Forests of the Future

In 1871, Chicago burned. It burned because the entire city was made of wood. This in itself was not remarkable; many cities of the time shared similar fates, and towns and villages all over the world were being constantly rebuilt. The surprising development of the Chicago fire came afterwards, when the city passed a law that banned the use of wood in the construction of new city buildings. This law was revolutionary at the time because at the time wood was by far the cheapest construction material. In order to make the alternatives of steel and brick economical, Chicago had to build vertically, leading to the first city of “skyscrapers.” Thus, by looking towards the future, instead of short-term economic gain, Chicago became the first modern city and a model for future urban planning. We, as a nation, are currently facing the same question. And just like in 1871, this question primarily involves wood.

As our country faces ever-worsening problems concerning floods, fire and deforestation, Congress is assaulting our nation’s forests. The Clinton Administration set down strict guidelines, which have been upheld by the courts, and have to date been largely successful in protecting U.S. forests. But the Bush administration and many in Congress, believe that the remaining old-growth forests should be re-opened to logging. The issue mainly concerns the two largest American forests: the Tongass—which is the size of West Virginia—and Chugach National Forests, both in Alaska. Current bills coming out of the House of Representatives reduce public comment and legal action on timber permits, let 50 logging contracts proceed and potentially open up about 14 million acres of the forests to logging while expanding a program where companies are able to log in areas where they clear underbrush in order to “prevent fires.” In addition, Bush recently opened up almost a million acres of old-growth forests in Alaska to logging, without Congressional approval. These actions are so radical that they were even repudiated by eight moderate Republicans who sent a letter denouncing pending bills to C.W. Young, Republican Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Yet the pernicious effects of these bills will be felt very soon unless Congress and the President understand that America will not tolerate such brash disregard for our precious national resources.

Proponents of these new measures give two basic arguments. First, they claim that the logging will help to prevent forest fires, because if there are no trees, there cannot be any fire. Second, they tout the benefits to the economy of the region. Both of these rationales merely attempt to excuse the unconscionable destruction of the last of the American wilderness. Not only does it not make sense to cut down trees in order to save them, but it also defies all ecological wisdom. Clearing underbrush, not cutting down trees, most easily prevents fires. And even if there was no way to prevent these trees from being burned, then it would still be immeasurably better to let the trees burn rather than log them. The entire eco-system relies on the renewal of nutrients to the soil, which would be lacking if the trees were removed instead of burned. Either way, however, this argument holds absolutely no shrift in Alaska, where fires rarely exceed a few acres in range, since both Tongass and Chugach are rainforests. This logging, no matter which way you cut it, severely disrupts the eco-system in these areas, with wide-ranging effects on wildlife, soil erosion, carbon dioxide levels and a number of other ecological repercussions.

Critics still maintain that the economic benefits outweigh any ecological harm done by the logging. This view, however, flies in the face of reality and simply reflects the outdated economic analysis of a neo-mercantilist economy that relies on natural resources to provide growth. America has been moving toward a service economy based on information and technology for many years and logging represents the past not the future. In 20 years, when all the forests have been logged, those workers that benefit today will again be facing unemployment, with the only difference being the destruction of the forest. But even in the short term, relaxing environmental regulations is clearly an inefficient job-creating device, considering the government currently spends $30 million every year in subsidies for logging in the area. In addition, the problems resulting from deforestation (soil erosion, flooding, global warming, reduced fisheries etc.) will cost an inestimable amount of money, especially for those regions that rely economically on their renewable natural resources. Even planting new trees will not solve this problem; new trees actually emit more carbon dioxide than they absorb and do not have the root structure to as effectively prevent erosion or the height to provide a sufficient canopy for life underneath. The economic benefits of logging are uncertain at best, while the environmental effects will certainly harm the long-term interests of the region, and America as a whole.

We as Americans must make the same choice that Chicago made in 1871. Those common-sense Midwesterners understood that wood construction represented the past, and likewise today, we must rethink solutions for the future. Congress, sequestered far away in Washington D.C., may not understand or may have shied away from these realities, but the American people must consider them. We must aspire to become a model for sustainability that the rest of the world can look to in the coming century. Cities around the world continue to copy Chicago, and we can only hope that countries will be copying our blueprint for growth 100 years from now.

Andrew J. Frank ’05 is an Environmental Science and Public Policy concentrator in Winthrop House. He is the reporter for the Environmental Action Committee.