Is more logging needed for an 'emergency' ?

 

The Trump administration wants to cut down more trees -- a LOT more trees -- to address a supposed emergency.  Is there really an emergency?

Of course there isn't. But that's what Trump has been doing on numerous fronts (and has been thwarted legally in some cases) -- declaring an emergency to invoke emergency powers, and then steamrolling ahead regardless of consequence. It is very misguided, for now and the future, but that's our autocrat-in-chief's modus operandi.

Trump proposed cutting the Northwest’s national forests. So what happens next?

"In all, the administration has put more than 100 million acres of national forests across the country up for accelerated logging with a sidestepping of environmental laws to address a declared emergency of fire risk and domestic lumber supply. Nearly 60% of the country’s national forests are subject to the order."

In one sense, they are right. There's a lot lower risk of fires in places like this: