Comments blueberrysushi has made

Clinton's brain

I have been ambivalent toward Hillary Clinton so far - I have bought the notion that she's cold, calculating, and all that. I don't know if it's true, but a lot of people have pushed it. What has started to impress me about her, though, is her incredible capacity to think through issues and present thought-out answers to questions such as those presented in the forum.

Whoever is our next president, s/he will inherit an absolute shitstorm. Bush's legacy is apparent: a useless war that is draining our budget; underfunded, understaffed federal agencies; a deeply divided, even mutually suspicious citizenry; international discredit ... the list goes on, and that's just what we know about. Whoever picks up this hot potato is in for a long fight against the tide of bad governance that Bush has brought upon us. Hillary appears to be one who can deliver on this.

It's weird, I never thought I'd like her, but I think she might be the only person who can deal with this. She has absolutely dealt with every personal insult lobbed at her from the right, and it drives them nuts that she rises above it every time.

All that aside, I like both Kucinich and Edwards. I think that Clinton would be great as President, and I think that she could have the support of people like them (and others) to run the government. How about a Minister of the Environment? On Reflections on Grist's presidential forum on climate change posted 2 years ago 62 Responses

Tightening our belts ...

I recently saw Mark Rey, the Undersecretary of Ag, speak about the Farm Bill. He said something to the effect of "we got it in under our deficit reduction goal." What a joker! Seriously, he must have been joking.

Since the war in Iraq, domestic spending has remained wasteful in the eyes of these morons, while hemmorhaging money in some useless war is seen as patriotic. Federal agencies have been sucked dry, public funding for scientific research and social equity projects has disappeared ... but we've still got enough to remain in this quagmire for the foreseeable future.

Yay.On Priorities posted 2 years ago 8 Responses

Little thing

I'm really annoyed at the plastic packaging that is used for practically everything, including fluorescent light bulbs. The packaging can't be recycled (as far as I can tell) and it's molded to the product, so you can't reuse it. You literally have to cut it apart and throw it away. Why can't light bulbs come in the nice little cardboard squares? The packaging would be recyclable and much less energy-intensive to create in the first place. Why is it cheaper (for it certainly must be) to use plastic than just box the little suckers?On Easy ways to cut your energy use, one day at a time posted 2 years ago 11 Responses

Rural mythology

"This legislation hurts, perhaps even kills, the domestic mining industry and with it the towns and communities in western Nevada and rural America," said Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.)

Isn't it nice that mining companies are good for rural america?

Mining companies hide behind the image of the hardscrabble miner, timber companies (now timberland investors) hide behind the image of the hardworking logger, ag industries hide behind the image of the honest farmer. All of these industries, in their current form, are nothing but bad for the rural communities of America. They have worked as hard as possible to replace humans with machines and to pay the remaining humans as little as possible.

Devastated communities strewn across the U.S. are evidence of our policies toward rural America. Now, after draining them of their vitality, they are a nice front for corporations, and a good place to visit if you have a lot of money and an itch to buy a vacation home with a view. Rural American today is service industry-based, with the very rich and the very poor living side by side, and with almost all land-based, blue-collar jobs gone.

This is a simplification, but scratch the surface of any piece of legislation or corporation that purports to "help" rural America (I'm looking at you, farm bill), and you'll see benefits for large industry and, maybe, some preservation measures. We Americans like to romanticize our rural countryside and its connection both to the land and to our own history, but it's not much more than disneyland at this point.On U.S. House passes groundbreaking mining bill posted 2 years ago 1 Response

Thinning

Backcut has a good point: thinning is an option for decreasing wildfire severity, intensity, and extent in many forest types. However, s/he doesn't mention that thinning alone doesn't do much; rather, it is the combination of thinning and prescribed burning (to reduce ground fuels) that is most effective. Site specificity is always something to keep in mind, though. Stands with historically low-intensity fires (low-elevation ponderosa pine) respond well to treatments. Stands with historically high-intensity fires (mid-elevation mixed conifer with a lot of fir) do not do as well. It all comes down to finding the right combination of treatments for the place and the conditions that exist now.

All this is beside the point, to a certain extent. Why thin chaparral? It is not a system that responds well to thinning. What would you thin? Scrub oak? On Global warming and the California wildfires posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Science may lose because ...

No matter how many scientists explain their findings on global warming, there will be a handful of scientists to dispute them. All of us, scientists included, operate in a market system, and there is demand for conflicting theories, if only to maintain the illusion of some debate.

Of course, there are those who will always maintain that we "just don't know enough" regardless of how much we know. We could have perfect, 100% consensus on global warming and political change wouldn't necessarily follow.

As long as our market system relies on fictions about the perpetual supply of resources or our magical ability to replace resources with labor, or that conveniently dismiss market inefficiencies (externalities) as simple exceptions, we will continue to have every rational, logical reason to wreck our planet.

Scientists can't change this, no matter how articulate they get and no matter how wonderful their spokespeople are. Science loses when political and economic forces trump it. That the crazies are using "science" to debate climate change just shows that they can dismiss anything, with enough incentive.

 On Delayers are replacing deniers posted 2 years, 1 month ago 9 Responses

Backcut II

One final point, because the Donato et al. mess really gets my goat. How was Donato playing some sort of sinister trick on a "gullible" scientific community? Are you seriously claiming that Science, arguably the top journal in the world, was hoodwinked, and by an MS student?

Jeezus. I suppose you think that the Sessions Report was the height of scientific authority for the salvage of the Biscuit fire. Let's see - rotting logs lose economic value over time. So let's bypass NEPA and log them more quickly!

Excellent. Excellent.On Nobel Prize award and Clinton highlight importance of climate science posted 2 years, 1 month ago 15 Responses

Resilience and surprise (a la Holling)

The greatest threat will be global warming, sure, along with our increasingly rigid, globalized and mechanized economic system. As long as we rely on inefficient monoculture systems and, particularly, other countries producing our goods, we will be vulnerable to the least perturbation. Global warming will bring a flurry of such problems: plant associations change, wildfires increase, floods increase, and so on. We'll have more and more ecological "surprises" and we will be less and less capable of dealing with them.

And so: outsourcing our work will leave us at the mercy of others, and since we have set ourselves on a course of paving/developing or creating monoculture plantations on our best croplands, we'll be left with a collapsed system, fluctuating wildly between different states of pseudo-equilibrium. The best herbicides, pesticides, technological efficiencies - these are nothing in the face of man-made nature run amok.On The intelligentsia isn't helping the public understand the urgency of the climate crisis posted 2 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

status quo

Extracting oil from tar sands may be a new technology, but the thinking behind it is centuries old. Tar sands oil extraction is the status quo. Tar sands oil recovery is simply applying old thinking to a new resource, using new technology. This is why technology will not solve our problems: because no matter how much we like to think that the new technology will absolve our environmental sins (it's cleaner! it's more efficient!), we are heading down a road that does not allow for sustainability, and our technology and resource use are irrevocably caught up in a mindset that does not allow for the one true solution to environmental problems: moderation.

As an example, the article notes that extracting oil from tar sands is water-intensive. This illustrates my point: the market imperfectly reflects the environmental costs (externalities), thereby overproviding some goods (like pollution) and underproviding others (like water for fish). Our markets can create incentives to explore or create new sources of energy, but they cannot create incentives to conserve energy, or to decentralize energy sources and make it less profitable. Most of the purported "solutions" to peak oil are not solutions at all. They are an extension of the status quo, which is an emphasis on technologically- and economically-based "fixes."
On Canada's version of liquid coal posted 2 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

Intergalactic

Earth Shaman flew here on an intergalactic grid revv, lay off. Transdimensional beings like him know what true science is, and they're also, apparently, very concerned with our tax systems. So bow down to the true science, people, and give Dr. Shaman some respect!

As per the charge that Al Gore is political, or that the Nobel Prize is political: duh. When did the term "political" become a proxy for unfounded or untrue? We live in a democracy, our choices reflect (so we hear) our values and are reflected, in turn, in the marketplace. This is an imperfect economic system, but certainly our political system, which rests upon representation and participation, is suited for people like Al Gore, who seize upon a cause and seek to change individual behavior through education and advocacy. Is he political? You bet. The best kind of political. He is advancing change by changing people's minds, not through force or through oppression, but through making lucid arguments (ahem, Earth Shaman) and letting people decide for themselves.On Al Gore and the IPCC jointly win peace prize posted 2 years, 1 month ago 56 Responses

A long-winded reply, sorry

Hmmmm, Karsten. If you support fashion and its concepts of consumption you are not an environmentalist who will make a difference.

I'm not sure what to do with this. I am a graduate student in forestry who studies how rural communities are affected by forest management practices. I spend a lot of my time dealing with forest sustainability issues, tenure rights, globalization, consumption of wood products - it's kind of my thing. My yard is full of natives, I grow a lot of my own food, I don't drive ... I don't know how else to be an "environmentalist who will make a difference."

The fashion world is sick in many ways - models are too skinny, fur is god-awful, consumption and the steady drive to get "this season's" fad are despicable. Granted. But I don't need others to define fashion any more than I need you to define environmentalism.

When I've lived/traveled in poor countries, where I guess the "really poor" people live, there was still adornment that I would say is fashion. It's not necessarily consumption, but it's an elegance and, often, tradition, that makes the whole world more beautiful. You know, India can be so ugly, with its pollution and mangy dogs, but it is also one of the most striking places because of these women in flowing saris, bright spots of color across the gray cities. I think that's fashion.

Consumption is frustrating, and I have to deal all the time with greenwashing. Forestry is full of it. Like the people who move to rural communities and buy 5000 sq-foot houses next to National Forests and drive SUVs with "Keep Tahoe Blue" bumper stickers. That's greenwashing.

I don't think of purchasing clothes with an eye for fashion as inherently greenwashing. But you can try and be as environmentally-conscious as possible in your fashion choices. So, as to your request to list ways that fashion can actually reduce consumption: I don't think it can. But if you're wearing more than a rucksack, you've probably bought something that, by definition, is consumptive. I don't know what you wear, but a lot of very sincere and committed environmentalists I know are not "into fashion" but they sure do love their Prana sports bras and REI jackets and Patagucci. That stuff may be ugly, but it's no less consumptive.

I like beautiful things to wear. I like to look at beautiful things that others are wearing. It's a guilty pleasure, okay. It doesn't, in itself, advance environmental or social causes. Neither do other forms of art. I mean, I could take that analogy quite far ... but I won't. Not everything is going to reduce consumption, but you can do everything with an eye to reducing your own consumption, and you can throw in a little bit of flair just because it makes everybody smile.

And, though I'm sure that I've become tedious enough, I'll just go ahead and tell you what I'm wearing: 1950s-era wool pencil skirt, cableknit sweater vest, green "emerald" brooch. All from thrift stores. It's one of my "1950s secretary" looks. And I think it's kinda foxy.On Three designers tell all during Seattle's first Green Fashion Week posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

I respect McCain

I'll just go ahead and say that, while his views on the war mystify me, I still think that McCain deserves respect. Even putting aside the war hero image, you still have one of the most responsible Republicans out there. And the Republican party needs respectable people!

Damnit, liberals in this country shouldn't have to dismiss an entire party. There is such a thing as a good Republican, and I think he looks like McCain. I can disagree with him, but he has the good sense to not call me a traitor for doing so. On An interview with John McCain about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

Where animals are best

In The Worst Hard Time, Timothy Egan does a beautiful job describing changes to the landscape of the driest parts of the southern plains as the bison were first replaced by cattle, and then by crops. According to Egan, the cattlemen saw the practices of farmers as highly destructive, as the grass was overturned and facing "wrong side up."

My point is that, while the destruction of the bison was terrible, their replacement by cattle was, ecologically, not a disaster. At least not as bad as the tillage that happened with the farmers, who created a wasteland in very short order. Some places may be more suitable for grazing, and while it would be wonderful to always have native animals grazing the lands, it may be acceptable to have limited numbers of domesticates grazing. Especially if the alternative is to turn over the grasses and wait for the droughts that bring black skies and misery.

As an aside, when I was living in Kyrgyzstan, I ate some meat. The land there was not fertile enough for crops, and I'm glad they didn't raise them. The soils were too shallow and rocky (subalpine, mostly). They depended on sheep for their meat, and it was a local food source.

There are legitimate reasons for being a vegetarian. Someone mentioned Sally Fallon, and I think she's way too dogmatic about her disdain for vegetarianism. But there are legitimate reasons for meat-eating, as well. Context and circumstances can change the relative merits of dietary choices, and strict adherence to vegetarianism is not necessarily a responsible choice.On Umbra on sustainable meat posted 2 years, 3 months ago 32 Responses

Awesome, Bailo

I can't wait to see it in a peer-reviewed journal.

In the meantime, I had this discussion recently with an economist about discounting and global warming. Something that always bugs me about economists is their insistence on substitutability. For example, that labor (human capital) can be substituted by technology (created capital) can be substituted for nature (natural capital), and that nothing has really changed, so long as the market continues to find equilibrium.

Anyway, she was talking about how investing in reductions to CO2 may be against our better interests, because of the cost (plus discounting) of the investments. If we wait, our incomes (assuming they continue their trajectory) will continue to rise, and so we'll have more capital to invest in things to stem things like rising waters. In this view, putting up massive walls around entire countries in the future is basically as good as avoiding the scenario completely. And so we'll be able to spend our money on other things (more Hummers?), which humans seem prone to do anyhow, all the while increasing overall levels of capital (because it's infinite!) so that someday we can deal with this mess.

Weird. On More thoughts on how sea level will be influenced by global warming posted 2 years, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Rural revitalization

As Karl Stauber has said, rural America has gone from America's storehouse to America's playground. A lot of rural communities have pitched their "livability" to people from urban areas, so-called "exurbanites," who bring their human and physical capital, along with their infrastructure demands and McMansions. This is an interesting change for rural America, and one that does not necessarily bode well for people concerned with sustainability.

I have heard many propose that the influx of educated, wealthy, often environmentally-oriented people can only bring improved ecological conditions to these communities. There is, in fact, a thesis that as nations develop, we become more and more environmentally friendly. This thesis, in my mind, completely overlooks our consumption: where are all of these preservationists getting their goods? As long as we can treat other countries as our storehouses, then rural America will continue to wither. It will be pretty places, nice scenery, detached from our definition of work and our buying habits. In my view, there is not a less sustainable way to treat our rural lands.

Indeed, while ranchers and loggers have borne the brunt of many environmentalists' ire, their use of the land for commodity purposes has, at least, kept many rural areas rural. The development of the rural landscape, termed "aspenization," has ensured that many areas that once depended on natural resources now depend on a service industry that perpetuates social stratification, with low-income service jobs (often taken up by migrant workers) providing a support system for the wealthy who want to play cowboy now and then. That may be an unfair generalization, but it is not altogether untrue. Developments have popped up across the country, but notably in the West, catering to second- and third-home buyers or just people looking for a vacation. These people bring their money and their jobs that do not depend on the landscapes around them, fundamentally changing what it means to be "rural." What was once a livelihood dependent on the land is now just scenery, a theme park.

I know that change is the only constant, but I cannot help but be saddened by this loss of our links to the world around us. As commodification of our resources continues, and as we lose all sense of where products came from (this desk I'm typing on, fake wood - probably raw products from Canada, processed in China), and nature becomes just another backdrop. The seasons change for our amusement, and the trees exist for pictures.On How legislators can help the rural posted 2 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Not exactly veggie, but ...

I'm not a vegetarian - I'll eat meat if I'm a guest in someone's home and they've cooked it. Also, if a buddy shoots an elk or deer, I'll eat it. Also, I have chickens, and one got her leg broken by a raccoon, so I killed her and ate her.

I think it's about setting boundaries and making priorities. Concentrated feed lots are nasty, I think we can all agree to that. Eating lower on the food chain is a more efficient use of land, nothing surprising there. But a good steak every once in a while is priceless, and there are really good people out there raising cattle.On PETA announces sexiest veggie celebs of 2007 posted 2 years, 5 months ago 11 Responses

climate change and weeds

The Undersecretary for the Dept. of Ag., Mark Rey, once said that noxious invasives "increase biodiversity." I guess he meant because they're an additional species, but this points to the dangers of assuming that biodiversity equals more species. Biodiversity, on a global scale, means more species. On a local scale, it may mean fewer, but more locally-adapted species. I think this relates to the discussion of local vs. global climate shifts.

In the PNW, we have oak woodlands that are becoming very scarce (prime development land), yet their local biodiversity may be seen to "increase" because the woodlands have relatively few species. What species are there, of course, are only there, and this is the trouble with climate change. We may have an irruption of some species, but we are seeing and will continue to see the disappearance of far more locally-adapted species. Evolution cannot keep up with climate change. Of course, new communities of species doesn't mean they're "bad" communities, but there will be more and more uncertainty with exotics and new interactions. This uncertainty is often seen as bad by humans, who are so keen on engineering resilience. As we watch systems flail about, it will be a very socially unstable time because the certainty that comforts us will disappear. Is disappearing. Even aside from global warming, things like Dutch Elm Disease and Chestnut Blight have already made some ecosystems unrecognizable.

With climate change, a lot of uncertainty will follow changes in ecosystem functions. For example, fire-adapted systems (like chaparral) may increase in size with changes in precipitation. Fires are already contentious - what happens when they're larger, more frequent, and more intense? And when more people are living in their paths?
 On And yet the media isn't reporting it posted 2 years, 5 months ago 13 Responses

Awesome.

So, a link to Free Republic. Friggin awesome. I love their discussions - lots of "pings" and smiley faces.

The article was originally in the London Telegraph. It doesn't actually name the study or where it was published. No matter! Meet every anti-climate change article with open arms, and every pro-climate change article with self-righteous indignation! Oh, the humanity.On Or is it just us? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

Jabailo

Do you know who Ignatius J. Reilly is? Just curious. I imagine you in East Kent, WA, resplendent in your green ear-flapped hat, eating hot dogs and railing against the obscenities displayed on Grist.On 'The Medieval Warm Period was just as warm as today'--Repeating this point does not make it true posted 2 years, 6 months ago 216 Responses

oops

Another addendum: one of my links was to a model paper. Sorry. I meant to provide a link that was to "tangible" evidence and I didn't. I'm gonna have to go do work, so I'll link one later.On Observed warming since 1990 is greater than the models predicted posted 2 years, 6 months ago 32 Responses

Models

I have to admit that models give me the heeby jeebies. Scientifically-speaking. I do sociology stuff, pretty fluffy compared to model-building. I just sat through an economics class discussing a particular model and it makes perfect sense - this is where the math comes from, these are the assumptions, these are externalities. I've always thought that economists sacrificed accuracy for precision, but alas, they don't listen to me ...

To return to the subject of climate models, they seem to be pretty similar. You're distilling what is real, boxing it, putting parameters around it. It's inherently a simplification of nature. And nature is very complex. Models will never reflect reality, they are tools to assist with decision-making. Then the policy-makers come in. They say, "so you've got all these models, these are the limitations and assumptions, and these are our options." Looking at the climate models, using the data available, it appears that climate change/global warming/Al Gore's conspiracy Theory best explains the data. The fact that this particular model underestimated the magnitude of temperature change doesn't invalidate the theory. It means the model was imperfect. More correctly, it was inaccurate. We have more data now. Of course. Time has passed, we've been collecting data. Intimately related, you might say. The data we have accumulated since this model was created have supported the theory, not disputed it.

There you go. Models. On Observed warming since 1990 is greater than the models predicted posted 2 years, 6 months ago 32 Responses

Thanks, JMG

I was going to write pretty much the same thing, so thank you.

After World War II, policies (including the GI bill) in the United States strongly supported single-home units and suburbanization. This has had incredible social implications, from the rise of the personal automobile and commuting to the disintegration of the extended family and the local downtown.

Aside from the term social engineering, I'd like to place a moratorium on "market distortions," as in taxes and regulations are market distortions. The term is generally used to denote any transfer of wealth from the wealthiest to the masses; the terms for the transfer of money from the masses to the wealthiest are "economic growth," or "development," and "profit."On There's more to freedom than free parking posted 2 years, 6 months ago 11 Responses

Scientists, real ones, with names

There's a website devoted to climate change, run by scientists, called RealClimate. Its list of contributors is here. On New Monbiot piece posted 2 years, 7 months ago 31 Responses

Little actions

If we compared each of our little actions to the cumulative whole, then we would throw our hands up in despair and say screw it, and that wouldn't help anyone or change anything. Cumulative change is a snowball: it'll pick up momentum with not only how we act as individuals, but how we teach our children and those around us. What a cliche, huh? But that's what we have to hold onto.

The starfish analogy is beautiful, and I don't think I need to bring up any more, although a lot suggest themselves. I guess I'll just say straightforward that little actions make a difference and we need to have faith in that, and that bigger actions (political, institutional) will follow because of magical devices like markets and democracy. Those devices are flawed, sure, but they're how the world works, and so we operate under them.

Jabailo (i.e. doubters) would say that the little actions only help out the "3%" and that they'll be able to exploit more effectively in the absence of others' consumption. Maybe that's true. But I think that's a pretty radical assumption to base your own actions on - the assumption that what you save will inevitably be used up by others. What we know for sure is that we are almost all living irresponsibly, and so each of our responsible actions can make the world a more responsible place. I guess I'll choose the positive tack (my good action will make the world better) over the negative (my good action will make somebody else even worse).  On Is the starfish story really just bunk? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 19 Responses

If only Africa would catch up ...

If the per capital income of Africa were to grow in the next two decades, population growth could come to a halt and a big decline begin.

This has been predicted since the Harrod-Domar model for international investment aid was created. Please read the link. The Harrod-Domar model has informed our foreign investment since the 1940s. In the meantime, there has been a growing disparity between the wealthy and the poor in this world.

We use the third world as a storehouse, and increasingly so. More and more of our resources are imported, and certainly our production and blue-collar labor markets are overseas. Our own (U.S.) society has its problems, but globalization has created a worldwide pattern of exploitation. If you see international equity in this picture, then perhaps you have not thought about colonialism.

To link this back to issues of population, the current quagmire in Africa is not (apparently) improving. If anything, it is becoming worse. If prosperity is part of your solution to population growth, then Africa does not appear to be on the right path.On Quit talking about it already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 92 Responses

Population and empowerment

Why is it that western women have electively lowered fertility rates? Empowerment may be part of it, though I think there are several other factors.

1. Reduced risk of childhood death (higher rate of survival),
   
2. Reduced need for a workforce within the family,
   
3. Reduced emphasis on the extended family, increased mobility, and so less support for the child-raising duties.

The first two factors are okay with me, but my point is that vast structural changes within our society have allowed (even compelled) population stability. Empowering women is a part of this, but other societies may (should?) reach population stability through very different means than we have. On Quit talking about it already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 92 Responses

This is gloom, sorry

The only constant is change, as they say. But in the natural sciences, temporal and spatial scales matter. The climate can continue to be variable, but if it is trending toward being warmer, then there may be some serious consequences.

Let's take forestry as an example. Over long periods, climatic changes have changed the distribution of species across continents; there were jungles, once, in places that are now grasslands or desert. Redwoods once covered much of the Americas. These changes occurred over millions of years.

The modern discipline of forestry, however, does not generally deal with questions of millions of years. It tackles more practical, immediate questions, because forests have practical, immediate values. If we can agree to that, let's proceed.

There is a small and fascinating creature that dwells in the forests of North America. It has been here for millions of years and its presence has contributed to the structural and functional diversity of the forests, especially the pine forests of the west. It's called the Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB).

MPB has two phases, referred to as endemic and epidemic. During the endemic phase, swarms of MPB attack weakened, stressed trees, where the female burrows under the bark to lay her eggs, feed on the phloem, and expose the tree to particular fungi. This endemic phase serves to thin the forest of weak trees, opening up pockets of light and soil for regeneration of other trees, shrubs, and herbs.

During the epidemic phase, MPB attacks both weakened and healthy trees. The swarms are large enough to overcome the defenses of healthy trees, often for miles and miles. The entire interior of British Columbia is threatened. What does this have to do with climate change? Epidemic outbreaks of MPB are generally quelled because of a hard, prolonged frost. Canada and upper-elevation forests in the U.S. (Montana, Idaho) haven't experienced the cold snap necessary to cut the MPB numbers back to endemic levels, and so the outbreaks continue.

Eventually, of course, other trees will replace those that are killed. Possibly trees of another species. But temporal and spatial scales matter to humans, too. In the interim hundreds or thousands of years, the trees will repeatedly burn because of high fuel loads and more frequent large-scale fire patterns (also climatic). So tell your great-great-great-great-great grandchildren that the forests will recover just fine.On The innerworkings of it all posted 2 years, 7 months ago 69 Responses