Opinion, Nov. 6: “For and Against”

Clear the smoke

In Ricardo Garcia's letter of 11/6/19 he makes illogical and convoluted statements about my letter of 10/23.

I made two factual points: there is a consensus about the use of prescribed burns amount the Forest Service, the Timber Industry and individuals who receive contracts to promote or implement prescribed burns.

The second point I made is that federal law requires an environmental impact study before proceeding with a proposed thinning and burning on a scale as large as their plan.

Furthermore, the Cerro Grande fire was a prescribed burn that got out of control, not a wildfire. There is a big difference between a prescribed burn started with fossil fuel accelerants and toxic chemicals, and a wildfire. The damage caused to the soil and the rest of the environment, wildlife, and humans hasn't been properly studied yet.

If the Forest Service plans are so sound, why are they fighting an environmental impact study so hard? Their attempts to manufacture consent through fear have been successful in the past but showing signs of cracking as more people become informed.

Fred King
Santa Fe

Twitter, Nov. 13: “US Capitol Christmas Tree”

Why tho?

Let's cut down all the really old shit that's actually vital for carbon sequestration and then haul it 2,000 miles away …

@AvransDad
Via Twitter

News, Nov. 13: “Don’t Believe the Hype”

A Different Dystopia

I'm expecting more of a Blade Runner/Cyberpunk/Mad Max scenario: Mega corporate domination from Blade Runner, cybernetic implants or exoskeletons from Cyberpunk, ecological disaster & resource scarcity from Mad Max.

Serin Gufreda
Via Facebook