This is the most damaging part of Project 2025 IMO. No more experts working federal jobs: just yes men. Trump or whoever says, “Fuck the trees!” and they ask “How hard do you want it fucked?”
My dad has said since I was a kid that the secret to US political stability was the professional bureaucracy keeping everything running no matter who was in charge.
The really bad part is that once it’s fucked it is exceptionally hard to un-fuck it. The people who leave find other work or retire and there is no private sector equivalent so you just lose all the expertise. This plan will cripple our country for a generation if it’s allowed to come to fruition.
I feel like this is just the next level of what Reagan did to cripple the government. You make it so they can’t do their job effectively then use the fact that it’s not efficient anymore as the reason to get rid of it all.
It definitely started with Reagan.
While he didn’t originate the expression he did go on TV to quip “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Which is such a deeply stupid thing to say, but it perfectly characterized Reagan’s animosity towards the bureaucracy that makes our country function. He did immense damage to that bureaucracy in his tenure, politicizing department heads that had previously been professionals, crippling useful programs like welfare and greenlighting wasteful ones like Star Wars. Conservatives are eager to make the government as ineffective as they claim it to be.
Project 2025 will be this and so much worse, but this trend really took off with Reagan.
Just add it to the pile of reasons why that man’s grave should be spit upon.
Nah, it’s way worse. It will add a thick layer of corruption to the government and we would basically become like Russia. You will need to grease hands to get anything done, bad or good.
Definitely agree that it would be way worse, that’s why I said it would be the next level of what Reagan was doing. It’s down the same track but taking it to an even worse level.
I was trying to be funny…
Late stage capitalism has murdered satire.
The amount of destruction logging causes here in Oregon is sickening. Just came back from the coast and where hundreds of acres of beautiful trees stood is now a desolate scar.
I get that we have an addiction to wood products, but there has to be a better way. All you see are patches of land that look like Calvin’s head when Hobbes cuts his hair, and monoculture “reforestation” efforts that ignore the amount of nutrition and fungal/floral/animal diversity that have been removed/destroyed. It just sucks. It reminds me of Costa Rica. I just hope we can choose, like much of Costa Rica, to try and embrace conservation and make an industry around that instead.
Can’t speak to where that wood is going, but the addiction to profiting from the “green” wood pellets to fuel power plants worldwide is why a lot is being taken. And the ironic part is that wood pellet burning contributes more net carbon emissions into the air than the coal it replaced. But it’s “renewable”. Except it takes time to regrow trees, and we don’t have time anymore.
Also from Oregon and unless I’m mistaken we’re one of the better states at atleast trying to be more renewable about it. I thought I remember learning as a kid we had laws about having to plant multiple trees for every tree you chop down. Not sure if those are still around or how strong they are but I feel like we at least treat the environment better than a lot of other states.
Logging is needed as long as its done the right way. Clear cutting is rarely the right way. More thinning is needed in much of the federal lands in the west, or prescribed burning. If not, forest fires will continue to get worse.
It’s like conservatives heard the “too many trees close together” part about our wild fire problem, then proceeded to stop listening to anything else scientists had to say on the topic.
I can’t help but think of Gulag Archipelago when Stalin had all the engineers arrested for “wrecking” because they could not make nonsensical orders lead to the desired output. In any industry.
Did these motherfuckers never read The Lorax?
Trump wants to rake the forest again?
He wants to cut them all down and give the timber to his buddies to resell at a huge markup now that there aren’t any forests let.
Underrated comment
Trump implied that citizens should be made to rake the forests to prevent fires.
🔥 Everything is fine 🔥
Yup that’s it. Make sure to build where the forest used to be as well with all that land you just freed up…nothing bad will happen because of this at all.
/s
A certain amount of deforestation in the densest areas (combined with planting new forests in a more spread-out arrangement) is probably necessary for long-term wildfire minimization. Say you’ve got a huge fire raging in a dense forest. How do firefighters get there? Trucks can’t get in. Gotta rely on fire helicopters, and those are much more expensive and fewer in number.
Don’t just deforest in huge swaths. Cut paths big enough for firetruck traffic through the areas that don’t already have it.
A combination of thinning and prescribed burns definitely does better at reducing fire intensity
It doesn’t look like a commercial clear-cut operation though.
Prior to 1492 natives kept the forest healthy through both those methods. When Europeans arrived they reported being able to ride through the forest at a full gallop which would be impossible because of the undergrowth today.
Relevant PBS Origins video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXJ4Ldy-hLQ
It’s a shame you’re getting downvoted so hard, you’re pretty much right as far as I can tell. The one thing I would add is that if you do controlled burns properly and cull older trees, all the other trees have a far smaller chance of catching fire. I’m not sure that density or side of the forest matters as long as the trees themselves are healthy.
I must have most of the trolls blocked already, as I see a positive vote on that comment :)
I actually disabled the counts on my end and just see upvote percentages if it’s less than 100%
The news source of this post could not be identified. Please check the source yourself. Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Like ive always said P2025 has always been 100% bipartisan
Honestly you must be dumber than sticks to not understand what is being said here.
There are ways to cut trees to make forest fires spread slower, like for example a firebreak. It can slow firespread to critical areas or even stop it from advancing altogether. There is thought put into a firebreak. Not just reckless cutting.
Drumpf wants to cut “all the trees”, because no trees is no forest, and no forest is no forest fires… Some Idiocracy type thinking if you could even call it that.
Get better.
Page 308 of P2025.
The Forest Service should instead be focusing on addressing the precipitous annual amassing of biomass in the national forests that drive the behavior of wildfires. By thinning trees, removing live fuels and deadwood, and taking other preventive steps, the Forest Service can help to minimize the consequences of wildfires. Increasing timber sales could also play an important role in the effort to change the behavior of wildfire because there would be less biomass.
Nowhere in the document does it imply to cut all forests, but to thin them and clear out accumulated biomass, exactly as Biden has proposed.
This must be why the author only posted a link to P2025 and not the actual text, relying on the reader to assume they were being honest.
Get better
