Twice a week I email Our Land to a roster of special subscribers who pay $5/month to receive the story behind the headlines. But I’m offering you a 30-day free trial—with no strings attached—because I’m hoping that after you start reading Our Land you’ll be hooked.
Our Land unpacks the key events of the week and lets you in on what no one else in the media is telling you. It's fresh, fun, and unfiltered. If you have appreciated my journalism, my books, or my media appearances over the years, you’ll enjoy Our Land.
Please give Our Land a shot today .
Try my personal newsletter—for free.
Twice a week I email Our Land to a roster of special subscribers who pay $5/month to receive the story behind the headlines. But I’m offering you a 30-day free trial—with no strings attached—because I’m hoping that after you start reading Our Land you’ll be hooked.
Our Land unpacks the key events of the week and lets you in on what no one else in the media is telling you. It's fresh, fun, and unfiltered. If you have appreciated my journalism, my books, or my media appearances over the years, you’ll enjoy Our Land.
Please give Our Land a shot today.
-David Corn, Washington, DC, Bureau Chief
Political appointees at the Interior Department have sought to play up climate pollution from California wildfires while downplaying emissions from fossil fuels as a way of promoting more logging in the nation’s forests, internal emails obtained by the Guardian reveal.
The messaging plan was crafted in support of Donald Trump’s pro-industry arguments for harvesting more timber in California, which he says would thin forests and prevent fires—a point experts refute.
The emails show officials seeking to estimate the carbon emissions from devastating 2018 fires in California so they could compare them to the carbon footprint of the state’s electricity sector and then publish statements encouraging cutting down trees.
The records offer a look behind the scenes at how Trump and his appointees have tried to craft a narrative that forest protection efforts are responsible for wildfires, including in California, even as science shows fires are becoming more intense largely because of climate change.
James Reilly, a former petroleum geologist and astronaut also said the numbers would make a “decent sound bite,” and acknowledged that wildfire emissions estimates could vary based on what kind of trees were burning but picked the ones that he said would make “a good story.”
Scientists who reviewed the exchanges said that at best Reilly used unfortunate language and the department cherry-picked data to help achieve their pro-industry policy goals; at worst he and others exploited a disaster and manipulated the data.
The emails add to concerns that the Trump administration is doing industry’s bidding rather than pursuing the public interest. Across agencies, top positions are filled by former lobbyists, and dozens of investigative reports have revealed agencies working closely with major industries to ease pollution, public health and safety regulations.
A USGS spokesperson said Reilly’s emails were “intended to instruct the subject matter expert to do the calculations as quickly as possible based on the best available data at the time and provide results in clear understandable language that the Secretary could use to effectively communicate to a variety of audiences.” The agency added that it “stands by the integrity of its science.”
When forests burn, they do emit greenhouse gases. But one expert said the numbers the interior department put forth are significant overestimates. They say logging wouldn’t necessarily help prevent or lessen wildfires. On the contrary, logging could negate the ability of forests to absorb carbon dioxide humans are emitting at record rates.
Can you pitch in a few bucks to help fund Mother Jones' investigative journalism? We're a nonprofit (so it's tax-deductible), and reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget.
We noticed you have an ad blocker on. Can you pitch in a few bucks to help fund Mother Jones' investigative journalism?