The other day Roger Hedgecock (spelling?), filling in for Rush, discussed the fires. Hedgecock grew up in the area that burned and also served as mayor of San Diego, so knows the region quite well. He said when he was growing up everyone who had a fireplace used to go to the forests to collect the dried branches, brush, and other wood lying around which they just picked up and brought home. This kept the dried branches from building up and acting like tinder in the propagation of forest fires. But during later years, apparently, local families were no longer allowed to do this, because of the influence of environmentalists (if I understood him correctly). The resultant build-up of tinder-like dried dead wood lying on the ground there contributed greatly to the seriousness of this conflagration.

I happen to be pro-environment, a conservationist Sierra-Club type “green” sympathiser — and have always been one, since before college, and have never altered my views on that. But I am happy to be able to report I am not on the extreme radical green fringe. Some of the irresponsible influence of the more extreme greens is not just illogical, wrong, and outrageous but, as can be seen in these fires, highly destructive and tragically deadly.

(But of course, being a left-liberal means never having to say you’re sorry … )

It is not just the extreme radical green fringe; it looks like it is Organization policy to impede through the courts any attempt by the Forest Service to allow logging companies to go in and clear dead wood. Here in Utah, a bark beetle infestation continues to destroy thousands of acres of conifir trees between Bryce and Zion National Parks. The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (with attitudes similar to those of the Sierra Club) has prevented any logging in this area of destroyed forest, so it is simply a conflagration waiting to happen. And we shouldn’t forget a thrid factor: those senators who have bottled up the Healthy Forest Initiative; at least, Diane Finestein seems to be coming to her senses on this issue by urging the Senate to get this matter on the floor for a vote.

It’s still not entirely clear to me, from several articles I’ve read on this, why environmental interests oppose letting logging companies clear dead wood.

LA, it has long been the policy of the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to oppose any attempt to extract natural resources from the wilderness. Be it mining, oil, lumber, cattle ranching, all leave too large a human footprint on what urban environmentalists call our pristine wilderness. There was an article in the WSJ last year (I can’t remember exactly when)that accused the Sierra Club of practicing “rural cleansing”, that is the conscious opposition to any economic effort that would allow people to live in rural areas. Except for tourism, most of what people do there is extractive in nature, hence the Club’s policy. The Klamath River issue (in Oregon) last year that lowered water extration from the river to help dry farmers in order to save an endangered fish is a good example. Putting the arm on small logging companies in rural areas that would do much of this deadwood logging is another that closes out options for rural people. It seems that underneath the Sierra Club’s policies lies the mantra that rural and wilderness areas should only be enjoyed by urban tourists on their days off.

To Mr. Rostkowski,

Ok, so the environmentalist groups have an ideology against any productive human activity in so-called wilderness areas, not just cutting down living trees, but clearing out dead trees that pose a risk of major forest fires. But why would state and local authorities go along with this? What is the _logic_ (we already know what the “ideo-logic” is) in prohibiting the clearing out of dead wood?

LA: I feel priviledged to comment three times in one day on VFR, but this is a topic that deeply concerns me. State and local authorities usually have very little say in these matters because much of the land out here is under the thumb of a variety of federal agencies and it is federal law that overrides local objections. You must remember that in the west (esp. the intermountain west) most rural communities are in congressional districts that contain all or some part of an urban corridor. Most western congressmen/women live in the urban or suburban part of their districts and have little empathy for the problems of their rural voters (simply because their elections are won in the urban/suburban part of their districts). Over the past thirty years or so there have developed little enclaves of urban expatriates in the middle of large rural land areas (Moab UT, Durango CO, Jackson, WY, Taos NM, Sedona AZ and Missoula MT, to name a few) that have begun to affect local elections (esp for county commisioner). The result is the emergence of local officials who share the Sierra Club’s vision of minimal human imprint on the land. These new demographics make it difficult for local and state authorities to implement local, non Sierra Club, solutions in the face of federal law. And if, by chance they succeed, the matter is appealed to the Ninth or Tenth Courts of Appeal who more than often side with environemntalists. The environmental organizations have long ago figured this out and use their lobbying eforts to implement their vision. The real culprit in the California fires (I agree that immigration played a role, as Sailor points out) is the Endangered Species Act that has locked up thousands of acres of wilderness east of LA from any kind of common sense management. Out here in the west Tip O’Neil’s dictum about all politics being local has not applied for some time; it is rather that all politics is federal.

Thanks to Mr. Rostkowski for that interesting explanation. It’s shaping up as a complex set of factors at work in this disaster:

- Immigration driven population growth, which in turn drives people to build houses on wooded hillsides;

- Opposition to controlled burns because of the danger to houses in the newly developed wooded areas;

- Environmentalist opposition to logging and even to having logging companies clear out dead trees;

- Endangered Species Act, which also plays a role in preventing proper management of woodlands;

- Urban/liberal domination of congressional districts, resulting in ignorance of and hostility to rural concerns.

John Fund says that environmentalists’ opposition to brush clearing is the cause. But what reasons do these environmentalists give to stop the brush clearing? We know their _own_ philosophy, that they don’t want any productive human activity in natural areas. But that argument wouldn’t sway responsible people who are concerned about clearing out brush and dead trees to prevent a forest fire. So I’m wondering how the environmentalists kept winning this argument for all these years?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/

I think environmentalists try to look at the whole picture, what they call the entire ecosystem. Everything counts in that ecosystem including topsoil, insects, mushrooms growing in the ground, ambient air humidity and temperature buffering by tree foliage, how roots hold surface ground water preventing flooding, erosion from excessive runoff, and silting of streams, etc. In the natural order of things dead trees play various roles: they are a source of insect food for species of woodpeckers when still standing and for foraging animals such as bears when lying on the forest floor, they are (because of the greater softness of their heartwood once it begins to dry out and/or rot) a place where birds and squirrels can make hollowed-out homes and bees can make hives, they contribute to the humus of the forest floor by decomposing after they fall down, etc.

Steve Sailer wrote a piece a while back in which he said it was a mistake on the part of the GOP to come across as sort of anti-conservationist. I agree. We all know extreme wacko conservationism when we see it, and Steve wasn’t talking about that, but about the kind no responsible person truly disagrees with. The forest industry DID use clear-cutting excessively. Highly inesthetic urban sprawl IS a bad thing. Pollution controls on cars and factories DO help air quality. It IS a shame to see irresponsible developers get hold of a piece of beautiful countryside and ruin it. And so on.

BUT … no one with sense believes that CO2 from factories and the internal combustion engine causes global warming through a greenhouse gas effect, or oil drilling in the Arctic will damage the environment there, or current pesticide use on fruits and vegetables is a health threat, or people are better off eating organically grown produce, or dead, dried wood and brush must not be gathered from the woods by people needing wood for their fireplaces or backyard barbecues because somehow that will harm the woods exceedingly, or that maintenance of certain population levels of the spotted owl or snail darter in a certain place absolutely trumps the interests of people there in the overall scheme of things.

I would say no one really disputes normal environmentalism, but what people dispute is wacko environmentalism. Ben Wattenberg said the trouble with liberals is they get hold of an idea which seems a good one at the outset, and take it to such an extreme that everyone is turned off by what they make it into.

I wish to add a comment or two to this discussion.
I am a resident of San Diego County. I have been active in conservation activities here and I am familiar, at least superficially, with some of the issues under discussion.

It is false to say that people cannot take dead wood out of the local forests. I am personally acquainted with a couple who live near the mountain community of Descanso. They use a wood burning stove for heat in their home. The wife, with whom I work, has informed me that residents, usually locals, may obtain permits to harvest dead wood from the forest areas. If I remember correctly, forest service personnel do make targeted cuttings of dead or dying trees. Those with permits are allowed to take this wood, but they have to buck it up and haul it out themselves. I have offered to assist them in this task on a number of occasions just for the experience. The permits alloted for this kind of collection are limited. Obviously, you can’t just have hordes of people going into the forest and taking out trees.

On the issue of controlled burning, opposition
has not just come from residents fearful of a burn going out of control. A good friend of mine, a central leader in conservation circles in the county, has worked closely with the local fire officials on this. Initially, there was some hesitation on their part toward the idea. When a burn is done, various agencies are involved in the coordination. Breaking the bureaucratic logjam takes time, as does figuring out what units are going to be on station to oversee the burn, how it will all be paid for, etc. Some test burns have been done in the area near Scripps Ranch, and they were deemed successful models for the future. Given the disaster that has now taken place, I believe we can expect to see more of them done.

Another factor that needs to be examined is the stupid turf war between government entities that needlessly kept vital assets out of the battle. The Navy and Marine Corps have firefighting helicopters to combat blazes
on the bases here. Navy pilots were interviewed on local television. They said they were denied permission to engage because the California Department of Forestry had not certified them for this task. This seems somewhat absurd, given that the military aircraft are probably better maintained than the civilian. Also, military pilots are trained to deal with battlefield conditions. How bloody hard could it be for pilots with their expertise to hover and dump a bucket of water on the flames?

I personally witnessed an example of this lunacy.
On Wednesday, the 29th, I was southbound on Interstate 15 at about 2:30 P.M. As I passed Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, what was in the air but FOUR military choppers with their water buckets, under the guidance of a CDF copter, practicing suppression drops on the small
ember piles left after the fire had burned through the area three days before. This while the Cedar fire was burning ferociously in the eastern part of the county with a front estimated at 40+ miles in length. How many homes could have been saved if those choppers had been in the real fight?

Ultimately, however, the bottom line issue is population growth. There are too many people here. There are too many people continuing to come. As more and more sprawl invades the rural areas, it becomes ever more difficult to save any particular house. Also, engine companies that are sitting on a street on guard are not fighting the fire. We simply should not allow any more development in these areas, but it will happen.
Why? Because the same politicians who point fingers as to who is to blame for the disaster, cannot see their own culpability for having given the developers what they wanted in exchange for the campaign contribution money. To stop the developers, we must shut down the flow of people.
That means shutting down mass immigration.

One last thing. The devastation here is heart-breaking. I have driven some of the roads since they reopened. Hillsides are burned as far as the eye can see. Magnificent stands of trees are gone, including the rare and endangered Cuyamaca cypress pine. It is thought that all 1,000 known
trees were destroyed. Hopefully, seeds from the pinecones will spur a recovery. The toll on wildlife has been severe. Biologists report charred remains of birds and rabbits everywhere.
Deer and lions are depleted. Many domesticated animals suffered. Firefighters reported seeing horses and wild animals on fire as they passed by, living torches dying a hideous death. To think, one moron with one match started all this. What if it had been an Al-Quaeda cell? One shudders to think of the possibilities.

Edward

Edward wrote,

“Ultimately, however, the bottom line issue is population growth. There are too many people here. There are too many people continuing to come. As more and more sprawl invades the rural areas, it becomes ever more difficult to save any particular house. … We simply should not allow any more development in these areas … . To stop the developers, we must shut down the flow of people. That means shutting down mass immigration.”

President Bush, Karl Rove, and anyone connected with this administration: Please take a good close look at Edward’s words. The American people are speaking to you. Do not continue to ignore us.

Unadorned writes: “BUT … no one with sense believes that CO2 from factories and the internal combustion engine causes global warming through a greenhouse gas effect.” I think this is an astonishing statement.

Agreed, the connection between heightened CO2 levels [that atmospheric CO2 levels **are** ~25% higher since industrialism’s beginnings is a **measured** fact] and increases in global average temperature isn’t proven, but lots of people with plenty of sense think that’s what is happening.

I’m not expert in the field, but, as a physicist, I understand the basic radiative transfer processes involved in the direct CO2 effect, and they are clearly warming. What’s unclear are how important possible compensating factors (e.g. increased temperature leads to more evaporating water, hence more clouds, hence more reflection of sunlight before it reaches earth) are. It is a significant, ongoing scientific enterprise to refine the global climate models so that they include all the effects and links of causation.

Unadorned’s implication that the idea of global warming under CO2 forcing is “extreme wacko conservationism” suggests to me that he or she holds the unfortunate, yet common, view that environmental concerns are peripheral luxuries, to be thought about only after we have the economy all in order. In fact, the human economy is a subset of the environment and we are completely dependent upon the continued workings of the natural world.

I suggest that people on the right who regard environmental concerns as tangential frippery read this column by John Leo …

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20010402.shtml

.. and consider that conservation and conservatism are closely-related words.

After the preceding, it may surprise readers here that I’m completely with them on immigration and on most cultural issues. As a physicist/environmentalist, I think that humanity is one large, slow-motion train wreck. But as someone who can see (or read about) what’s happening to our society here, in Europe, and in Israel, I think the breakdown of Western civilization is proceeding at an even faster rate than the environment is collapsing.

Paul writes,

” … the connection between heightened CO2 levels … and increases in global average temperature isn’t proven, but lots of people with plenty of sense think that’s what is happening.”

(Paul won’t let posters get away with a little bit of hyperbole.) OK, lots of scientists who think that’s what’s happening have plenty of sense.

By the way, maybe Paul can explain why lots of people think that’s what’s happening if it isn’t proven (and is far from proven), and why lots of people expected our country to sign extraordinary international accords limiting CO2 emissions on the basis of a theory, accords with potentially deleterious social and economic consequences.

I don’t consider environmental concerns peripheral luxuries. I strongly support responsible conservation and other environmental policies which aren’t wacko. That said, I’m against putting animals and “nature” above human beings. God didn’t ordain any such arrangement (if anything, he ordained the opposite).

That John Leo column didn’t seem to be one of his stronger ones.

I agree with Paul, John Leo, Steve Sailer and the others who feel the GOP makes a big mistake if it continues to distance itself from legitimate environmental concerns.

I agree generally with the skeptics on so-called global warming, even though I am an unabashed and vociferous advocate of the return of industrial hemp to the U.S. (See for introductory material “New Billion Dollar Crop” by Popular Mechanics 1938 http://www.jackherer.com/popmech.html and the U.S.D.A. 1942 film “Hemp For Victory” http://www.jtl.org/HFV.rm — long download for low-speed connections.)

But one environmentalist who earned the Washington Times’s award for “Noble of the Week” was Bjorn Lomborg. And his take on this ‘global warming’ stuff deserves a hearing:

http://www.lomborg.com/index.html

See especially his reply to “Scientific American” magazine: http://www.lomborg.com/files/SABLnoInf2.pdf

It might look as if I was conceding points to the other side in my post above, where I wrote,

“(Paul won’t let posters get away with a little bit of hyperbole.) OK, lots of scientists who think that’s what’s happening have plenty of sense.”

It wasn’t clear there, so I’ll clarify: I was conceding nothing whatsoever to the other side. I was only conceding to Paul that, OK, if he insists, I was exaggerating: not every single scientist who believes that CO2 from human activity is causing global warming literally “has no sense.” (I concede absolutely nothing to the other side on global warming itself.)

(Sorry, but sometimes the only response humanly possible to some of these wacko claims of the left or the irresponsible greens involves a bit of hyperbole.)