President Donald Trump recently signed an executive order aimed at boosting domestic timber production. However, environmental groups warn that this could be harmful to the climate, endangered species, and local economies reliant on ecotourism.
Issued over the weekend, the order criticizes federal policies for restricting timber resource use and aims to expedite the production of lumber and paper by speeding up permits, even those related to the Endangered Species Act.
Danna Smith, executive director of Dogwood Alliance, expressed serious concerns. She stated, “This is absolutely the wrong direction and a devastating blow.” Smith emphasized that healthy forests are crucial for fighting climate change as they absorb carbon and help mitigate extreme weather effects, such as floods and wildfires.
During a time of increasing wildfires and recovery from Hurricane Helene in North Carolina, she noted that cutting down forests would release more carbon into the atmosphere, worsening climate issues. If logging increases, carbon emissions will rise, leading to more serious consequences for our environment.
A U.S. Department of Agriculture spokesperson defended the order, claiming that it supports timber production while still committing to wildlife protection. However, the department did not address how the order would affect climate change. Meanwhile, the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, representing wood product companies, praised the order as a timely recognition that national forests need better management to meet lumber demands.
The order arrives as the Trump administration is laying off numerous employees, including many from the U.S. Forest Service. Recently appointed Forest Service chief, Tom Schultz, comes from a large lumber company background, which raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Anna Medema from the Sierra Club pointed out that increased timber production might target older trees, essential for climate resilience. “These trees are the most important to leave standing for climate and wildfire resilience,” she said.
Nick Pevzner, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, highlighted that the executive order’s success relies heavily on how forest managers implement its guidelines. He emphasized that accelerating logging without considering long-term forest health could be very damaging. “If it’s just about logging faster, it could hurt diversity and climate stability,” he warned.
Pevzner also noted that from a fire prevention standpoint, removing smaller trees while preserving larger ones is more effective than the opposite approach, which is often more profitable.
Smith from Dogwood Alliance pointed out that the economic benefits of tourism and outdoor recreation in rural areas outweigh those from logging. She also challenged the order’s claim that restrictive policies force the U.S. to rely on foreign timber. “The U.S. is among the top wood-producing countries, with the Southeast being the largest producing region globally,” she stated, noting that imports make up only a small fraction of total wood consumption.
Currently, industrial logging significantly contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, especially in North Carolina, where it ranks as a major source of emissions and habitat loss. Smith emphasized that the benefits of standing forests are long-term and that once logged, it takes a lot of time for those ecosystems to recover.
Despite these challenges, Smith remains optimistic. She noted a surge of public protests in support of local forests and federal workers affected by layoffs. “People are deeply connected to their local lands,” she said, suggesting that this may lead to a larger movement advocating for forest protection following this executive order.
Check out this related article: How Trump’s Tariffs Could Impact India’s Steel Industry: Key Insights and Implications
Source link