In recent years, particularly in the Western states, the devastation resulting from wildfires has become an issue of vital importance to the survival and well-being of communities, particularly those in more rural and forested areas, though not exclusively. Whether it is direct destruction resulting from fire, or the dangers of thick layers of smoke settling in areas such as the Sacramento or Central Valley in California and impacting high populations, this has become a salient enough issue that government officials have had to address it. The primary reason, according to many of them: climate change.
No political figure has expounded more on the idea of increases in wildfire activity being linked to human-caused climate change than California’s Governor Gavin Newsom. As multiple large fires blazed in 2020, he approached the pressing issue from the view of climate change: https://calmatters.org/environment/2020/09/california-governor-climate-emergency/. In 2021, he touted a $15 billion dollar package in terms of fighting climate change, even though the bulk of the package’s funding is targeted toward other means of mitigating wildfires: https://abc7news.com/knp-complex-fire-update-gavin-newsom-tulare-county-evacuations-sequoia-forest-wildfires/11040716/. Newsom and others in positions of power want the average American voter to be focused on climate change as the root cause of threats to their lives, property, and communities.
However, this pontificating on climate change ignores or at least obfuscates reality, and, more cynically, it deflects from the responsibility those very officials and their predecessors bear for maintaining a policy of neglect which would appear largely based on ideology. Specifically, this relates to forest management and fire mitigation policies aimed at ensuring that massive blazes such as the ones that have devasted thousands of acres of California’s land do not have the ability to become out of control monstrosities. In September of 2020, the Federalist conducted an interview with Michael Shellenberger, a writer, journalist, and President of Environmental Progress: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-shellenberger-019631a8/. While focused on California, the issues Shellenberger addresses and the policy ideas he proposes could be applied regardless of the state, or at the federal level.
In his opening statement, Shellenberger describes how, prior to settlement by Europeans and later citizens of the US, there were many ‘low-level’ fires in California; he further notes that these were tolerated by the native peoples, who allowed and fostered these fires as they cleared out dry and dead brush, which reduces the amount of material that could sustain a massive forest fire. This is deliberately done by various actors today; it is called a prescribed fire, or controlled blaze meant to clear out the brush in order to preserve the broader integrity of the forest. However, this method has not typically been applied to many of our protected forests, and natural blazes have been suppressed as well, resulting in a dangerous build-up of potential fuel. Another method of forest management discussed is manually thinning the forest without a blaze through cutting down the brush and removing it from the forest.
In addition, Shellenberger notes his disagreement with the standard approach of many other environmental activists, which is either to claim that climate change is the primary factor or that it is an equal one. He is of the opinion that the lack of proper forest management is the primary reason that California’s forests are so prone to out of control blazes. He also argues that California’s focus on building a renewable energy infrastructure has allowed for proper maintenance of the security of said infrastructure to take a back seat. In his view, this is a major factor in worsening fire seasons in the state. Specifically, the author cites a lack of properly cutting back the brush from power lines. Shellenberger argues that government’s inability to properly respond to wildfires stems from ideology, more specifically the prevailing view of many in environmentalist circles who focus entirely on climate change at the dereliction of conservation.
The consequences of this failure to consider or understand the root causes behind forest fires have resulted in tragedy. Shellenberger mentions a Wall Street Journal article written by Jim Carlton: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-california-towns-fire-protection-plans-hit-red-tape-then-it-burned-to-the-ground-11600335002. This journalist reported that a California town of 2500 residents, Berry Creek, had been waiting for state bureaucratic approval for a forest thinning project for nearly two years when the North Complex fire effectively destroyed it. At least ten residents died and everyone had to evacuate. As the writer acknowledges, one can only speculate as to whether or not the project would have accomplished anything substantive if it had been carried out prior to the fire; however, the fact remains that bureaucratic red tape kept a town from taking action that may have protected its residents and their property.
It is worth noting that the state government of California, in the wake of the 2020 fires, has acknowledged that measures must be undertaken to improve forest management. In January 2021, the state’s Forest Management Task Force released a report, titled “California’s Wildfire and Forest Resilience Action Plan”, as a means of detailing its new approach to the recurring threat of out of control blazes: https://fmtf.fire.ca.gov/media/cjwfpckz/californiawildfireandforestresilienceactionplan.pdf. However, it is clear from the report that the state government continues to view this issue within the context of climate change. In fact, that is the first of the report’s statements outlining the foundational aspects of the state government’s approach.
To give credit where it is due, the report also specifically calls for an increase in the use of prescribed or controlled fires to clear out wood fuel, which is in line with Shellenberger’s recommendations. Furthermore, it calls for other forms of forest management ranging from building more fire breaks, protecting utilities, homes, and roadways from fire, and et cetera. This does suggest that the state government is aware of previous failings and that measures are to be implemented in order to reverse these trends. Considering the funding for forest management the $15 billion spending package mentioned above could provide, perhaps the state can introduce tangible improvements in its attempts at fire mitigation.
More recently, the federal government has taken a measure to attempt to improve wildfire mitigation in its own jurisdictions. Specifically, the Department of Agriculture is to have a temporary Wildfire Mitigation and Management Commission via an act of Congress: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/title-two-wildfire-mitigation.pdf. The purpose of this commission is to organize a group of government officials and others with relevant expertise from a variety of areas and backgrounds to confer and then produce a report for Congress with recommendations on how to improve the federal government’s approach to this issue. According to the legislation, those represented would include ‘high-risk states’, something that most certainly would include California. Whether this commission produces any worthwhile policy or funding recommendations remains to be seen, of course. Given that this commission is to be established in the near future, it would seem that there are worthwhile questions that ought to be presented to its members when it is formed.
Here are a few: What are the appropriate priorities between focus on climate change and focus on forest and infrastructure management? Can environmental interests opposed to certain forest management practices either be convinced to amend their positions or be safely dismissed by the commission and by Congress? In what ways can the federal government partner with states such as California, as well as the private sector, to better improve the safety of communities in the West, as well as across the country more broadly, from the threat of wildfire? Can such policies be done in an economically sustainable fashion? Can they appropriately account for environmental impact, and what defines ‘appropriate’ in this context?
Ultimately, the political controversy around climate change in particular and environmentalism more broadly suggests that any attempt at improving forest management and wildfire mitigation will be hampered by the aforementioned controversy. If that proves to be the case, then our ability to protect our communities will remain hindered for the foreseeable future. Unless and until ideology and its impacts on policy are mitigated by a more reasonable approach, residents in California and other areas prone to massive blazes will have to adjust to this new reality. The reasons for it are driven by humans; however, those reasons are more complex than merely ‘climate change’.