[rsj_hn]

> It's not about removal or clear cutting.

It kinda is, given that controlled burns are taken off the table. Yes, controlled burns would be preferable, but if they are ruled out (which, in practice, they are), then we need to significantly reduce the forest size.

[vsef]

https://www.propublica.org/article/despite-what-the-logging-...

Controlled burns and other forestry practices need to be back on the table, clear cutting absolutely does not. I live in wildfire country, the scariest, fastest moving fires are in areas without trees, the logging industry would love to confuse/conflate forest and wildfires obviously.

[rsj_hn]

So I'm not advocating for clear-cutting, I'm saying that as an emergency measure, I'd rather do it than nothing, at least to get rid of all the dead trees, which really need to go ASAP. But clear-cutting is obviously bad for erosion, ecosystem health, etc. It's not a good thing.

But don't worry, neither clear-cutting nor controlled burns will happen at anywhere near the scale that needs to happen to get the state out from serious fire danger.

Instead, California will be doomed to a future of massive fires and rolling blackouts as a result of 100 years of forest mismanagement. This will result in significant loss of life and property, as well as chronic power outages. And as the red sky hellscape descends, they will all blame global warming and shake their fists at oil companies and China. I'm not optimistic about the state's decision making.