Harvesting trees on public land is controversial but helps pay for needed brush clearing. Many environmental groups vigorously oppose both. But fighting the larger, hotter fires that result without active forest management is even more costly and threatens lives.
In California, tighter environmental controls, higher prices for timber harvesting permits and competition from overseas and pine forests in American Southeast led to a collapse of the state's timber industry. Employment in the industry in 2017 was half of what it was in the 1990s.
During this summer’s fires, outgoing California Governor Jerry Brown blamed the record-breaking fires on climate change. In a press conference he warned that the level of climate change-induced forest fires predicted in 20 to 30 years were “now occurring in real time.”
While the
frequency of fire has declined, the area burnt and the cost to fight wildfires have increased. Understanding why this is the case is the critical component in crafting a public policy solution to address the issue of deadly forest fires.
Many urban liberals are calling for higher taxes on rural Californians to pay for firefighting.
Rather than higher taxes, one solution to the constant forest management funding shortage in California would be to look to the state’s multibillion-dollar cap-and-trade program designed to address global greenhouse gas emissions. California’s out of control wildfires may have
emitted up to 50 million metric tons of carbon dioxide this year alone, about
one-eighth of the entire state’s annual emissions, largely
wiping out two decades of the state’s hard fought greenhouse gas reductions for 2018. Plus, unlike a natural gas-powered electric plant or a modern car, the fires cause terrible air quality.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckd...ires-could-have-been-mitigated-by-prevention/