Fix

A sweeping bipartisan bill that seeks to prevent catastrophic wildfires and restore fire-ravaged forests has revealed a schism in the nation’s environmental movement as some conservation advocates find themselves allied with a longtime foe: loggers.

The Fix Our Forests Act, which Congress is close to passing, aims to speed up forest management projects on public and tribal lands by reducing regulatory and legal hurdles.

The proposed legislation comes at a time of increasingly devastating wildfires and has garnered wide support among Republicans and the timber industry.

However, the traditional Democratic coalition of environmental groups is split over the role humanity has to play in forest management. Some argue ecosystems are best protected when humans leave them alone — a view that dominated during the timber wars of the ’80s and ’90s. Others argue that humans have a responsibility to intervene — an increasingly popular idea as climate change threatens ecosystems around the world.

Among the major environmental groups that oppose the legislation are the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity. They worry that limiting environmental review and litigation will allow timber companies to heavily log these areas instead of gently thinning them. Meanwhile, some Southern California groups worry the bill would allow well-meaning land managers to approve misguided projects that ultimately harm local shrublands, which have a very different relationship with fire than the bill’s namesake, forests.

“It’s really handing the keys to the Trump administration to be able to push forward a lot of their timber agenda,” said Anna Medema, deputy legislative director for forests and public lands at the Sierra Club.

But the Nature Conservancy and other groups have voiced support for the bill, citing the constant and imminent threat that increasingly severe wildfires pose to communities and ecosystems.

“We do advocacy at a twofold level. We are doing defensive work to fight back against bad things, and we’re also trying to promote the good things that are happening on the ground,” said Morgan Cashwell, North America director of legislative affairs for the Nature Conservancy. Right now, that good work needs to “meet the moment in the current wildfire crisis.”

That sentiment appears to have motivated Western lawmakers in particular.

In the House of Representatives, roughly half of the Democrats from Western states voted for the bill, compared to about a quarter of Democrats from elsewhere in the country. Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor. The legislation is now awaiting a final vote in the Senate. Congress has until Jan. 3, 2027, to pass it.

“Wildfires today are very different than wildfires from a generation ago,” said Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), who co-introduced the Senate version of the bill. “Oftentimes, they’re irreversibly devastating ecosystems and watersheds.”

“So,” he said, “ the status quo is clearly not working.”

Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), center, chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, delivers remarks at the Capitol in March 2023.

(J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press)

The act was born when Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), a former forester, stole a seat on a plane next to Rep. Scott Peters (D-San Diego). He used the opportunity to talk Peters’ ear off about a beloved species of tree that is under threat from worsening wildfires: the giant sequoia.

The two introduced a bill to protect them, called the Save Our Sequoias Act, and quickly saw an opportunity for something bigger.

“I knew right away that this could be a gateway to talking about permit reform,” Peters said. So, “we started working on a bigger, nationwide reform of forestry practices which have been really, really clogged up.”

While California grasslands, shrublands and woodlands are adapted to different frequencies and intensities of wildfire, research has found that high-severity fires — which kill the vast majority of trees in their path — are scorching 30 times more land area than in the 1980s.

The result: California is losing, on average, more than 200,000 acres of forest every year — or roughly 2.5% of all woodlands in the state every decade. U.S. Forest Service efforts to resuscitate these ecosystems have failed to keep pace. In recent years, the agency has reforested only about 1% of woodlands that are unlikely to recover on their own.

Californian supporters of the Fix Our Forests Act argue the problem has more to do with permitting delays than finances.

Marin County firefighters train during a prescribed burn in June in San Rafael.

(Heather Diehl / Getty Images)

Rep. George Whitesides (D-Santa Clarita), who co-sponsored the Fix Our Forests Act, pointed to nonpartisan research that found it takes the Forest Service more than five years on average to complete a full environmental review and begin work on forest thinning projects that use mechanical equipment like bulldozers and wood chippers. For prescribed burns, it takes more than seven years on average.

“That’s insane,” he said, that it “takes as long as a kid growing up to be a first grader to be able to move on this.”

The Fix Our Forests Act would exempt projects from the full permitting process if they were in areas with the most extreme fire risk and would expand existing exemptions for projects under 3,000 acres to cover projects up to 10,000 acres. It also would limit the window during which environmental groups can sue over project approvals.

These projects tend to employ a combination of harvesting timber and thinning smaller trees and plants with heavy machinery (often the favored tools of Republicans and the timber industry) and using prescribed fire to clear out the forest floor (often favored by environmental groups).

The “environmental left” has “made it endlessly time-consuming and ultimately cost prohibitive to maintain our forests, all with the promise that this would improve the forest environment,” said Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Elk Grove), a co-sponsor who authored some of the permitting exclusions. “Well, after 50 years, I think we’re entitled to ask, how’s the forest environment doing?”

In March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order that blamed “our inability to fully exploit our domestic timber supply” as a contributor to disastrous wildfires. In response, the U.S. Forest Service set a goal to increase the amount of timber open to logging by 25% nationwide over five years.

Scott Dane, executive director of the American Loggers Council, argued the nightmare scenarios of expansive clear-cutting from the timber wars are not on the table for America’s public lands.

“It’s a boogeyman position that they love to take from 100 years ago,” he said. “It’s not, in reality, in modern forest management at all.”

Watchdogs in Southern California have a different concern: While research shows forest thinning is an effective tool in overgrown Sierra Nevada woodlands, the state’s coastal shrublands are not denser than they historically have been. Consequently, the type of projects the Fix Our Forests Act would expedite are far more controversial and contested in shrublands. Local advocates fear the act would undermine their ability to push back on proposals with questionable scientific backing.

Goats and sheep graze on top of Kite Hill in May 2025 in Los Angeles for wildfire prevention.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In contrast to projects in conifer forests that aim to decrease the density of trees and vegetation across the landscape, shrubland projects are typically centered on creating a network of corridors hundreds of feet wide with no vegetation throughout the wildlands and clearing plants away from existing buildings.

While firefighters rely on these networks of fuel breaks to access the wildlands during fires and build containment lines, research has found that when firefighters cannot reach the fuel breaks — which is often the case during extreme winds — the lines only stop fires about 13% of the time. If they are not routinely maintained, they also risk supporting the growth of flammable invasive grasses.

In Los Padres National Forest, near Santa Barbara, officials proposed in 2022 creating roughly 187,000 acres of fuel breaks and structure defense zones. After organizations like Los Padres ForestWatch pushed back on the plan through the environmental review process, the national forest ultimately scaled the proposal down to about 22,000 acres this July.

“You had community input, and you had the federal government incorporating that input into a plan that is grossly improved,” said Benjamin Pitterle, director of advocacy and field operations at Los Padres ForestWatch. “It’s arguably a perfect example of how the process should work.”

Is a hissy fit worth $200 million?

That was the tab in 2021, when California held a recall election less than a year before Gov. Gavin Newsom was set to face voters.

There was angst — the COVID-19 pandemic was raging. There was anger — the lifesaving restrictions imposed by Washington and Sacramento made daily living a chore and drove many small businesses to the brink. Others went clear over the edge.

There was also no small amount of political opportunism at play.

The recall gave Newsom’s critics, mainly on the right, a chance to try to chase the Democrat from an office that Republicans, under normal circumstances, stood little chance of winning.

In the end, the recall effort amounted to scarcely more than a partisan tantrum. The result — 61.9% voting no, 38.1% voting yes — matched the outcome of the 2018 gubernatorial race down to the decimal. All that money and effort wasted on an election in which voters said pretty much, yep, we meant what we said. Not too long after, they gave Newsom a second term.

The plebiscite, and its pointlessness, underscored the many flaws inherent in California’s recall system. In November, voters will get a chance to remedy at least one of them, eliminating the chance a candidate could take office with just marginal support from voters.

Trigger warning: What follows is a somewhat wonky explanation of election rules and procedures.

One choice, not two

Currently, a recall election is conducted in two parts. Voters are asked whether a lawmaker should be removed and, if so, who their replacement should be. If the incumbent is ousted, whoever gets the most votes takes their place, even if they fall well shy of attaining majority support. (Which is not out of the question in a large multi-candidate field; in 2003, 135 people were on the ballot, vying to replace Gov. Gray Davis.)

Among its provisions, Proposition 5 would amend the state Constitution so that voters would be asked a simple yes-or-no question: Do you wish to recall the incumbent? If so, the lieutenant governor would serve as governor for the rest of the ousted executive’s term — unless the recall occurred during the first two years a governor was in office and before the filing deadline for the next statewide election.

In that case, a special election would be held on the same date as the next primary and a candidate receiving a majority of votes would serve out the governor’s term. If no candidate received a majority, the top-two finishers would face each other in a November runoff, with the winner taking over as governor.

Still there?

Proposition 5 has two benefits. It would save taxpayer dollars by consolidating elections and it would enhance the legitimacy and political standing of a replacement governor by ensuring he or she assumed office with at least 50% support.

But there’s still more to be done.

Ending political promiscuity

California makes it way too easy to qualify a gubernatorial recall measure.

Of the 19 states that allow their governor to be booted, California is by far the most permissive. Forcing an election requires signatures reflecting just 12% of the ballots cast in the prior gubernatorial contest. In Newsom’s case, proponents needed just under 1.5 million signatures in a state with more than 22 million voters and nearly 40 million residents.

Not exactly a thundering roar.

The threshold should be higher and the reasons for kicking a governor out of office should be more serious, such as corruption, official malfeasance or conviction for a serious crime. Not just because a governor is a member of the opposite party, or people on the losing end of an election are unhappy with the result.

“The system in its current form offers bad actors an incentive to target an elected official with whom they disagree and to have the official replaced by someone who otherwise would not enjoy the support of a majority of voters,” Josh Newman of Fullerton and Isaac Bryan of Los Angeles said in advocating change. The two Democratic lawmakers authored the constitutional amendment, which was placed on November’s ballot by the Legislature.

If you think overhauling the process is simply about protecting partisan interests, consider: Should Republican Steve Hilton pull off an epic upset and become California’s next governor, is there any doubt a recall effort would be underway before he and Mrs. Hilton even had the chance to start boxing their belongings for the move to Sacramento?

The recall is a vestige of the Progressive-era good-government movement. But the process needs to be revamped to reflect today’s bad-faith political environment.

The Little Hoover Commission, California’s independent oversight agency, has recommended several changes, including raising the signature requirement and prohibiting recalls undertaken during the first 90 days and the last six months of an officeholder’s term.

Elections, it’s said, have consequences. They also have — or should have — end dates and final results that are respected, not re-litigated until the losing side gets its way.

Proposition 5 is a step in the right direction. More should follow.

What else you should be reading

Get smart: Trump’s economic record is working against him in the midterms
The deep dive: Backlash over data centers hits California, and the midterms
The L.A. Times Special:Integrity on the ballot: Election deniers target secretary of state races in key states

Until next time,
mzb
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

A few weeks ago, non-chavista politician Antonio Ecarri and American economist Steve Hanke managed to unearth one of Venezuela’s longstanding and unsettling debates: whether the country’s economy should be formally dollarized. After decades of economic hardship brought by repeated devaluations, hyperinflation and scarcity, the country’s monetary regime is heavily fragmented. 

De facto dollarization rules most of the transactions, while the bolívar, crypto stablecoins, euros and the currencies of neighboring countries split the rest of the monetary market share used to maneuver through Venezuela’s complex economy. With the US pushing for the country’s economic stabilization to increase trust in foreign investors, the fragmented monetary ecosystem can be detrimental to the process made so far.

Venezuela’s economic outlook has improved after Maduro’s capture and since the US took control over Delcy’s decisions. Mainly because of a sharp recovery of oil exports to the US recovered sharply; by April, these were up 192% from their 2025 average. The energy sector is spearheading the recovery while attempting to partially compensate for the devastation caused by the twin earthquakes. GDP growth projections for Venezuela are forecasted at 5.8%, almost four times the country’s 2025 growth (1.5%). Yet the threat of inflation and instability compounds investors’ worries about entering the country. After repeated announcements by the interim regime promising to close the exchange gap and tackle inflation, their actions show otherwise.

Delcy continues to erode the bolívar by stimulating the money printer needed to feed chavismo’s patronage system. Exchange rate controls, which have long incentivized corruption and inflation, are still there. On the dollar side, credit loans and transactions remain “officially” forbidden, creating an artificial tax on USD transactions and fear amongst businesses who can be punished for their use.

Eliminating inflation would require abolishing all existing exchange rates and creating a new one based on an agreed technocratic approach.

The result of this unaddressed monetary disaster has been a persistent rise in inflation, which increased by 6.1% in July, bringing year-on-year inflation to 576% and 2026 cumulative inflation to 175.5%.

This is not the first time the call for dollarization has been in the spotlight in Venezuela. Nonetheless, US control over the country’s economy may increase the possibility of it becoming a reality. While dollarizing might be an effective measure to rapidly generate trust and reduce inflation, it raises important questions about its implementation under the interim regime and the future of Venezuela’s monetary sovereignty. Similar to Trump’s oil deal or the post-earthquake reconstruction, all discussions and actions are taking place behind the scenes, sidelining the very population that will have to deal with its consequences. 

The US dollar is not the solution

Discussions regarding dollarization have primarily focused on three benefits: eliminating inflation, forcing fiscal discipline, and eradicating corruption. However, as long as those managing the dollarization process are the same ones who have guided Venezuela to the worst economic crisis in the region’s history, the result might be equally as bad but with a different set of consequences. 

Hanke asserts that no preexisting institutional, fiscal or political conditions are necessary for dollarization to be successful. However, this process requires the willingness of all three areas to move forward. Eliminating inflation would require abolishing all existing exchange rates and creating a new one based on an agreed technocratic approach. Currently, there is no incentive for anyone in the interim regime’s leadership to converge the exchange rates.

A struggling or failed dollarization plan could further erode trust while leaving the country even more vulnerable to external shocks.

The exchange rate differentials have not been an economic policy mistake overlooked by chavismo. These have been an integral part of chavismo’s strategy to undermine and replace old political elites with select, loyal ones. Long ago, they became crucial to maintain the status quo. There are no signs in favour of change in this area, as economist Juan Comella argued in May. Doing so would compromise the structure that keeps her in power.

A struggling or failed dollarization plan—which forces the government to take on further debt, experience severe cash shortages and fundamentally depend on its commodity exports—could further erode trust while leaving the country even more vulnerable to external shocks, such as a sudden plunge in oil prices. The neoliberal constraints posed by dollarization, like an extremely limited Central Bank to aid the government, will not fix decades of institutional erosion, but only try to avoid it while possibly unleashing a fresh round of obstacles that menace an already fragile economic recovery.

The bolívar is not the problem

Decades of monetary policy failures made the population skeptical of the bolívar. For long enough, the system and institutions have incentivised and even rewarded the wrong people to take advantage of its vulnerabilities at the expense of the population and evading any personal consequences.

It is certainly not the paper where the bolívar is printed the element that corrupts people or destroys the economy: it is the system behind it. It is not far-fetched to think of a plan that grants the Venezuelan Central Bank complete independence, empowering the correct people to safeguard the economy from the risks of inflation while maintaining government spending in line and preparing for external shocks.

Relinquishing our monetary sovereignty would be a mistake in a world where governments actively participate and spend to tackle modern challenges, including AI and natural disaster relief. China’s rise as a global power has been, in part, a consequence of decades of industrial policy under intense government intervention. The US and EU have started to catch up in recent years. The US has done so with the CHIPS and Inflation Reduction Act under Biden and, most recently, with the Trump administration imposing protectionist tariffs and taking equity stakes in major companies with the aim of safeguarding US interests in key sectors. The EU aims to increase competitiveness under the Clean Industrial Deal and the Industrial Accelerator Act. If Venezuelan leaders seek to move past the country’s commodity dependence, climb up in the global value chain, become competitive and diversify the economy, industrial policy will be crucial. Dollarization would compromise those goals.

Starting a dollarization process under chavista rule is similar to entrusting the reconstruction of Venezuela’s oil sector to a businessman who contributed to the destruction of the country’s electricity grid.

Foreign investment will be the driver of short- and medium-term recovery and growth for Venezuela. However, industrial policy will be crucial to guide the long-term objectives of the country. For this, Venezuela needs the bolívar, even if it’s in an open and competitive currency market where the people decide which currency earns their trust.

The Ecarri-Hanke duo surprised public opinion not only because of their proposal but also because of the odd pairing. Ecarri represents the efforts of Venezuelan politicians with limited legitimacy to enter the spheres of influence in Washington, and also chavismo’s ability to neutralize them. Hanke only views Venezuela as part of a larger plan to promote and deepen the use of the dollar internationally, in a global context that increasingly mistrusts the US currency and is hedging against it.

Ecarri is the result of a system that empowers the wrong people. Hanke represents the oversight of the reality on the ground and the impact Venezuelans will have to absorb. Both display the same shortcomings of Venezuela’s monetary institutions over the past decades. Their proposal simply tries to hide the sun with one finger instead of addressing the historical root causes of Venezuela’s monetary instability.

Starting a dollarization process under chavista rule is similar to entrusting the reconstruction of Venezuela’s oil sector to a businessman who contributed to the destruction of the country’s electricity grid. Policy should depart from both trauma-instilled calls for complete dollarization and a patriotic defense of the bolívar. Instead, it should focus on economic stability and our capacity to meet the challenges of tomorrow.