The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported success earlier this week in California after implementing its plan to cut down large numbers of trees, leading to reduced spread of forest fires throughout the state. According to an interview this morning, The EPA claims that their innovative approach is the key to reducing the risk of future forest fires, leaving them more and more likely to apply this same method to other parts of the country. 

        According to the EPA, the root cause of forest fires is simply too many trees. “It’s common sense,” said EPA spokesperson, Rachel Schmitt. “The more trees there are, the more fuel there is for fires. By greatly reducing the number of trees, we can reduce the risk of fires spreading.”

        The EPA’s plan was met with skepticism from environmentalists and concerned citizens who pointed out that deforestation has numerous negative effects on the environment. However, the EPA remained undeterred and pushed forward with their plan. “The benefits of cutting down trees far outweigh the costs,” Schmitt said. “We’re clearly saving our remaining trees and grasslands from fires while even creating jobs in the process.”

The plan involved clear-cutting large areas of forests, leaving only a few scattered trees for aesthetic purposes. The timber from the clear-cut areas was sold for profit, generating revenue for the EPA and providing jobs for the logging industry. The EPA continued to argue that the reduction in the number of trees will actually improve the health of the forests, as there will be less competition for resources.

        “Think of it as a forest diet,” said Schmitt. “By reducing the number of trees, we’re helping the remaining trees to thrive. It’s like taking a few pounds off a person’s frame to improve their health, except in this case we are taking well over the majority of the weight.”

        The EPA’s plan has received praise from some quarters, with many applauding the agency’s innovative approach. “It’s about time someone came up with a solution to this problem,” said logging industry representative, Chuck Cooper. “We’ve been struggling to find work in recent years, and this plan has been a real lifeline for us.”

        The remaining critics, however, remain unconvinced. They argue that deforestation destroys habitats, reduces biodiversity, and increases the risk of erosion and flooding. “It’s like curing a headache by chopping off your head,” said environmentalist Lisa Peters. “Deforestation is a short-sighted solution that will only lead to more problems down the road.” Instead, people like Peters suggest implementing measures to stop fires from beginning, although these ideas are “illogical” to Schmitt.

      “Then we’d have to stop the extreme heat that dries out forests and turns them into tinder boxes ready to be ignited by any stray campfire spark,” Schmitt said. “And to do that, we’d actually have to tackle climate change. 

“Who has time for that?”