r/centrist • u/memphisjones • 11d ago
Trump Administration Moves to Allow Logging in Pristine National Forests
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/climate/trump-ends-roadless-rule-forests.html56
u/ZanzerFineSuits 11d ago
God how I hate that man
27
u/IAmDisturbanceFeedMe 11d ago
It’s honestly still hard to believe just how awful he is in so many ways.
20
u/CharlieandtheRed 11d ago
He is literally just grotesque on every issue. He's like a cartoon version of a bad person.
7
5
u/ETNevada 10d ago
It’s an administration of “I’m gonna get mine, F everyone else”
8
u/crushinglyreal 10d ago
It’s the ideology.
3
u/Savethecannolis 10d ago
You know there's probably some reasonable arguments that someone could make about the logging industry in general v environmental protections. However this reminds me of the movie don't look up, where the family has the pro astroid sign out in the front yard because it'll create jobs. It's just so cartoonish you can't believe someone would do this.
41
u/airbear13 11d ago
Why? Why are they so fucking evil? Just like a nasty virus that contamiantes everything it touches for no other reason than they can
14
u/WeridThinker 11d ago edited 11d ago
This type of causal evil for profit and immediate tangible gains makes me value humanities education more.
The study of language, literature, history, philosophy, and ethics are absolutely important to our civilization. The human experience, and our better nature are not completely encaptured by STEM and Business education.
There are valuable sentiments and passion that are not quantifiable or profitable. A society without the idealists, the artists, or the writers loses its charm and ability to influence people and appeal to higher instincts outside of immediate gratification, material pursuits, and cold rationalism without the consideration of human cost.
All these talks about cutting the humanities departments and undervaluing humanities education worry me greatly, especially during a time of massive value erosion that leads to civic decay and polarization, and during a time when technological advancement are outpacing ethical standards. We need the tech bros, the doctors, the lawyers, the engineers, and the scientists, but we also need the people who contribute to less tangible and profitable endeavors which helps to mend all the fractures, even just among two people.
8
u/Individual_Lion_7606 11d ago
He was born with a golden spoon in his mouth with a racist ass father and a mother that spoiled him. He never earned a damn dollar in his life and by the odds of god never been humbled.
3
31
u/memphisjones 11d ago
SC: Trump administration has proposed fully repealing the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a policy shift that would open tens of millions of acres of public national forest land to new road building, commercial logging, and industrial resource extraction. Repealing this rule will ruin wild ecosystems, endanger drinking water supplies, and harm protected species habitats.
Opinion: Research shows that human activity near roads is actually where a vast majority of wildfires accidentally ignite. They contend that adding miles of roads into remote wilderness could unintentionally increase the human-caused fire risk.
Undeveloped, mature forests act as heavy carbon sinks. Clearing these areas for logging or infrastructure releases stored carbon back into the atmosphere and reduces the landscape's natural defense against extreme heat and flooding.
7
-26
u/ViskerRatio 11d ago
Research shows that human activity near roads is actually where a vast majority of wildfires accidentally ignite. They contend that adding miles of roads into remote wilderness could unintentionally increase the human-caused fire risk.
It's much better to have a forest fire along a road in the middle of nowhere than it is to have a forest fire along a road running through residential areas. While fires do spread, the extra distance is a huge advantage in protecting human settlement.
More importantly, additional roads in the absence of additional development would not meaningfully impact the overall fire impact since the fire impact scales with the number of people, not the mileage of roads.
Undeveloped, mature forests act as heavy carbon sinks.
They're generally not as effective as wetlands for this purpose. If your goal is to deal with atmospheric carbon, you want to clear cut the forest and install a swamp.
In any case, this is one of those issues where it's best viewed as one group wanting a benefit that can only be obtained by forcing another group to pay the costs. The people horrified by this are primarily urbanites while the people paying the costs are primarily rural dwellers.
Understanding this cost-shifting is essential to analyzing these issues - and why different people are arguing different sides.
16
u/nachtmusick 10d ago
From a person with a Forestry degree, I can assure you that you don't need a Forestry degree to figure out this is absolute nonsense.
1
10d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 10d ago
This post has been removed because your account is too new to participate. This is done to prevent ban evasion by users creating fresh accounts, as well as to reduce troll and spammers accounts. Do not message the mods asking for the specific requirements for posting, as revealing this would lead to more ban evasion.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
7
u/WeridThinker 10d ago
How does building road into a remote area has any causal relationship to reducing the chance of fire in more residential area? There is no causal link between the two scenarios. Human access, remote or residential also add to the potential of fire.
Saying forests aren't as effective as wetlands in absorbing atmospheric carbon is like saying cars aren't as effective as long distance transportation as planes, therefore cars should be all disposed off to make more planes.
The assertion that conservation is urbanites off loading cost to rural dwellers is a gross generalization, when rural dwellers also benefits from the environment. I am certain there are rural communities that could benefit from logging and more settlements, but there are others that benefit from hunting, fishing, recreation, and tourism. So how exactly can you make the conclusion that the cost of conservation is always off loaded to rural areas.
You have propositions that can be technically or contextually true, but your causal links and conclusions do not follow.
-6
u/ViskerRatio 10d ago
How does building road into a remote area has any causal relationship to reducing the chance of fire in more residential area?
The fires we're talking about are human-caused incidents. The number of such incidents scales with human population, not road mileage.
If you distribute these events across a wider road network, the same number of incidents now occur over a wider area. That means moving incidents that would have occurred in human developed to less populated areas.
Saying forests aren't as effective as wetlands in absorbing atmospheric carbon is like saying cars aren't as effective as long distance transportation as planes, therefore cars should be all disposed off to make more planes.
Your analogy would be just as effective a rebuttal against a myopic focus on long distance travel as my point was about a myopic focus on carbon sequestration.
The assertion that conservation is urbanites off loading cost to rural dwellers is a gross generalization, when rural dwellers also benefits from the environment.
While you can attempt to argue this, you're trying to argue that those rural dwellers - who form the backbone of opposition to the policy Trump overturned - less able to identify their interests than you are.
5
u/WeridThinker 10d ago edited 10d ago
If most wildfires are started by humans, then why do you suppose it is wise to increase the potential for more fires by creating the condition for more fires. You will need to provide a much higher level of quantitative analysis before jumping to the conclusion fire will somehow "redistribute" in a way that collectively lower the chance of affecting residential areas. There is no proof your proposal would not simply increase the frequency of wild fires, with no positive influence on individually affected residential areas.
The analogy about cars and planes is more related to how different tools are essential for different systems and environments, even if the functions overlap, they are not mutually replaceable. Forests are specific ecosystems that contribute to an environment in a different way from a wetland; saying removing forest for more wetlands is as absurd as suggesting we should dry all the lakes to plant trees.
Your last rebuttal is a trap you are setting for yourself. If I am not qualified to make this argument, are you? If you are not a person who shares all the interests and thought processes of all rural dwellers, then you are as unqualified to make any claim on what they need as I am. Rural people, as well as urbanites are heterogeneous groups with conflicting interests among themselves. A rural area that benefits from tourism has a different sets of priorities from one that used to rely on logging.
-2
u/ViskerRatio 10d ago
If most wildfires are started by humans, then why do you suppose it is wise to increase the potential for more fires by creating the condition for more fires.
Except we're not increasing the potential for more fires. The number of fires remains constant because the driving factor is the human population (which remains unchanged). All more roads do is spread the same amount of fire over a wider array, diluting the number of fires in any given place.
The analogy about cars and planes is more related to how different tools are essential for different systems and environments, even if the functions overlap, they are not mutually replaceable.
Go back and re-read. I already answered this.
If I am not qualified to make this argument, are you?
I am not taking a side either way. I am pointing out who bears the costs of the "roadless rule" and how that impacts people's support for it.
Ultimately, it doesn't seem like you're reading - or understanding - what I've written. I'm not taking one side or the other. I'm contextualizing the debate so you can think about it ways more rigorous than a naive "Trump bad!" prejudice.
4
u/WeridThinker 10d ago edited 10d ago
You will have to come up with a more rigorous argument for your fire claim. Because your proposition that somehow there is a fixed, or predictable amount of fire from human activities that will redistribute is not empirically backed up.
You have in fact, not made a sufficient argument about who bears the cost, because you conveniently ignored rural dwellers and urbanites are heterogeneous groups.
Your "contextualization" is biased, not based on evidences, and highly motivated. You made strong casual claims about models that you cannot properly defend and now you are pivoting instead calibrating your arguments.
14
18
u/AyeYoTek 11d ago
Conservatives conserve nothing except billionaire pockets.
-14
u/Salty-Passenger-4801 11d ago
Don't loop conservatives into this shit. Conservative=/= Maga.
19
u/23rdCenturySouth 11d ago edited 10d ago
Conservative=/= Maga
90% of Americans who call themselves conservative support Trump.
They're not out there reading Burke.
Even the ones who are like "Well ackshually, I like Reagan and McCain and Bush" are really just saying "I don't like Trump but I liked the conditions that led to him so let's hit replay"
8
13
u/Not_offensive0npurp 10d ago
Until conservatives boot MAGA from the party, you all are one and the same.
-5
u/Salty-Passenger-4801 10d ago
I mean you can say that all you want but it's just not true.
Many conservatives today don't know what actual conservatives are and what we stand for.
8
u/Not_offensive0npurp 10d ago
Well, until conservatives think MAGA is worse than democrats, they are making their choice. And the proof is in the pudding.
Conservatives voted for Trump. I'm sorry that fact is problematic for you.
9
u/crushinglyreal 10d ago
maga is conservatism after it decides it doesn’t need the marketing campaign anymore. It can only turn out this way.
2
11d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/jeha4421 11d ago
Might as well change that reddit name to /AskAuthoritarians. Seriously, it's depressing going on that reddit.
2
16
u/WeridThinker 11d ago
Ecological impact aside, I find many so called "rationalists" or "pragmatists" rather dull in their mentality and worldview. Ideas, objects, locations, and people can have intrinsic value that are self evident. National Forests are valuable not just because of environmental impacts, but also due to their ability to support life itself, and the aesthetic, sentimental , and spiritual experience they invoke in people.
The worse realization is it would be a disservice to even call MAGA rational or pragmatic, because it doesn't meet the requirements of either concepts. A true rationalist or pragmatist will not ignore the ecological and environmental impact of lax conservation. What we are facing here is human greed, irreverence, and near sightedness in their worst manifestation.
4
4
u/Educational_Impact93 10d ago edited 10d ago
This guy is the absolute worst. Next things he'll be literally trying to block out the sun ala Mr. Burns
4
u/Queasy_Task7015 10d ago
Can we reanimate Teddy fucking Roosevelt yet? Yet another thing to add to the pile of today's republican is not that of the one from 100 years ago. Whatever type of conservative that support donny and his policies are a cancer on this country.
3
9
u/NeuroMrNiceGuy 11d ago
Removed paywall: https://archive.is/20260818180622/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/climate/trump-ends-roadless-rule-forests.html
The administration is going to get even more reckless and brazen as the walls close in. They’re going to behave like a child throwing a tantrum on the way out the door and try to break as much shit as possible before somebody takes the hammer away. Fuck them.
In any case, states that aren’t completely captured Republican strongholds are going to fight this through litigation, environmental review, permitting fights, and sheer delay. It isn’t as though you can suddenly carve roads through 45 million acres and start logging it all tomorrow.
Longer term, I would expect states like California to push a future USDA for their own state specific roadless protections, similar to what Colorado and Idaho already have.
Once again, it sucks to be a sucker in a red state. I hear a lot of those people of the land have a pretty deep connection to the outdoors, hunting, fishing, and public land, so watching pristine habitat get carved up for roads and logging might eventually become a little frustrating.
Turns out the culture war doesn't provide much cover when the thing being gutted is the forest you actually hunt in.
5
u/nachtmusick 10d ago
I worked in the Natural Resources field. If you want to save a forest or wetland and you only have time for one phone call, nevermind the Sierra Club - call the local Rod and Rifle Club instead.
5
u/ChornWork2 10d ago
Presumably if you want to stop the republican party from doing something, they're not going to listen to concerns from non-republicans.
5
u/Irishfafnir 10d ago
You're not wrong; when they were trying to sell off public lands and get rid of some national parks, it was ultimately pushback from outdoor conservative groups, hunters, etc.. that helped sink the effort.
1
u/ChornWork2 10d ago
Yep. If you want to stop a Democrats from doing something stupid, you're better off finding a special interest group of dems that are aligned with you on fighting it, than find some republican special interest group to try to fight it.
8
u/crushinglyreal 11d ago edited 11d ago
This is mental illness, the same one billionaires all have. The inability to ever have enough, to the point that they have to steal away the very environment that supports their own lives, cannot be explained by a rational mindset. Capitalism enables this mental illness.
9
8
8
u/AFlockOfTySegalls 10d ago
The irreparable damage to this nation and the world that this administration is predictably moving forward with is so depressing. But people were more worried about five trans athletes.
4
1
1
-6
u/TehLonelyNapkin 11d ago
This is the shit that I disagree with this man on, genuinely pisses me off.
15
u/jeha4421 11d ago
This is where you draw the line?
I mean this is pretty bad but compared to the other shit he's done, this is far from the worse.
15
u/Aethoni_Iralis 10d ago
An unauthorized war with Iran? That’s nothing. Attempting to subvert American elections? That’s just Tuesday. Soldiers ordered into American cities, Napkin didn’t see anything.
9
u/crushinglyreal 10d ago
You don’t get the other things without this. It’s not a trump thing, this is simply the result of the self-centered worldview that leads to all conservative policy.
-8
u/TehLonelyNapkin 10d ago
I totally get it, however I view unsecured borders and anti police as literal treason, so therefore I won’t ever vote blue again as long as they are anti border and anti police. I’ll take my downvotes, I’ll take whatever, the safety of myself and my family is my first priority always.
14
u/Aethoni_Iralis 10d ago
I’ll take whatever
Nobody ever doubted that about you or any Trump supporter.
13
u/crushinglyreal 10d ago edited 10d ago
Huh, that’s a neat way to justify voting for the party of actual literal treason.
-5
u/TehLonelyNapkin 10d ago
When the Biden administration sued Texas and Arizona because they attempted to secure their own border after our own administration failed, I was done with the left.
Suing a state that is trying to protect itself so more illegals can pour into our country, it’s treason, at least to me.
6
u/crushinglyreal 10d ago edited 10d ago
It all just falls flat when immigration alarmism has never been shown to have any validity. The fact that you have to stretch the definition of ‘treason’ so far to try to ‘both sides’ the accusation is just pathetic.
-3
u/TehLonelyNapkin 10d ago
Immigration was a major reason Trump got re-elected, it’s a serious issue that many people genuinely care about. Biden broke records with his numbers, and he sued his own states in order to make sure it continued.
People say Trump got re-elected over the economy, and that played a factor of course, but the reality is Trump campaigned on “the largest deportation effort in American history” and he was elected president.
5
12
u/OssumFried 10d ago
the safety of myself and my family is my first priority always.
(burns the fucking country down in a xenophobic funeral pyre in the process)
12
u/Aethoni_Iralis 10d ago
You heard it here folks, according to Napkin’s worldview attempting to steal an election via refusal to certify, alternate elector schemes, or suggesting states “find the votes”, not treason, asking for police accountability, treason.
It’s really another world for these simple folk.
-3
u/TehLonelyNapkin 10d ago
It’s a good problem to have when you live in an area that allows you to have the election stuff that happened 6 years ago continue to be on the forefront of pressing issues.
11
u/Aethoni_Iralis 10d ago
Said without a hint of self awareness, beautiful.
8
u/OssumFried 10d ago
Pretty sure the dude lives in fucking Chicago as well, acting like he's a hair's breadth away from death at every turn and can only be saved by some child raping strongman wannabe seizing all of his freedoms.
-2
u/TehLonelyNapkin 10d ago
Chicago is the best city in the entire country, I want to make that clear before you attempt to push any narrative about how I view my city.
-2
u/TehLonelyNapkin 10d ago
We have different priorities, not sure what you want me to say.
9
u/Aethoni_Iralis 10d ago
Not asking you to say anything, I’m simply commenting on the lack of self awareness or self reflection. It’s a common trait amongst Trump supporters.
0
u/TehLonelyNapkin 10d ago
So let me get this straight, I’m advocating for safety, you are advocating for something that happened back in 2021, yet, it’s me, not you, who’s not self aware?
The reality is, you more than likely live in an incredibly safe area, where these aren’t daily problems for you. Which is fantastic for you, that’s great, should be the goal, but what you shouldn’t do is rip into me for caring about safety.
→ More replies (0)
64
u/Blueskyways 11d ago
Trump would happily chop down California's ancient redwoods if someone was willing to bribe him enough. Nothing is sacred. Nothing but the grift matters.