We can't get rid of this former coke dealer fast enough.

like glue on Covid policy.

it's a LOT better than just letting them burn in forest fires ... while providing fuel for nobody.

The trick is knowing which trees would inevitably burn in forest fires.

But there are ways of roughly predicting that. Esp. if the forest scientists involved aren't dipshit climate change deniers.

Just sayin'

as opposed to 'wood burning in a raging forest fire' ... then I have to disagree

It is not something he can stop except for aiming to be carbon neutral. Which means only the rarist fires wood fires at home. He can issue orders for no outdoor fires by civilians to try and stop forest fires when it is dry but they did that and look at the forest fires we still have. False choice.

Where I made my stipulations from the start.

I'm not sure what his 'policy' is, but without knowing that ... I could see a scenario where a well-managed, science-based plan ... could have positive results.

more trees than happen in nature just reduces the carbon sink the forests are.

It's impossible to know with 100% certainty, yes.

But you underestimate 'forest science' if you think it's 'impossible'.

It's far from it.

mostly start. The only thing to do is stop burning carbon and maybe 200 years later the climates will return to normal. . We are talking about areas 12 thousand miles rectangular. There is no way.

Drought/Rainfall patterns, soil moisture, flammable undergrown, lightning patterns, concentrations of diseased/deceased trees, proximity to humans who may drop cigarettes or factories/plants that could spew sparks, etc ... and come up with areas where it may make good, logical sense to cull trees and use them as fuel instead of letting them burn up in forest fires, a scenario where they do NOBODY any good.

Good day my friend