True Climate Action: Why We Must Protect, Not “Manage,” the Evergreen State’s Forests

Washington’s Climate Plan: A Step Forward on Forest Protection, but a Step Back on Fire and Bioenergy.

Washington state is often a leader in climate policy, so it was encouraging to see its new Draft Comprehensive Climate Action Plan (CCAP) recognize the crucial role our forests play in fighting climate change. The plan correctly identifies that protecting mature and old-growth forests is one of the most powerful tools we have. These forests are irreplaceable carbon sinks, and a climate strategy that doesn’t prioritize their protection is a non-starter.

But a closer look reveals some dangerous and outdated ideas, particularly around how we use forest biomass for energy and a flawed approach to wildfire. These false solutions threaten to undermine the plan’s most promising aspects and put the state’s climate goals at risk.

The Problem with “Fire Resilience”

The plan’s section on “enhancing fire resilience” sounds good on the surface, but it’s built on a misleading premise. It suggests that large, severe fires are a result of “overgrown” forests that need to be logged or thinned to be healthy. This is a common industry talking point, but it ignores a fundamental truth about natural ecosystems: there is no one-size-fits-all “correct” number of trees per acre.

Natural forests are complex and varied. Some stands are dense, while others are naturally more open. Fire has evolved alongside these varied ecosystems for millennia. Research shows that extreme fire behavior is primarily driven by extreme weather—high winds, low humidity, and high temperatures—not by forest density. Logging forests, even under the guise of “fuel reduction,” makes things worse by removing the protective canopy and creating piles of flammable logging debris. In short, trying to control fire by logging forests is like fighting a fever by draining the patient’s blood.

The real solution isn’t about intervening in fire-adapted ecosystems; it’s about preparing our communities. We need to shift our focus from the “wild-in” to the “community-out.” This means investing in home hardening, creating defensible space within 90 feet of structures, and making our communities more resilient to embers and weather. This is where we should be spending our time and money, not on costly and ineffective logging projects.

Why Bioenergy Is a Bogus Climate Solution

Even more concerning is the plan’s support for Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS), particularly when it relies on burning forest wood. The idea is that you burn trees for energy, capture the carbon emissions, and store them underground. It’s an unproven technology with a slick marketing campaign that has, so far, relied on public subsidies to stay afloat. The recent financial struggles and bankruptcies of companies like Enviva show that this industry is not economically viable on its own.

Here’s the reality:

• It’s not carbon neutral. When you burn a tree, you release a century’s worth of stored carbon into the atmosphere immediately. That carbon isn’t re-sequestered for decades, if ever.
• It’s a taxpayer-funded loophole. By treating biomass as “carbon neutral,” the plan creates an incentive to log forests and burn them for energy, often subsidized by taxpayer dollars, without fully accounting for the emissions.
• It encourages logging and creates waste. The demand for biomass fuels could lead to increased logging of our native forests, which we need to be protecting, not harvesting. The problem of “management slash” is created by the very logging that bioenergy is supposed to solve. The best way to deal with forest debris is to not create it in the first place.

Forest-based bioenergy is a false solution. We shouldn’t be gambling on unproven technology propped up by public funds when we have proven, readily available solutions like solar, wind, and protecting our existing forests.

A Call for Honest Accounting

A major flaw in the plan is its emissions accounting. The numbers don’t seem to fully include the carbon emissions from logging, processing, and transporting timber and biomass. This undercounting misrepresents the true climate impact of the forestry industry and makes it look like these activities are less harmful than they are.

Without transparent, accurate accounting that includes all emissions from logging and biomass, the entire plan loses credibility. We can’t address climate change if we’re not honest about the sources of emissions.

A Path Forward for True Climate Leadership

Washington has an opportunity to lead the nation with a truly science-based climate plan. To do this, it must make a few critical changes:

• Prioritize Forest Protection: Double down on efforts to protect mature and old-growth forests and reject industrial logging as a climate solution.
• Protect Post-Fire Habitats: Explicitly prohibit post-fire logging, recognizing these landscapes are critical for biodiversity and long-term carbon sequestration.
• Ditch False Solutions: Remove all support for forest-based bioenergy and BECCS from the plan. These are not real climate solutions.
• Focus on Community Resilience: Shift fire adaptation strategies from intervening in forests to preparing communities through home hardening and defensible space.
• Adopt Honest Accounting: Ensure the plan’s emissions inventory fully and transparently accounts for all emissions from logging and biomass.

By embracing these changes, Washington can set a new standard for climate action—one that protects our natural carbon sinks, safeguards our communities, and moves us toward a truly sustainable future.

Have your own thoughts on Washington’s climate plan? The deadline to submit comments is this Wednesday at 5:00 p.m. PT.

You can use the official comments we drafted as a starting point.

Then, submit your own thoughts directly to the Washington Climate Partnership Team.