Is Fighting Forest Fires Economical?

Is fighting forest fires economical?

The definition of "forest fires" is pretty self-explanatory, but for this analysis I will only look at forest fires that pose no threat to human existence. Though an economic argument could be made that it might be cheaper to relocate people and compensate them for their loss, it is an argument for a different day. So, here I go. We spend around $2 billion dollars annually fighting forest fires. This is a lot of money, though relatively small compared to our current deficit. But we cut NASA, didn't we? Anyway, over time forests develop thick undergrowth and a layer of brush, naturally built up from falling leaves and any dead material that ends up on the forest floor. This creates a highly flammable surface of dry materials. Herein lies the problem. If we artificially suppress forest fires in areas where they naturally occur, this pile of waste builds up. So the fuel builds and builds, until finally it alights. Because of our fire prevention, this new fire has much more to consume than it would naturally, and is therefore much more severe. According to the Wikipedia page, this has led to the replacement of slow, cool-burning fires with fast, blazingly hot fires which are much harder to control and often cause more damage.

Trees are also living entities. As with all living entities, they eventually die and begin to rot. Forest fires clear these dead trees, creating space for new trees to grow. Dead trees are timber waiting to be burned. If we prevent their destruction, as with the undergrowth, we may be setting ourselves up for worse fires later on. We may also be blocking the path for future healthy growth.

Rizzo likes to say that "the path to hell is paved with good intentions". This may be one example where we would be better off leaving nature to do its work.

Disclaimer: I am not a scientist.