“It is not possible to manage the amount of forest in CA to the degree that it solves the problem.... Remember, you’re talking something like 30 million acres.”

Let me DuckDuckGo that for you.

What historic precedent would we have for that? According to this site, clearing forests in the Eastern Part of the US occurred at the rate of 13 sq mi (8320 acres) a day, every day for the fifty year period between 1850 and 1900.

https://www.thoughtco.com/us-forest-facts-on-forestland-1343...

So about 3M acres a year without the benefit of the internal combustion engine. So 10 years to clearcut all the CA forests if we only used axe and mule. I’m guessing a chainsaw and bulldozer could go a bit faster. It’s mountainous terrain so newer custom technology might be needed. And there might be a wee bit of backlash from some ecofolks if we destroyed all the trees, including me.

But physically impossible? That’s hyperbole. In fact, history suggests it wouldn’t be impracticable. It would be expensive. But it could be started today on a pretty significant scale. The science and engineering on how to do it on a sound ecological footing is well-established. The barriers are administrative, logistical, economic and emotional.

Sadly, none of those barriers are overcome by a focus on the climate change debate. There’s only so much attention an eyeball can spend, and if it’s spent on the climate change debate, it isn’t around to focus on fixing any actual current environmental and public health problem.

I think of it as Gore v. Carter. Al Gore argued grand schemes and tons of to-be-mismanaged money for possibly addressing a speculative concern. Jimmy just built another house for a family in need. I miss Jimmy...

And tomorrow, another child dies of lung disease in Delhi...