Google Earth Image of the “checkerboard” pattern of alternating private lands (with clearcuts) and BLM lands (US federal land; remaining green areas between clearcuts) in southern Oregon. Onshore logging does nothing to solve domestic forest losses or global deforestation.
Increasingly, we are hearing rhetoric about how domestic logging in Canada, Australia, Europe, and the US is ‘home grown, green, sustainable,’ and necessary to avoid global (offshore) deforestation problems. In a May 1 Letter in Science Magazine, “Benefits of onshoring forestry rely on science,” lead author Matthew Betts claims there is scientific support for onshore (domestic) logging as directed in the Trump timber executive orders. Their core argument, along with related claims in other countries, is that domestic forestry practices have superior environmental benefits than offshore logging at inferior standards. Further, increased onshore logging, at least in the US, is claimed to reduce domestic imports and therefore environmental impacts abroad. We vehemently disagree with this notion, given that onshore timber production to meet domestic needs does little to offset land-use conversion, forest degradation, and the unmitigated consumption of forest products domestically and globally. Further, it would set a dangerous precedent for 127 nations (including the US under Biden) that have pledged to end deforestation and forest degradation by 2030 under the Glasgow Forest Leaders’ Pledge.
The Betts et al Science letter has far-reaching implications, as the House recently passed the “Fix Our Forests Act,” which is set to undermine the nation’s bedrock environmental laws, raising serious doubts about the presumed superior benefits of US logging practices. In Canada, onshore logging is also touted as better than tropical deforestation and is Canada’s ‘home-grown’ response to attempts to undermine its sovereignty and US tariffs on that nation’s logging exports.
In the US, federal forests are under the direction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) that must manage them for multiple uses, including biodiversity, clean water, Tribal needs, climate mitigation, and other values. US federal forests support imperiled wildlife, clean drinking water, substantial carbon stocks and contain the bulk of remaining mature forests and intact roadless areas that are a national and global treasure. Increased logging would target these critical areas and not solve challenges associated with domestic wood consumption for many reasons. Economically, it would depress timber prices on private lands and create a negative incentive to timber production from privately held US forests. The ~420 million m3 annual US wood consumption cannot be significantly met by federal forests that currently produce just 4% of that total, with even less of that total available from older forests given their rarity. Environmentally, increased onshore logging would contribute to already extensive forest degradation. Socially, increased logging would not solve the wildfire crisis as also claimed.
In the time since the Betts et al. Science article, additional directives and proposed rules have been promulgated by the Trump administration’s Department of Interior (DoI), Department of Commerce (DoC), and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) that undermine environmental laws and ignore ecological and associated social costs:
+ CEQ proposes to eliminate all regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, leaving implementation to individual federal agencies.
+ DoI and DoC propose to remove habitat modification as a cause of harm to threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.
+ Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins’ Secretarial Order mandates broad use of emergency powers to log indiscriminately, including many of the Pacific Northwest’s iconic protected areas.
+ The scientific workforce also has been cut via massive firings and deferred resignations that are crucial to ensuring timber sales protect Tribal interests, imperiled species, air and water quality, and cultural values.
Inconsistent and unprecedented tariff policies add to the confusion over onshore vs. offshore supply chains and relative impacts. Moreover, the combination of President Trump withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement, his lack of any attention to the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests, the damaging logging executive orders, and the Fix Our Forest Act all signal that the US is officially on the sidelines in achieving its share of international sustainability targets. Meanwhile, thousands of scientists have issued repeated global warnings that rapid loss of the natural world, triggered in part by too much domestic and global consumption of natural areas, is in no one’s best interest. Increasing domestic logging, whether in the US or anywhere else, is a race to the bottom to feed the endless consumption of wood products with increasingly dire ecological and climate consequences. Rather than support this misguided approach, our understanding of current science requires that we oppose regressive policies like the Trump Executive Orders and the Fix Our Forest Act and related policies abroad as out-of-step with global calls for increased forest protections (e.g., 30 x 30) and reduced consumption levels.
