As the White House revealed Thursday, President Joe Biden has stripped a lot from his Build Back Better framework to placate moderate Democrats. Free community college is out, as is Medicare coverage of dental and vision services, among several other priorities. <\/p>\n
But there is one surprising area that\u2019s so far survived the congressional gauntlet as part of a big climate spending proposal: forest management and conservation. The bill \u2014 which Democrats are trying to pass with a simple Senate majority using the reconciliation process \u2014 allocates roughly $27 billion for spending related to federal, state, and tribal forests. <\/p>\n
While that\u2019s just a sliver of the roughly $1.75 trillion spending package, it\u2019s an enormous and historic number, said Collin O\u2019Mara, CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. \u201cIt\u2019s the most significant investment ever in our national forests,\u201d O\u2019Mara told Vox. \u201cIt\u2019s an astonishingly big deal.\u201d<\/p>\n
A large chunk of those funds would go toward preventing wildfires \u2014 which release huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and have devastated Western towns \u2014 and toward more equitable access to green spaces. The bill would also set aside billions of dollars for ecosystem restoration and more environmentally friendly farming practices. <\/p>\n
Biden\u2019s framework reveals that conserving forests and biodiversity is a core component of the nation\u2019s plan to tackle climate change, as many scientists say it should be: Trees and soil are a natural sink for carbon dioxide, making forests a key solution for cutting climate pollution. Yet for decades, biodiversity conservation and climate change have largely been considered separate issues. The bill also shows that the US government has recognized the growing threat of climate-fueled wildfires and is willing to fund the Forest Service to do something about it. <\/p>\n
But a few big questions remain, including whether the bill will pass. And some forest advocates fear that the boost in spending could actually increase commercial logging \u2014 which, in turn, fuels climate change.<\/p>\n
The bulk of the money would go toward preventing wildfires <\/p>\n
More than half of the $27 billion for forests would go toward reducing the risk of wildfires, such as through prescribed burns, largely within the wildland-urban interface. That\u2019s where forests meet human developments and wildfires tend to do the most damage.<\/p>\n
Putting billions into fire prevention isn\u2019t a huge surprise. Climate change is making forest fires worse, and they spew a huge amount of carbon dioxide into the air. This summer, for example, fires in the American West belched 130 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere \u2014 that\u2019s equivalent to the annual emissions of more than 28 million passenger cars. <\/p>\n
The past decade \u2014 and especially this past year \u2014 has made the risk of wildfires hard for Congress to ignore, O\u2019Mara said. \u201cThere are so many members of the Senate that have been affected by these massive fires,\u201d he said. \u201cThe lack of care and restoration [of forests] has had devastating consequences.\u201d <\/p>\n
In the past, the US Forest Service\u2019s wildfire budget hasn\u2019t matched the challenges posed by climate change. Biden\u2019s framework would dramatically boost spending, according to Brett Hartl, the government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, an advocacy organization. \u201cIt\u2019s a huge investment,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
It also allocates $2.5 billion for urban forestry projects that seek to provide more equal access to forests and parks \u2014 roughly six times more than the government spends on those projects today, according to Joel Pannell, the vice president of urban forest policy at the nonprofit American Forests. \u201cWe\u2019ve never seen this sort of investment in urban and community forestry,\u201d Pannell said.<\/p>\n
But while many conservation groups have responded positively, key questions remain about whether the Forest Service will spend the money for fire prevention effectively, Hartl said. The growing threat of wildfires is linked to both climate change and years of mismanagement of the nation\u2019s forests, he said. Historically, the Forest Service has tried to manage forests and reduce wildlife risk partly through commercial logging, he added, which environmental advocates say increases <\/em>carbon emissions. <\/p>\n According to Dominick DellaSala, the chief scientist at Wild Heritage, a forest advocacy organization, the Forest Service often uses fire prevention as an excuse to sell timber. \u201cBy putting more logging on the landscape, you are not going to reduce fire intensity,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n The Forest Service told Vox it does not comment on pending legislation. A spokesperson for the agency said it \u201cis committed to the thoughtful stewardship of our national forests and their carbon storage potential.\u201d The spokesperson continued, \u201cOur nation faces a forest health crisis due, in part, to the effects of a changing climate, including drought, unprecedented wildfires, and other stresses and disturbances.\u201d<\/p>\n If the bill passes, the agency should instead direct that money toward hiring and training a new generation of forest stewards who will focus on restoring public land with ecological and climate goals in mind, Hartl said. (The bill does include funding for the Civilian Climate Corps, which would hire young workers for restoration, among other conservation activities.)<\/p>\n