By Jim Furnish and René Voss, The Missoulian
In the early 20th century, Gifford Pinchot, the first chief of the U.S. Forest Service wrote what is now considered the agency’s mission statement: Where conflicting interests must be reconciled, prioritize “the greatest good of the greatest number in the long run.”
This approach laid the groundwork for stewardship that promised to balance economic interests with environmental preservation.
But Pinchot and his contemporary wilderness advocate John Muir could not have foreseen climate change — the paramount challenge of our era. When humanity harnessed the power of our original ancient forests in the form of coal and oil to fuel industrial progress, the repercussions on our climate were unforeseen, even inconceivable. Today, this changes how we should view our relationship to our forests and consider anew how to apply Pinchot’s principle.
It is now evident that simply transitioning away from fossil fuels is not enough to restore earth’s ecological balance, as we must also remove the excess carbon dioxide. Fortunately, forests, especially those with large, mature, and old trees, can capture and store massive amounts of carbon, and are essential to combating climate change.
Scientific research underscores the critical role of mature and old-growth forests in carbon sequestration. These giants have the capacity to capture and store significant amounts of carbon, far surpassing the capabilities of newly planted seedlings. Global initiatives to plant billions of seedlings are commendable, but protecting our established forests is more effective in sequestering carbon, carrying little if any additional cost, while at the same time helping safeguard biodiversity.
Hence, today these complementary values suggest that “the greatest good” mandates a fundamental shift towards fully protecting our mature and old-growth forests.
Climate change also brings challenges to forest management — longer wildfire seasons and drought. The Forest Service’s response has been to remove forest “fuels” and thin mature forests, followed by “prescribed” fire, in the belief that they can burn and log their way out of a “crisis,” while most devastating wildfires are driven more by high winds than fuels.
Even with climate change, when wildfires burn, less than 25% burns at high severity; the vast majority of acres burned are light to moderate, leaving big trees alive and standing. When trees are removed by forest thinning (or after a fire), the release of carbon dioxide is immediate. After a fire, however, over 95% of forest carbon remains stored in the forest as dead wood, decomposing slowly and returning essential soil nutrients while the forest regenerates itself. The small percentage of forest material that burns in a fire is made up of small trees, branches, needles, and leaves, suggesting that cutting larger trees to reduce wildfire risk targets the wrong fuels.
It’s also counterproductive, because carbon removed through heavy thinning far exceeds what would be lost in a fire. And thinning larger trees to reduce fire risk can lead to a multi-decadal carbon deficit in forest biomass, potentially exacerbating carbon loss over time.
Every experienced fire professional knows that extreme fire weather — especially wind-driven fire — makes it impossible for humans to stop big fires, even in thinned forests. In fact, recent scientific findings show that during high wind events, thinned forests, such as those around the town of Paradise, California, can greatly increase the risk to life and property. Since mature and old-growth forests survive fire best and they sequester carbon, cutting down our carbon future won’t solve our fire dilemma.
In the context of our vast national forests, mature and old-growth forests represent not only a crucial carbon sink but also a vast reservoir of biodiversity, crucial fish and wildlife habitat, pure water, and spiritual value. Let’s also remember that our national forests were predominantly mature and old-growth a century ago.
This is a time for applying Pinchot’s approach to balancing values and priorities. The Forest Service honors its founding ethos by recognizing that new circumstances warrant a fresh response to serving the greatest good for the greatest number in the long term. By prioritizing protection of our mature and old-growth forests, we secure a sustainable future for generations to come.
As stewards of these natural treasures, the Forest Service is uniquely positioned to protect mature and old-growth trees as a cornerstone of climate action. It’s time to recognize that the highest and truest value of our national forests lies in their ability to safeguard the life of our planet.
Jim Furnish is a consulting forester who served as deputy chief of the National Forest System from 1999-2002, and Siuslaw National Forest supervisor in Corvallis, Oregon, from 1992-1999.
René Voss is a natural resources attorney who has worked to protect national forests for the last 30 years, served as a Sierra Club Director from 1999-2002, and is the current executive director of the Western Alliance for Nature.
Olympic Climate Action 