Dear Reader,

Some stories point to such intransigent problems that we report on them for years, and this week's discussion about how forest managers can reduce catastrophic wildfires is an example.  Fire managers and foresters have long known that prescribed fires -- when crews burn overgrown grasses, shrubs and small trees in forests -- reduce the risk of devastating wildfires in the future. But it's been controversial, in our era of fire suppression, to plan a burn or let a fire go. I remember the debate our science reporting team had in 2016 about the headline: "Let It Burn." Was it sensationalist, or did it reflect a truth about forest management? Were Californians ready to hear this? We decided Californians had to be ready, because it was true then, and still is now, that forests in the state need more of this tool. In the past three years, the science has only become more clear that controlled burns can reduce the severity of wildfires. They produce less smoke per acre, and less toxic smoke, than wildfires. And yet, California still does relatively few of them compared to the state's overall forest acreage, and even compared to other states.

 

Climate Central, a nonprofit science news organization, partnered with a researcher at the University of Idaho to find out exactly how forest managers are using this tool in California and across the country. Our story this week tells you something about why California hasn't used what policymakers have decided is their most effective tool against wildfire. You can find links to all our previous reporting on this topic, too. Next week, we'll bring you a story about one community that's doing something about that.

Thanks for reading. Let me know how we're doing by emailing me here.