The Catastrophic Consequences of Deforesting 100 Million Hectares

The notion of cutting down 100 million hectares of forest—an area roughly the size of Egypt or twice the size of France—under a policy directive from Donald Trump would represent an environmental and economic disaster of unprecedented scale.

Such an action would devastate the biosphere, ecosystems, and ecosphere while undermining the very economic goals it might aim to achieve.

Instead of pursuing this reckless course, maintaining and optimizing lumber trade with Canada offers a sustainable, economically sound alternative that preserves global ecological integrity.

What happens if we just chop down all of our trees?

The biosphere, encompassing all living organisms and the regions they inhabit, would face profound disruption from the loss of 100 million hectares of forest.

Forests are biodiversity hotspots, supporting millions of species of plants, animals, fungi, and microbes. Clear-cutting this vast expanse would drive countless species toward extinction, particularly those in old-growth forests with complex, irreplaceable habitats.

For example, in the United States, forests like those in the Pacific Northwest harbor endangered species such as the northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet, which rely on mature trees for survival.

Globally, forests act as carbon sinks, absorbing approximately 2.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide annually. Removing 100 million hectares—about one-third of the U.S.’s total forest cover—could release stored carbon equivalent to decades of industrial emissions, accelerating climate change and destabilizing the biosphere’s climatic balance.

Ecosystem Collapse

At the ecosystem level, the consequences would be equally dire. Forests regulate water cycles, stabilize soil, and provide resources like timber and non-timber products.

Deforesting 100 million hectares would disrupt these services. Without tree roots to anchor soil, erosion would increase, silting rivers and degrading aquatic ecosystems downstream.

In the U.S. Southeast, where forests dominate, such loss could exacerbate flooding and reduce freshwater availability, impacting agriculture and human settlements. Nutrient cycles, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, would falter as decomposing organic matter diminishes, impoverishing soils and reducing their capacity to support regrowth or farming. Local ecosystems would fragment, isolating populations and reducing genetic diversity, making recovery nearly impossible in human timescales.

Forests influence global climate by releasing water vapor through transpiration, contributing to rainfall patterns far beyond their borders. Losing 100 million hectares could alter precipitation in adjacent regions, potentially turning fertile areas into arid zones—a phenomenon observed in the Amazon’s deforestation feedback loops.

Temperature regulation would also falter; urban heat islands would intensify, and rural areas would lose cooling canopies, stressing human and wildlife populations alike. The release of greenhouse gases would amplify global warming, pushing the ecosphere toward tipping points like permafrost thawing or ocean acidification, with cascading effects on planetary habitability.

Economically, this deforestation plan would be shortsighted. The stated intent might be to boost domestic lumber production and reduce reliance on imports, particularly from Canada, amid tariff disputes. However, the U.S. lacks the infrastructure to sustainably harvest and process such a volume of timber. Current sawmill capacity is near its limit, and ramping up production would require decades of investment—time the housing market, a key lumber consumer, cannot afford to lose.

Canada, the U.S.’s largest lumber supplier, exported 28.1 million cubic meters of softwood lumber to the U.S. in 2023, meeting roughly one-third of domestic demand. This trade supports affordable housing and construction, sectors already strained by inflation. Tariffs averaging 20% (and threats of 25% more) have raised lumber prices, adding nearly $9,000 to the cost of a typical U.S. home. Escalating this trade war risks further inflation, shrinking disposable income, and slowing economic growth—hardly the “winning” outcome Trump might envision.

Why He Should Not Do This

Trump should abandon this deforestation scheme and tariff escalation for three key reasons.

First, the ecological cost is irreversible: once lost, old-growth forests and their services cannot be restored within centuries, leaving a degraded planet for future generations.

Second, it’s economically inefficient: Canada’s proximity, established supply chains, and sustainable forestry practices (with deforestation rates below 0.02% annually) make it a reliable partner, whereas domestic overharvesting would exhaust resources and spike costs.

Third, global leadership demands responsibility: unilateral deforestation would alienate allies, undermine climate commitments, and position the U.S. as an environmental pariah.

A Sensible Alternative

Trump should negotiate a new U.S.-Canada softwood lumber agreement, reducing tariffs and ensuring a steady, affordable supply. Canada’s forests, spanning 347 million hectares, are managed with rigorous sustainability laws, balancing economic output with conservation.

The U.S. could incentivize domestic mills to modernize while importing Canadian lumber to bridge demand gaps—Germany and Sweden, other suppliers, lack Canada’s scale (exporting just 3.49 million cubic meters combined in 2023).