The Trump administration recently highlighted logging as a key strategy for creating jobs and preventing wildfires. However, these objectives are expected to encounter significant challenges. On March 1, President Trump issued two executive orders to increase timber production on federal lands and address wood product imports. The timber industry welcomed these directives, with Travis Joseph, president of the American Forest Resource Council, describing them as common sense solutions to the mismanagement of federal forests over the years. While timber groups and lawmakers believe that increased logging can help manage forest overgrowth and reduce wildfire risks, conservation organizations and forestry experts argue that cutting down more trees may not necessarily decrease wildfire danger and could even exacerbate it. Furthermore, concerns have been raised about the environmental impact and economic aspects of the administration’s plan.
In parallel, the implementation of the logging surge is expected to face legal opposition from groups like the Center for Biological Diversity and Earthjustice, who are exploring various options, including litigation, to potentially block Trump’s directives. The question remains: Will expanding logging activities effectively reduce wildfires? The administration asserts that logging and wildfire prevention are closely linked, citing various challenges such as job creation, wildfire disasters, habitat degradation, and economic security. However, experts like Scott Stephens from the University of California, Berkeley, argue that logging and fire risk management are distinct issues that require separate approaches.
Multiple factors contribute to wildfires, including the suppression of natural fires by the U.S. Forest Service, climate change, disease such as bark beetle infestations, and inadequate forest management practices. Environmental groups contend that logging fails to address these root causes, as mature forests are more resilient to wildfires compared to timber plantations. According to Chad Hanson from the John Muir Project, removing trees can actually worsen wildfire intensity. Despite claims that increased logging will protect communities, scientific evidence suggests otherwise.
“Reducing the time available for evacuation and response by first responders.” Logs can be seen at the Rosboro lumber mill in Springfield, Oregon. Wildfires can spread more rapidly when trees are removed, as this reduces wind resistance, allowing winds to pass through more quickly, Hanson explained. Removing trees also diminishes the cooling shade provided by the forest canopy, leading to hotter and drier conditions. Hanson noted that the reduction of the forest canopy promotes the growth of flammable invasive grasses, which thrive in sunny conditions and can propagate flames rapidly.
The recent fires in Los Angeles were not significantly impacted by logging. The affected areas are predominantly chaparral scrubland, devoid of commercially valuable trees, according to Ernesto Alvarado, a forestry and forest fires professor at the University of Washington. Despite the potential economic benefits of logging, there are challenges in terms of logistics and infrastructure. The U.S. Lumber Coalition has praised the actions taken by President Trump, particularly the prospect of additional tariffs on timber imports. These tariffs could increase demand for domestic timber sources, but the existing timber industry infrastructure has diminished over the years, making it difficult to meet potential surges in demand.
The decline in U.S. timber production since the 1990s is attributed to factors such as reduced demand and competition from cheaper imports. Additionally, the shrinking workforce in the industry, due in part to low wages, poses a challenge in revitalizing the sector. Alvarado emphasized the risks associated with logging activities and the mismatch between the current trees in national forests and those suitable for processing by the industry.
Expanding logging operations raises environmental concerns, as felled trees can release substantial amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Hanson highlighted that logging, including thinning, emits significantly more carbon dioxide per acre compared to wildfires alone, especially when the harvested wood is burned for energy. Critics like Randi Spivak, a public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity, warn of the potential environmental devastation resulting from the proposed orders. Spivak expressed concerns about the adverse impacts of “stripping these beautiful spaces.”
The increased risk of wildfires poses a threat to about 400 endangered species, including grizzly bears, wild salmon, salamanders, and spotted owls. Environmental activist Spivak criticized Trump’s approach to federal forests, accusing him of seeing them as mere commodities for exploitation. The implications of the Trump executive order on logging are being widely discussed in forestry circles, with uncertainties surrounding its implementation and potential impacts on various stakeholders and industries.
