FROM: RSC Policy Staff

TO: RSC Member offices

RE: Debunking the Left’s Wildfire Climate Change Narrative

The Left’s Reaction to Wildfires in 2023

Wildfires have tragically impacted many Americans throughout the summer of 2023. Most recently,
fires in Hawaii led to over 100 deaths, thousands of acres burned, and billions of dollars in
estimated economic losses. While the U.S. has experienced a relatively calm wildfire season
compared to recent years, impacts could be seen and felt from Canadian fires, which at times
blanketed sizable portions of the U.S. with residual smoke.
Political figures on the Left and mainstream media outlets have been quick to politicize these events
to advance their radical green agenda. At a White House press briefing earlier this month, White
House Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta argued that there has been "one climate disaster after
another," and that “[t]o stop these disasters from getting worse, we have to cut the carbon pollution
that’s driving the climate crisis, and that’s what the Inflation reduction Act is all about.” Podesta’s
comments are not unique. In fact they parrot what Biden and his allies have been saying for months:

The Left’s immediate reaction to any weather event is to blame climate change, arguing that
addressing the “climate crisis” through Green New Deal policies is the only solution to preventing
and mitigating the impacts of such events.
This alarmism ignores not only the complexities of the causes and effects of wildfires, but also the
role that government policies have played in facilitating them. While hotter and drier conditions
can undoubtably exacerbate wildfire risks, these factors are neither without precedent nor
controllable through government policy. While the federal government cannot alter the weather,
commonsense efforts can be taken to reduce wildfire risk on federal lands, where wildfires are most
prevalent, while also protecting access to such lands for energy production, utilization, and
recreation.
Debunking Climate Alarmism

Wildfires in the United States have primarily impacted western states and federal lands. An average
of approximately 7 million acres have burned annually since 2000. From 2020-2021, wildfires
burned 17.2 million acres nationwide, 12.3 million of which on federal lands.
As the U.S. Geological Survey describes, “there isn’t a direct relationship between climate change
and fire.” A majority of wildfires in the U.S. and Canada are human caused (e.g. arson, negligence,
incidental equipment sparks), with lightning sparking most others and accounting for a sizeable
share of acres burned. Wildfires were common in the pre-industrial United States. California, the
state with the most acreage burned by wildfires in recent years, experienced far higher levels of fire
and smoke prior to 1800. Canada, too, has a long history of wildfire, and its recent fires attracting
widespread attention can be attributed to sudden and unique atmospheric conditions.
While the number of wildfires each year has not significantly increased over recent decades, the
amount of acreage burned has grown as drought, disease, and a lack of active land management
have created tinderbox conditions in portions of the U.S. Climate activists will disregard any notion
of natural variability or human adaptation and instead frame these conditions as novel phenomena
wrought by a climate crisis. Ultimately, however, any projected increase in the incidence of these
weather conditions will not be resolved through climate treaties or “environmental justice”
initiatives, and instead should serve as an impetus to unwind the barriers to forest management,
described below.
Liberal Policies and Federal Land Mismanagement

Federal estate
The federal government owns and manages approximately 640 million acres of land, or about 28%
of the country’s total landmass, primarily concentrated in western states where wildfires are most
prevalent. Between 1991-2021, fires on federal lands were, on average, five times larger than those
on nonfederal lands, and a majority of nationwide acreage burned each year is federally owned.
Federal forests have fallen into a state of decay as active management has abated. More than 117
million acres of federal lands, including 63 million acres of the National Forest System, are at high or
very high wildfire risk. The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has a reforestation backlog of 4 million acres,
80% of which is the result of wildfire. Despite this declining state, the USFS treated just 3.21 million
acres through hazardous fuels reductions last year.
Policy failures: fanning the flames

The decline in forest health and active management followed enactment of federal environmental
statutes such as the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Endangered Species Act (ESA),
as onerous environmental reviews and regulations, compounded by litigation threats, now
effectively prevent needed forest and lang management from taking place before it’s too late. Serial
litigants have successfully weaponized this bureaucracy, and federal land managers now manage
paperwork and litigation instead of lands. Jack Ward Thomas, Chief of the Forest Service under
President Clinton, referred to this dilemma as a “Gordian Knot” under which federal agencies are
endlessly constrained by a complex slew of bureaucratic roadblocks and legal threats, effectively
handicapping them from doing their jobs.
As is the case with infrastructure and energy projects, federal permitting requirements have badly
impeded active forest management activities. NEPA reviews for mechanical treatments (thinning)
and prescribed burns have averaged 3.6 and 4.7 years, respectively, from project inception to onset.
These delays are prolonged for projects requiring a full Environmental Impact Statement under
NEPA, while categorically excluded projects receive far swifter approval. Lawsuits challenging
federal fuels management and timber salvage projects have led to reduced harvests and worsening
forest health. These burdens are compounded on the hundreds of millions of acres of specially
designated federal lands, such as “wilderness” areas where economic activities such as timber
harvesting are prohibited and critical habitats under the ESA. Some trees burned this year in
Canada that could have been logged had instead been set aside for a “carbon offset” scheme. Private
forests, which are not managed subject to these federal laws and regulations, experience far less
tree mortality and burned acreage relative to federal forests.
In sum, federal laws intended to protect the environment have instead done the opposite: federal
forests are now woefully unhealthy and overstocked, species habitats are going up in flames, and
entire communities and their economies have been devastated by (often preventable) wildfires.
Policy Solutions
Since 1947, the federal government’s chief spokesman for fire prevention, Smokey the Bear, has
famously declared that “Only YOU can prevent forest fires.” President Biden and congressional
Democrats should heed this warning and take tangible steps to mitigate wildfire risks rather than
decry the “existential threat” of climate change. After all, Smokey never advocated for electric
vehicle subsidies or forced transitions to electric stoves.
Promote active management

The RSC Fiscal Year 2024 budget proposes to prohibit the acquisition of new federal land, amend
the Antiquities Act to require congressional approval of new monument designations, reform the
ESA to improve scientific and economic integrity, and unlock lands unsuitable for wilderness
designations to multiple uses, including timber harvesting.
These efforts would build upon the successful enactment of NEPA reforms which will cut through
the red tape that needlessly delays forest health projects. To rein in the weaponization of
environmental laws, further reforms should be made to limit judicial review in the NEPA process in
order to prevent serial litigants from blocking active management projects and enriching
themselves through “sue and settle” agreements with federal agencies.
In light of the permitting challenges associated with active management, House conservatives may
view the upcoming Farm Bill reauthorization as an appropriate legislative vehicle to break down
these barriers, including through authorizing new NEPA categorical exclusions (CE) to expedite
hazardous fuels reduction, timber salvage, and wildfire and forest resiliency work. Conservatives
may also advocate to expand existing CEs enacted in previous Farm bills, direct agencies to better
utilize existing streamlined authorities, expedite ESA consultation requirements, and provide
opportunities for federal land managers to partner with state, local, and private landowners. In
addition, Congress should ensure that the administration quickly and effectively utilizes resources
provided by recent legislation for hazardous fuels reduction, especially given the Forest Service’s
history of vastly overstating and misrepresenting this work to Congress.
Hold agencies accountable
Congress must also conduct rigorous oversight and use the appropriations process to address the
Biden administration’s radical climate agenda with respect to federal lands. Despite the federal
government’s already vast footprint, President Biden’s “30x30” initiative aims to lock up 30% of U.S.
lands and waters by 2030. Just this month, Biden undercut domestic mineral security by locking up
nearly one million acres by executive fiat, on top of his other actions to ban mineral development on
federal forest lands in Minnesota and Arizona. This spring, the BLM proposed a sweeping and
flawed rule to further restrict public land uses in the name of “conservation”, in contravention to its
statutory multiple use mandate, while the USFS began seeking input to develop new policies to
manage national forests for “climate resilience.” In light of the sizeable role these agencies play in
mitigating wildfire risks, these illogical initiatives demand Congressional pushback.
Moreover, the environmental movement of the latter half of the 20th century bred not only an era of
lawsuits and administrative thickets, but a culture of bureaucratic climate zealotry. These agencies
require a culture change that restores their core missions. The USFS and BLM were established to
produce timber, yet federal timber sales, intended generate revenue and economic activity for
communities on federal lands, now reap a fraction of what they did from the 1950s-1980s (healthy
forests sequester large amounts of carbon while timber harvests can reduce carbon emissions
relative to unmanaged forests, but their capacity to act as “carbon sinks” diminishes when wildfires
burn through). Combined, those agencies FY 2024 budget requests mention “climate” 241 times,
while some Interior Department employees can now receive taxpayer-funded “eco-grief”
counseling. Congress must pursue reforms to realign these agencies’ priorities towards their most
vital functions, including in the appropriations process.
Bolster energy security
Recent trends in wildfire activity also raise red flags with respect our energy policy. States such as
Oregon and California now experience blackouts when wildfire risks peak and when demand for
energy exceeds supplies under unreliable renewable portfolio mandates. California has imposed
the strictest emissions limits and environmental standards in the nation, yet a recent study found
that “wildfire emissions in 2020 essentially negate 18 years of reductions in GHG emissions from
other sectors by a factor of two.” Smoke from recent Canadian fires led to a significant decline in
solar power generation in the Northeastern U.S. Wildfires in recent years have accounted for nearly
30% of nationwide emissions of certain air pollutants and half the pollution in the West, as
nationwide emissions from transportation and power generation have precipitously declined.
Instead of waging war on American energy production and blaming fossil fuels for the supposed
“climate crisis”, President Biden must recognize that resource utilization, active management, and
environmental stewardship are not mutually exclusive, and in fact are often complementary.
Federal leasing for energy development projects generates revenues that are partially distributed to
the land management agencies for maintenance and stewardship programs. Forest biomass, which
can be harvested through mechanical thinning or post-wildfire salvage work, can play a role in an
“all-of-the-above” approach to energy development. Yet with each wildfire, President Biden
appears more likely to cave to activist demands to declare a “climate emergency” and use
unchecked executive powers to further obstruct domestic production.
The wildfires that recently created havoc in Hawaii demonstrate that concrete solutions to mitigate
risks and avoid devastation often exist but are ignored. The failures of federal policies become more
evident with each wildfire season, and conservative policymakers should resolve to champion
proactive and meaningful solutions.

Conclusion
The Left believes that orange skies and airborne smoke will scare Americans into going along with
their heavy-handed climate agenda and domineering environmental policies. Instead, they should
serve as a wake-up call for conservatives to counter the Left’s false narratives. Conservatives must
force Democrats to acknowledge the failures of the environmental policies they consider “bedrock”
and advance reforms that will truly protect people and the planet while unleashing economic
prosperity.
Ultimately, the vast federal estate belongs to the American people, and it will be up to Conservatives
to steer the government away from climate alarmism and towards responsible active stewardship.