Char Miller and Chad Hanson: Gov. Brown’s wildfire plan will only make things worse

I had to chuckle today when I saw this oped co-written by Char Miller and Chad Hanson. Since this blog was established, seems like various folks on this blog have treated Char Miller with respect, while the same folks have treated Dr. Chad Hanson with….well. Anyway, enjoy this piece from today’s LA Times. Below are some snips:

“Responding to the tragic losses of homes and lives in wildland fires in California over the past year, Gov. Jerry Brown announced a “major offensive” against fire, in the form of a “Forest Carbon Plan.” The governor proposes to use $254 million of taxpayer money to double logging levels in California’s forests — to “at least” 500,000 acres a year — and to achieve it, he wants to reduce environmental protections.

Although the governor’s May 10 proposal is ostensibly designed to protect human communities from forest fires and to mitigate climate change, it ignores and misrepresents current science. The Forest Carbon Plan will exacerbate climate change while doing little to protect communities from fire….

A gift to the logging industry, the governor’s proposal will leave communities more vulnerable to wildfire, not less. It will harm forest ecosystems and accelerate climate change. Real success will only come when we advocate solutions that do not demonize nature, but manage our place within its sometimes-fiery embrace.”

7 thoughts on “Char Miller and Chad Hanson: Gov. Brown’s wildfire plan will only make things worse”

  1. Of course, none of this has anything to do with Federal Agencies in California. Is there, actually, 500,000 acres of conifer forests under State control (and open for ‘logging’)? Seems like fake news, to me.

    • “This is because logging reduces the cooling shade of the forest canopy, creating hotter and drier conditions, and removes tree trunks, which don’t burn readily, while leaving behind “slash debris” — kindling-like branches and treetops”

      This simply isn’t true, especially in Sierra Nevada Forest Service thinning projects for the last 25 years. This statement ignores historical conditions that had lower tree densities. In the Sierra Nevada, forests that get thinned are ALWAYS bone-dry during the summer. Generalizing all logging as all the same is disingenuous, and not at all objective and scientific, Chadster. This statement reeks of desperation.

  2. If you want to see a hot and dry landscape that was once lush and green visit some of our “managed wildfires” on our national forests. I consider these guys the promoters of the destruction of the last of our old growth forests by fire.

    • Yea, so much char in the forest since the paranoia of the ’90’s took continuously improving forest science out of the woods and replaced it with wishful thinking producing “chard chad”. Matthew is mistaken in justifying this post by saying “seems like various folks on this blog have treated Char Miller with respect”. How does an unvalidated (i.e. “seems like”) claim of respect become science? An a posteriori (after the fact) opinion/theory about an open system as proclaimed by a scientist walking through the burned woods is not validated science.

      Without a statistically sound research design producing repeatable results over time and under various circumstances, It is but supposition. Said research must include both a priori (before the fact) and a posteriori evidence representing all of the pertinent parameters which lead to establishing a cause and effect relationship. Any significant unexplained variances indicate the difficulty of identifying all of the critical parameters in said open system. The author’s statement that the governor’s policy “ignores and misrepresents current science” is laughable when their “current” chard chad faux science ignores overwhelmingly contradictory, long established science validated for more than 80 years. Especially when said science includes managed fire contrary to their statement. In their eyes, their “management” with it’s chard results is the only acceptable management while the licensed professionals “demonize nature”. Yea, sure!

  3. Sorry, the above comments seem to reflect off-hand information that matches what they want to believe vs. first-hand information and research published and peer-reviewed.

    It gets down to should we do what is best or follow the dictates of the logging industry? Only one is consistent with a more sustainable future.

  4. From the Colorado perspective, this portrayal of (narrative around) upping fuel treatments seems bizarre. Here people do fuel treatments around their communities ,and federal and state agencies do them, without a whiff of ideology. Why? Possibly because there is little “logging industry” fuel treatments have few natural enemies. In fact, most folks would love it if their slash were to be used for something or they didn’t have to burn it and release carbon into the atmosphere.

    Hmm… and doing fuel treatments “ignores and misrepresents current science”? That statement in itself ignores and misrepresents current science.


Leave a Comment

Discover more from The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading