Water supplies at risk in current forest disaster

WASHINGTON — Water supplies for 33 million people could be endangered if millions of acres of beetle-ravaged forests in the Rocky Mountains catch fire, a U.S. Forest Service official said Tuesday.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/washington/6482967.html

I've been predicting these scenarios for years but, no one seems to want to listen. Don't worry too much about this because it WILL get far worse before it gets better, especially if we continue to "let nature take its course". "Climate change" has merely worsened the disaster and is NOT the cause. It's not really a matter of "IF" it catches on fire. It WILL happen and if we do nothing about it before the wildfires rage, water will become more scarce and less clean and people's lives WILL be put in danger.

"Welcome to Your Nightmare", with apologies to Alice Cooper.

What do you think we should do about it?

--Ambassador Kosh "Babylon 5"

Truer words to describe the situation of modern humanity as it stands at this very minute have never been spoken.

The words do describe the 10's of millions of dead trees but, humans need to focus on hope, and trust in science.

Gaia!!! Save us from your worshippers!!

We CAN turn this thing around!

Population. Peak Oil and EROI. Modern agriculture turning oil into food. Carrying capacity and overshoot.

Etc.

As a scientist, I am compelled to say that there certainly is a chance that such foolish monkeys as we (please to read 8000 years of human history for more on this) can indeed "turn this thing around".

It's a possibility.

Of course, quantum theory says there is also the possibility that one day I will slap my hand onto a hard surface, and my hand will go through it.

It's just a VERY SMALL possibility.

I DO trust in science, and one of the chief characteristics of a good scientist is to follow the data and facts wherever they lead, even if it is unpleasant to do so.

Sorry, the "gloom and doom" you say I'm peddling is only analysis of the mathematics, as well as an understanding of human nature as it unfolds throughout history.

Sure, we CAN turn this thing around. It's just not very likely.

Let's try a Thought Experiment:

What happens if the melting Arctic Ice allows h. sapiens to drill tremendous amounts of oil and gas, then burn it?

What happens if we have the choice to burn this oil and gas, but such burning will tip climate change into the unrecoverable zone for long-term sustaining of human life?

If faced with such a choice, what will the Global Aristocracy decide to do? Drill and burn? Or choose to think in the long-term?

Here, I'm going to hum the theme from "Jeopardy" while you think about it. Pay no mind to any giggling you might hear.

And why would I be giggling? Because anyone... ANYONE who thinks there is even a 10% chance that we'll leave that oil and gas alone for greater long-term goals or survival has an utter lack of understanding of the long history of the human species, human nature, and evolutionary psychology.

I don't even think there is a 1% chance that we wouldn't drill and burn. If we melt the Arctic and there's oil and gas down there, we WILL drill it and burn it. 99.999999% chance.

To paraphrase Yoda, "Search your feelings. You know it to be true."

And that's just one teeny tiny thought experiment.

Here's the numbers:

8 MILLION acres of dead forests
33 MILLION people's lives at risk
100's of MILLIONS of dead trees
1000's of square miles of watershed impacted for decades, including being flood-prone
1000's of miles of electric transmission lines destroyed

Here's the issue;

We could have saved many of those forests if we had used the latest science to manage them. We could have saved 33 MILLION people from the intense water supply and quality issues they will now have to deal with in the coming decades. Indeed, the entire country will be reeling from this problem. Produce prices will rise and stay up for decades. Financial ruin will ensue for millions of people because of this one fundamental problem of our forests. The idea of letting remote forests die and burn should now be put to rest for eternity but, I suspect that eco-lawyers will make money off this disaster at everyone else's expense. Will you now trust the best minds in forestry to restore our forests and to not let these disasters happen again?? Does the impact of our dying forests FINALLY hit home for you folks?!?!?!?!?!? If not, it WILL, someday. Hopefully this will be that day. Choices have been eliminated for our children. And their children, as well.

I think America should take your distraction tactics personally. Try posting that stuff in your OWN thread and stop trying to derail this extremely important issue!!

The first thing we need to do is to not let forests decline and become unhealthy because of neglect and ignorance of science. However, some of the trees are parts of big lodgepole forests that naturally grow, thrive, become overcrowded, die, burn and regenerate. Pure stands of lodgepoles dominate some lands in this manner. Many of the forests are of mixed pines and other conifers that have been allowed to grow too thick, through fire suppression and lack of forest management. These formally high quality forests, when healthy and thinned, are homes to many endangered species and other wildlife. Managing these forests is essential to their survival in this modern world.

The second thing we need to do is to rehabilitate our dead forests to minimize the inevitable impacts to our human world. That will mean salvaging lots of dead timber instead of letting them burn. Such buildups of dead fuels, were they left in place, as preservationists wrongly prefer, would burn at extremely high intensity, causing intense environmental damage. Also important in rehabilitation is to get branches and some tree trunks on the ground to slow down erosion. Even a tiny twig can hold back a surprising amount of soil. Those are two keys to successful rehabilitation projects. The third key is to get into dead forests at the earliest possible moment to recover as much merchantable timber as possible. Larger snags are good to leave for wildlife but salvaging the smaller, more flammable trees is the most important thing. Otherwise, they will remain and feed the next inevitable fire. Whether it is insects or fires, a balance of salvage and erosion control is essential for proper rehabilitation. I'd also recommend putting ALL profits back into the land.

With all that being said, there's no way we can head off some disasters, because of the sheer size of the problem. The Forest Service and other government agencies just don't have the resources, expertise and manpower to do what is needed. We're talking about 3900 SQUARE MILES of dead trees!! A kind of forest triage will be needed to decide which areas to deal with first. I tend to think that the steepest slopes should be left alone, due to the extra erosion issues. "Contour felling" can be done in these areas, where trees are cut to lay across the slope to catch sediments. We'll just have to concentrate on areas where we can salvage without the high erosion hazards.

I have 20 years of timber salvage experience and have seen what happens, both bad and good. We need to trust the experts but, make sure the government does what they say they will. Insist on site-specific science-based salvage plans and make them stick to the it. Unfortunately, there WILL be lawsuits and the land will suffer. In this case, the public will also suffer. And, that will be 33 million people that will suffer.

It's up to all you people to make sure the right things get done. I have little hope of that happening.

Diverting attention from the issue hurts our environment too, bud!

Are you a part of the problem or a part of the solution?!?!

... a single issue poster complaining about another
single issue poster because "diverting attention from
the issue hurts our environment too"!

Let me introduce you to the concept of a mirror ...
and irony ...

:rofl:

(Edited to remove unnecessary disparaging remark)

Choosing to be against forest restoration. Against clean water for 33 million people. Against preventing summer blackouts.

Against people and forests.

Just watch more people taking sides and choosing to be on the wrong side of humanity.

Basically, you're saying to those 33 million people, "Sucks to be YOU!"

I hate being chosen last (it takes me back to unpleasant memories of HS gym classes), so I'll jump in here to line up on the dark side of the room.

I've been analyzing the state of the world from an ecological/behavioral point of view for about 4 years now. You can see the results at http://www.paulchefurka.ca/#Articles. The doomers are right. Civilization as we know it and many of the people that make it up are in for an accelerating avalanche of hard times. Some of the wicked problems we face may be turned around, but many others will not be.

Regarding your pet issue, I'm not a silviculture expert, but it seems to me that we already face a problem with the forests similar to the one the world faces with the oceans. The situation is already into the danger zone. Proper management from this point on may keep things from getting worse, but stopping the damage, let alone reversing it is by no means guaranteed due to the severity of the problem and the resistance of vested interests.

Good luck, though. Every time we turn a bad situation around it will give us more confidence that we can make a positive difference. On the other hand, a couple of spectacular failures may have the effect of "encourager les autres" to quote Voltaire.

Human beings are remarkable critters -- cancer cells with a conscience. We're interesting enough that I hope some of us survive the coming century.

Quoting Pink Floyd...

"...hot ashes for trees? Hot earth from a cool breeze..."

I'm seeing that the Precautionary Principle is being COMPLETELY ignored by the eco-folks, regarding forests. We now are seeing the results of doing nothing. Make no mistake that this disaster dwarfs Katrina and I'm not seeing any action from the new government. WTF?

Nothing's being done about ANY of it.

What about Waxman-Markey? What about the Toyota Prius? What about the successful efforts to reduce deforestation in the Amazon? What about the popularity of organically-grown crops? What about expanded public transit efforts? What about the meetings in Kyoto, Bonn and Copenhagen? What about water-saving technology in irrigation techniques? etc....etc...etc

You cannot say that "Nothing's being done about ANY of it."

A huge part of it is uncontrolled population expansion, so, why not do something about THAT fundamental issue first?

In truth, there ARE ambitious efforts to expand the fiery death of forests by the American government and the preservationist community.

I should have said, "Nothing we are doing is reversing any of the trends." My apologies for the lack of precision. We are indeed making some efforts, but to point to Kyoto, Bonn and the Prius as evidence of progress is tragically funny. What's your evidence for the Amazonian deforestation reducing? A quick Google shows articles talking about accelerating rates as recently as six months ago:


Regarding population growth, the expansion of the human population depends on two things: first on food like any other population, second on energy, especially fossil fuels. Given that we have hit peak oil, and the global food supply is under pressure on a number of fronts (water supplies, climate change, soil exhaustion, genetic streamlining, fertilizer prices and fuel-related production costs being big ones) I think the population problem will start to self-correct within the next decade or two. That will certainly help with the rest of the problematique.

So you can "not buy it" all you want, but closing your eyes and wishing still doesn't make it so.

and I am totally pro-forests, wherever they may be. My point is that efforts ARE being made in the Amazon. Unfortunately, efforts are also being made to increase deforestation of our own lands in the name of "environmentalism". The idea that letting fires burn is one that the eco's firmly embrace and the Forest Service insists on letting some summer fires burn, and even planning for those mega-firestorms, without the required NEPA analysis and public input. Now is NOT the time for "free-range fires". We desperately NEED a paradigm shift but, Obama is not willing to "change".

On a side note, you conveniently ignored the biggest reasons for unbridaled population growth. No, it is NOT food and energy!! The main reasons are the fact that some ethinic groups and religious groups will NOT even consider any form of population control. It is sad that providing them with more food and more energy will only result in MORE people!!

> So, you are choosing too, eh?
> Choosing to be against forest restoration.
> Against clean water for 33 million people.
> Against preventing summer blackouts.
> Against people and forests.

If you'd read a little more of this forum and written a little less
(of the same thing every time) then you'd know full well that your
preceding post was bullshit.

> Basically, you're saying to those 33 million people, "Sucks to be YOU!"

33 million? Is that all? That's getting off pretty cheaply isn't it?

Oh ... you only meant that 33 million people may be affected by your
particular (single issue) theme and so I should feel guilty at having
laughed at the spectacle of two of you doing the same thing?

Rather than being "against clean water for 33 million people", I am
*for* clean water for a couple of billion.

Rather than being "against preventing summer blackouts" for a bunch
of largely over-privileged & grossly wasteful people, I am *for* increased
conservation, increased efficiency and increased clean generation.

Rather than being "against people and forests" in one tiny part of the
world, I am *for* people and forests around the rest of it.

You post some good, important stuff with regards to forest renovation.
Quidqam56 posts some good, important stuff with regards to mountaintop
removal (and WV mining in general).

I like to read it but not the same screeds on every bloody thread that
you contribute to so when I see you two bicker, I laugh at the irony.

When, on the other hand, you come out with crap accusing me of "choosing
to be on the wrong side of humanity" simply because I have more on my
mind than one pissant local issue, you can shove it.

Let's look at some more numbers, as it is NOT "one local pissant issue".

If we take each acre which will produce from 20-300 TONS of greenhouse gas and expand that out to the full acreage, we'll see some worldwide impacts.

Just for conservative estimates, we will use 20 tons per acre.

8,000,000 x 20 tons per acre = 160 MILLION tons of GHG's and toxic smoke.

Estimates are that 6-8% of ALL GHG's produced in this country come from wildfires, with additional losses of turning essential carbon sinks into carbon sources.

I am not against stopping pollution and reducing human impacts on our world but this is MY thread and you can just as easily make your own one. I am just presenting this disaster to people who maybe don't realize that they ARE a part of the problem by choosing to ignore the latest science to save our carbon sinks.

Some people here are choosing to watch our forests die, rot and burn for some ulterior motive. Yes, it seems to be a concious choice to not save them as the smoke plumes become visible from space and pump greenhouse gas into our upper atmosphere. As endangered species habitat vaporizes, water and air quality plummets, we will just stand by and still claim that fires are good. I hope this sacrifice works out for you folks, because my life is nearing its end and I have no children to pass this disaster on to. I will not take this blame but, history will know who stood by and watched as the great American forests disappeared.

Yes, The Internet never forgets!!

We care about the forests. Just like we care about all the ecological damage that's being inflicted on the planet by this exceptionally rapacious species of primate.

What's this shit about "ulterior motives"? What do you know about the motives of anyone on this board? Chill out.

I'm just confused at why people don't actively oppose the government's Let-Burn program or the fact that restoration projects are actively litigated when the average cut-tree diameter is only 14 inches. I NEVER see any protests to save our own forests (and towns!) from government-sponsored firestorms. When no one presents their reasons for doing nothing about catastrophic fires, I have to assume there is an "ulterior motive". Basically, it seems that you folks just don't want to debate this issue and the damage to our environment.

Lumping me into your predjudicial category of "exceptionally rapacious species of primate" sounds like an "ulterior motive" to me. I merely want to save forests and am not opposed to eliminating pollution, saving the Amazon, reducing excessive fertilizer use, stop the melting of the polar ice caps, etc, etc, etc.

is that we each get to decide what we'll spend our limited supply of time, energy and money on.

If you wish to recruit people to a particular cause, it's a good idea to start off by educating them about why you think it's more important than the several hundred other causes that are competing for their attention. Ascribing a lack of response to ulterior motives rather than a lack of education or opportunity (or simple disagreement about the priority of the cause), and assuming that the righteousness of your cause should be self-evident is just going to turn people off.

that people actively OPPOSE restoration. It is NOT a case of having other more important issues. I tend to think that many people ARE very worried about Americans forests and catastrophic wildfires but, they think that the solutions aren't complimentary with the "party line agenda". Since they don't have better solutions, they choose to be silent instead, preserving the agenda, instead of saving forests.

I do appreciate other environmental issues, and understand that "eco-triage" is something to consider but, a significant amount of eco-lawyers and eco-groups actively litigate against restoration projects, spending that "limited time, energy and money" on eliminating forestry projects, in favor of doing nothing. Since many people cannot defend their opinions on these issues, they choose to say nothing at all.

> Some people here are choosing to watch our forests die, rot and burn
> for some ulterior motive.

Bullshit.
The only one here who appears to have "ulterior motives" is you as you
appear determined to pick fights with anyone who dares to question your
choice of your pet topic for high priority environmental action.

> Yes, it seems to be a concious choice to not save them as the smoke
> plumes become visible from space and pump greenhouse gas into our
> upper atmosphere. As endangered species habitat vaporizes, water and
> air quality plummets, we will just stand by and still claim that fires
> are good.

:boring:
(i.e., it's just another bout of hysterics and floor-stamping by Fotoware58.)
:boring:

> I hope this sacrifice works out for you folks, because my life is
> nearing its end and I have no children to pass this disaster on to.
> I will not take this blame but, history will know who stood by and
> watched as the great American forests disappeared.
>
> Yes, The Internet never forgets!!

Some news for you then "old guy":

1) "The Internet" has already "forgotten" (i.e., downgraded) most things
that are politically sensitive or disadvantageous to certain powerful
interests. The only stuff that is practically guaranteed to be retained
indefinitely is mind-numbing dross like "the colour of Britney's pubes".

2) "The Internet" is a great information repository but has a less than
favourable signal to noise ratio. As a result, anyone who uses it for
more than a source of freebies or porn applies a series of filters to
strip out the crap from the signal. This means that although your factual
input may get through, your pointless rants (and my replies FWIW) will not
so you can save your "I will not take this blame" and "history will know"
crap.

3) Some of us out here on "The Internet" are actively working to retain
all manner of aspects of our environment, our air quality, our water
quality (and quantity), endangered species (sometimes non-endangered
species for that matter), and, Hell yes, even trees.

Don't play the martyr - it really doesn't suit you.
:shrug:

I see that you have nothing to offer that is on the topic of forests so, you desperately want to change the subject. Did you even read the article I linked to that talks about forest disaster and the loss of water quantity and quality? It WILL happen, despite your efforts to blind the public to the government's willful destruction of our forests. Nice job on ignoring 7 million acres of dead trees!! How many MORE million acres of dead forest will it take for people to question why their government is doing nothing to save them? AND, how many more millions of acres of live forests will be purposely burned before the public learns of this holocaust of trees? How many more Biscuit Fires?!? How many more megatons of GHG's? How much more catastrophic erosion?? How many more spotted owl nests will be incinerated?? How many more evacuations?? How many deaths?!?!?

Finally, just WHAT are we trading this destruction FOR?!?!?!?!?

> I see that you have nothing to offer that is on the topic of forests
> so, you desperately want to change the subject.

Nope again. I responded to your post.

> Did you even read the article I linked to that talks about forest
> disaster and the loss of water quantity and quality?

Yes. That is part of the reason why I've repeated that I appreciate you
keeping us (i.e., E&E readers) updated on forest matters that we might
otherwise have missed. However ...

> It WILL happen, despite your efforts to blind the public to the
> government's willful destruction of our forests.

.. *this* is some of the shit that I take offence to: repeatedly trying
to put some sort of blame on me for "efforts to blind the public".
You are talking through your arse - hopefully out of ignorance rather
than malice - and you are being called on it (again). Please stop.

> Nice job on ignoring 7 million acres of dead trees!!

Do you have a clue how many million acres of trees are at risk elsewhere
on this planet? (i.e., away from your tiny little single-issue focus zone?)
(Ok, so it's a rhetorical question: I already know that the answer is
probably "No" and that the alternative is "Yes but I don't care".)

> How many MORE million acres of dead forest will it take for people
> to question why their government is doing nothing to save them?
> AND, how many more millions of acres of live forests will be purposely
> burned before the public learns of this holocaust of trees? How many
> more Biscuit Fires?!? How many more megatons of GHG's? How much more
> catastrophic erosion?? How many more spotted owl nests will be
> incinerated?? How many more evacuations?? How many deaths?!?!?

How much MORE pointless, misdirected AND overly-emotional hyperbole
can you fit in a single paragraph?!?!?

Ye Gods ... :eyes:

I just hope I've opened people's eyes to what is happening to our environment, due to politics and ignorance of established scientific knowledge.

America's burned acreage, this year, is currently at 2.5 million acres, probably on the way to a brand new record. And new monetary losses, as well.