Forest Growth and Human Stupidity Led to France's Wildfires

Today, the leadership of Finland's Natural Resources Institute (Luke) stated that the increasing number of forest fires in Europe and North America is due not only to global warming but also, to a large extent, to the steadily growing carbon stock that has accumulated in forests over several decades. According to them, this is the result of two main factors: increasingly effective wildfire suppression and reduced use of forests through timber harvesting.

As a remedy, the authors propose increasing the volume of the forest industry, cleaning up logging residues after harvesting, and carrying out prescribed burns. In other words, they advocate many of the same measures that President Donald Trump mentioned several years ago in connection with California's wildfires.

But good heavens—wouldn't that also mean more jobs for people and more taxable income for the public sector? Surely that couldn't be acceptable! Or could it?

In any case, the authors' perspective is like a breath of fresh air in the stale forest policy debate that has long been dominated by nature conservation and environmental advocacy groups. If for no other reason, it would be encouraging to see political decision-makers around the world—or at least in Finland—take their views seriously.

* * *

Luke's assessment is scientifically well-founded, but it is not the whole story. It overlooks one important factor in the ignition of forest fires: human stupidity.

The wildfires that have struck France in recent days provide a clear example. Many of them have been started by people—either deliberately or through carelessness. In fact, the majority of all forest fires are caused by human activity.

There is only one remedy for that: using common sense when spending time in nature. That, in turn, requires both awareness of the risks and the ability to act rationally. It remains to be seen whether the people of France will rise to that challenge—or whether devastating wildfires will become a recurring tragedy there.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Challenging What We Think We Know: Wildfires Reveal the Power of Science
Control of Douglas fir beetles by woodborer beetles
Forests in Indonesia and Finland

Free School Education for Foreigners Ends in Finland

The Parliament of Finland approved the government’s proposal according to which students from outside the EU and EEA will in the future pay an annual fee in upper-secondary schools (lukio) and vocational institutions corresponding to the actual cost of their education. We are not talking about small sums: for example, the cost of one year of upper-secondary school can exceed 10,000 euros.

According to Statistics Finland, in 2022 there were about 35,000 foreign nationals studying in vocational education and about 3,400 in upper-secondary schools. These figures also include people from EU and EEA countries, to whom the legislative change does not apply. The largest groups in vocational schools were Estonians (around 4,500), Russians (around 4,500), Iraqis (around 3,500), Afghans (around 2,200) and Filipinos (around 2,000).

In Parliament, the proposal was opposed not only by the left-wing parties—the Greens and the Left Alliance—but also by the Centre Party. It would be interesting to know what the party’s voters think about the matter at a time when public services have been cut and will continue to be cut drastically—if not from foreigners’ services, then from Finns’.

This was also noted by MP Joakim Vigelius, who additionally stated—quite correctly—that "Finland cannot be the world’s educational hub, nor a global social service office, health centre, care home or prison. The money will not be sufficient if the number of those to be served expands to everyone crossing the border without conditions, fees or responsibilities."

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Attitudes Toward Immigrants Are a Problem in Schools
Has Modern Education Strayed Too Far — and Is It Time to Change Course?
Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values

The original blogpost in Finnish:
Laitavasemmisto ja Keskusta haluaisivat Suomesta koko maailman ilmaisen koulutuskeskuksen

Elections in Venezuela Do Not Offer Reason for Optimism

Although Western countries have long been more or less functioning democracies, this is not the case everywhere. The world’s first socialist state, the Soviet Union, did collapse under its own impossibility back in 1991, but that doesn’t mean socialism lacks support in today’s world.

An example of this unfortunate fact was seen over the weekend in Venezuela, where the socialist party received as much as 83 percent of the vote in Sunday’s parliamentary — or National Assembly — elections. In addition, a group close to the socialists gained another six percent.

The Venezuelan opposition gathered only 5.17 percent of the votes. This was influenced by the fact that many opposition leaders had urged their supporters to boycott the elections, claiming that President Nicolás Maduro had fraudulently won last year’s presidential election. This view is also shared by the international community.

It remains to be seen what Venezuela’s socialists will do with their electoral victory. However, their use of power so far does not offer much reason for optimism.

According to Wikipedia: "During the 21st century, under the leadership of socialist populist Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro, the Venezuelan economy has collapsed, prompting millions of citizens to flee Venezuela. GDP has fallen by 80 percent in less than a decade. The economy is characterized by corruption, food shortages, unemployment, mismanagement of the oil sector, and since 2014, hyperinflation. As of 2024, inflation has stabilized at 59.61%."

This can be compared to the time before the socialists came to power. Back then, Venezuela's economy was growing strongly, and for example, GDP per capita rose by as much as 400 percent between 2003 and 2010 — in just seven years. A similar development can hardly be expected based on the election results we’ve just seen.

Of course, Venezuela is just one of many countries that still believe in socialism, but in practice, it is a fairly representative example of its kind. And that is why it’s worth wondering why socialism still enjoys so much support around the world — not only in developing countries but also in prosperous Western nations like Finland.

Admittedly, here the socialists don’t want to call their economic thinking socialism. Instead, they "only" aim to raise taxes and transfer as many of society’s functions as possible under the responsibility of the public sector — in other words, to implement socialism without naming it for what it is.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Marx in the Classroom: How Ideological Education Shaped Careers and Values
Does China prove the superiority of market economy?
Lessons from Venezuela

Finns are backing the government making difficult decisions

The problem commonly associated with democracies is that when the government has to make unpleasant decisions for public finances, voters tend to shift their support to the opposing parties. Thus, there is a temptation for leaders not to make economically sound decisions while in power.

In this sense, the situation in Finland is interesting. The right-wing government that came to power last summer has planned labor market reforms, cuts to public services, and reductions in income taxes to balance the state budget, which was heavily indebted during the previous government's term, and to revitalize economy.

These plans have resulted in widespread and ongoing political strikes opposing the reforms. Both trade unions and green-leftist parties are behind these strikes, and even according to citizen surveys, the protests have public support.

However, what makes the situation interesting is that in polls measuring party support, the government's popularity has not declined; instead, it is clearly on the rise. Based on this, it seems that Finns understand that their country's public finances are indeed in need of correction. Therefore, rather than abandoning the parties in power, they are actually shifting towards supporting them.

This bodes well for Finland's future, but of course, only if the ongoing changes by the government lead to results and the public remains supportive for long enough for the economy to turn back towards growth.

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
Correct minister, ridiculous facts
The people long for strict economic policy
Reducing taxes, enhancing export and paying the governmental debt

The people long for strict economic policy

Finland is a politically unique state. It is a stable democracy with nearly ten parties in its Parliament, which necessitates the involvement of multiple parties in forming the Government.

This system has led to relatively consistent politics, with abrupt policy changes being rare. However, such a change might be on the horizon in the ongoing Government negotiations, where instead of the previous left-leaning majority Government led by Sanna Marin, a program is being formed by political right-wing parties.

In this process, the parties do not populistically pander to the people or promise to distribute tax funds to various beneficiaries. Instead, the negotiators agree that the public finances need to be adjusted by as much as 10 percent of the state's entire budget—and they certainly don't hide it. One could imagine that the support for these parties would be plummeting among the public!

However, that is not the case, as indicated by the party support survey published today. According to the survey, the combined support for the parties involved in the government negotiations has actually seen a significant increase: the support for the two largest parties, the National Coalition Party and the Finns Party, has risen by a total of 1.5 percentage points, or almost four percent, compared to the elections a couple of months ago.

All of this reflects the dissatisfaction that Finns feel towards the left-wing government led by Sanna Marin, which they believe has brought Finland's public finances to the brink of disaster. It also provides assurance to the negotiators that the citizens have confidence in their firm economic approach.

Previous thoughts on the same topic: 
The Guardian misleads its readers
Elections in Finland enlight journalistic views
Reducing taxes, enhancing export and paying the governmental debt

A nurse´s question: who deserves health care, and who does not

In Finland there has been a long debate about nurse salaries. Those were raised considerably in 2008, which contributed considerably to the slow recovery of Finland from the Great Recession that was seen globally in 2007-2009. 

Despite that, the Finnish nurses are again on strike for their salaries, which they consider as left behind from other fields in the public sector. The employer´s representative somehow agree on the problem, but has also pointed out that there is no taxpayer´s money available to cover exceptional increases. However, most of the ordinary citizens support higher wages for the nurses, probably because many nurses leave their profession and nurse salaries are in other Nordic countries higher compared to Finland.

The strikes may turn long lasting, as the public sector of Finland has been running quickly into debt because of the loose economics policy in Finland and EU during the last years as well as additional costs due to the COVID-19 pandemic and consequences of the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine.

Very interestingly indeed, I saw today something I could not have imagined. It was a short story by the MTV3-media, in which a former nurse put the cat on the table. She said loudly the main problem of public health care in the modern democracies by pointing out that "now either the government or the employer has to say who no longer deserves care".

This is The Question, because the problem arises from the development of medical research, which continuously develops solutions to new health problems - and often they are very expensive. That leads to ever increasing costs of health care, and sooner or later - perhaps right now in Finland - the costs exceed the taxpayers ability to pay. 

So, it will be interesting to follow what happens next. Will the nurse´s comment make its way to political discussion or will it be quietly passed. Also, will the nurse be demonized on her "inhuman opinion", or will it be admitted that she has a valid point. 

It is, however clear that deciding on who will be treated from her disease and who will not is a question which is almost impossible to touch by politicians. Whatever they say or decide will raise a loud voice against them. And as well known, keeping voters happy is a serious concern for anyone who depends on the number of supporting votes in a free democracy.  

Previous thoughts on the same topic:
American black population more vulnerable to the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2