ATSR World Fire Atlas

What the story doesn't say is how much of that is permanent loss through deliberate land clearing by fire (common in 3rd world countries, especial in oxygen producing, carbon dioxide reducing rain forests in Latin America). A certain percentage of this has got to be naturally occurring (i.e. lightning started) forest fires, or even accidentally started fires, which will be allowed to grow back.

Foresters and Biologist discovered a few years back that fire is Nature's way of cleansing and renewing a forest. In a controversial move, the USFS, after years of unflinching fire protection (remember Smokey the Bear? Seen him much lately?) has reverted to "laissez faire" fire management, allowing natural fires in Parks and National Forests to burn themselves out, unless lives or property was seriously threatened. In some instances, "controlled burning" has even been used as a tool in forest management.

It's true that forest fires occurred befor man and in many instances can help forests develope by removing older canopy and providing sunlight again near the forest floor while also enriching the ground with nutrients. But there is one major point you have neglected. These fires occured on a 100 times smaller scale before.

By far these fires are the result of deliberate land clearing by fire which is why the amount of burning forests are so high today. This releases a tremendous amount of carbon into the atmosphere while killing countless species of plants and animals.

Some plants are even known to be triggered to germinate by the heat of fire, so yes, fire is all bad, but it is mostly bad. We should take care when we say things such as "laissez faire" fire management when they aren't true, which in this case the statement is a joke. One visit to the USFS website will show anyone who bothers to do research that the USFS considers fires a hazard and has extensive plans for preventing and fighting forest fires.

Warning: No-Spin Zone Ahead!

All I said was the story does NOT say how much is permanent loss... I would like to know where you got your "100 times smaller scale" figure, out of your head? I agree that deliberate clearing of rain forests, whether by burning or other means, is a serious problem. Governments of industrialized nations should be addressing the problem through diplomacy and agricultural technology aid to the farmers in these Third World nations who feel the need to slash and burn to create new farm land to replace what has been depleted by overfarming. Did the "Dust Bowl" of the 1930's and the resulting efforts to improve agriculture teach us nothing that we can share with the rest of the hungry world?

On the USFS policy I stand corrected, partially, anyway. "Laissez faire" is not a fair nor accurate description of USFS fire management. However, there has been an about face in policy, and it is controversial, that fire is NOT all bad and can be a tool in good forestry. I still say that I have not seen Smokey the Bear on TV much lately, just a personal observation! (grin)

Back on the Rain Forest problem. The more serious side of the problem is the loss of the oxygen generating capacity, not so much the increase in carbon in the atmosphere. If you are referring to carbon as particulates (solids in the form of ash), or even as green-house gases, that is a weak argument. Solid carbon is relatively inert and can even be used to filter and absorb other harmful chemicals. It is only harmful for the short time it is airborne and becomes a breathing hazard, which is usually and primarily a local, not global, problem. Also, industrial and automotive production as well as natural releases (e.g. volcanic eruption and venting) of carbon and carbon-based gases far outstrip any forest burning. There is even honest scientific debate about whether "global warming" is a man-made phenomena or simply a natural, although infrequently occuring, event, or even it it truly exists (on a long-term and irreversible scale) at all.

You really should listen more to the O'Reilly Factor! (grin)

"I would like to know where you got your "100 times smaller scale" figure, out of your head?"

Yes out of my head. You were right to call me on it. I hate it when other people make up numbers so I should hold myself to the same standard. What I should have said is "Although forest fires occured before man was around, I doubt they occured near the scale that they occur today due to the fact that today most are set on purpose. But perhaps you feel differently. Do you believe that forest fires occurred on the scale they do today? A tenth as much?

As for the carbon in the atmosphere issue, fire is a chemical reaction where CO2 gas is produced. Ash is just unused carbon and does little to the environment. Burning wood is much the same as burning coal or oil with the same harmful effects on the environment. So the environmental impact of burning 1% of the world forests every year is significant.

"Loss of oxygen producing capacity"

This is a myth, this isn't a real danger.

"Also, industrial and automotive production as well as natural releases (e.g. volcanic eruption and venting) of carbon and carbon-based gases far outstrip any forest burning."

This statement is completely incorrect. Forest Fires and Land Clearing fires account for a third of CO2 production with fossil fuels pretty much accounting for the rest. Volcanoes venting? Give me a break.