American "culture and heritage" related to forests is hunting with rifles. Which requires rifles, that he wants to ban.
Oh? If you need a high capacity rifle to go deer hunting with, or any kind of hunting with, you are certainly doing it wrong! As well, .223 is entirely the wrong caliber to take down deer except at short range with good shot placement. I like 30-30 or 30-06 myself. Bolt action preferred.
Here's Trump's take on taking away guns:
“Take the guns first, go through due proce
Re: (Score:2)
Here's Trump's take on taking away guns:
“Take the guns first, go through due process second,” - Trump
I notice you don't cite any source for that. I suspect you never will, either.
(Trump's position on gun control seems tailored to the audience, with little regard for what he's said before. In front of the NRA, he rejects gun control, while in front of more liberal-ish audiences, he favors more restrictions. In other words, he's just like every other politician, telling potential voters what they want to hear with no intention of even remembering his promises, much less keeping them.)
Re: (Score:3)
not the parent, but Trump did say this. i'm linking to a DDG search result page so you can pick whichever corroboration suits you:
"Take the guns first, go through due process second," Trump said. [duckduckgo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
He also said he'd veto two bills (if they passed, which they didn't) that would have mandated stricter background checks on the grounds that they would violate 2nd Amendment rights, and suggested that teachers be allowed to carry concealed. He said a lot of things.
What did did was sign a bill that eliminated a rule requiring the Social Security Administration from reporting certain medical conditions to the ATF that would keep those people from legally buying firearms, and settled a dispute between the FBI
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that the other politicians, after failing to keep their promises, will at least try to offer some justification of why they didn't, or couldn't. Trump will say "You're a liar, I never promised that." (Should the issue of campaign promises be raised at all - not likely with the poor state of US media and the man getting his pick of venue.)
He talks to his audience like idiots, because that's all who's there. The other politicians who haven't built a cult of personality still have some normal
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that the other politicians, after failing to keep their promises, will at least try to offer some justification of why they didn't, or couldn't.
Everybody wants to be a comedian.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no. I don't want to be a comedian. Most politicians don't want to be a comedian. Most people don't want to be a comedian. With Trump, the word "comedy" doesn't quite fit either, but he certainly likes being an entertainer. That's what he had the most success in, prior to politics - when CBS gave him his reality show. Between those years and the Presidency, he also had a decent run as a contributor on Fox News, providing his expertise in... validating birth certificates.
Of course Fox News is entertainm
Re: (Score:2)
Which requires rifles, that he wants to ban
Why is it OK to make up shit like this about non-conservatives, yet if someone takes something actually said by Trump and extrapolates it to action, that is completely unacceptable?
Not once has Biden shown any support for a rifle ban. Not. One. Single. Time.
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, Columbine occurred right in the middle of that ban.
Re: (Score:2)
flintlocks that were popular in his youth
Matchlocks. Flintlocks were a more recent development for military-style weapons. Which none of you civilians need.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah i'm good my city dwelling friend, but i do appreciate you telling me what i need.
=)
Re: (Score:2)
Do we love old growth forests because you are only subject to nature's moderation, not man's?
Re: (Score:2)
Why does every burned forest I've seen have lots of green?