Don't want the smoke

You can see it; you can taste it. It affects how people enjoy their summer days, and there's pretty much nothing anyone can do about it. 

Plain and simple, this smoke sucks. 

The question of who's responsible is another matter entirely, and one that has received some national attention recently. 

Over recent days, President Trump has lashed out on social media, demanding that Canada take some measure of responsibility, fiscal or otherwise, for the smoke drifting south from Canadian wildfires. 

"We are holding Canada responsible for the fact that they are not properly maintaining their Forests, and Brush therein, and the United States is being unnecessarily invaded by filthy, polluted, and unhealthy air, the quality of which is dangerous, and totally unacceptable!" 

He doubled down following a brief meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during the recent FIFA Club World Cup Final, during which the president suggested that Canada pay damages or face increased tariffs as a consequence for "poisoning our air." He also made a follow-up statement that sounded remarkably similar to something often heard from climate scientists, a group he has largely opposed over the past decade. 

"I never remembered this happening. Over the last four or five years you saw it starting to take place. I never remembered it happening before." 

He's not wrong; this is just one of the uncomfortable realities for those who deny climate change. Over the past five years, the world has continued to break high-temperature records.

Now, before we start pointing out Canadian sawdust, we should probably acknowledge the glaring plank in our own eye. Take a drive through some of our national forests, particularly here in North Idaho. You'll certainly find a few examples of active management, but you'll also find plenty of overgrown stands, dense brush, and deadfall stacked like kindling just waiting for an opportunity.  

Smoke and wildfire don't care about borders. 

Any Inland Northwest resident already knows that. And to give President Trump his due, it hasn't always been this way. It does seem like there was a point, not all that long ago, when we suddenly found ourselves dealing with an annual smoke season. The question was no longer whether it would arrive, but how early. 

Meanwhile, we've watched our own mountains burn. We've spent summers checking air quality reports before making plans for the day.  

And here we are again. 

If we're going to make this a national issue, we should view it as an opportunity for collaboration, not an excuse to pick fights or score political points. 

There is plenty of room for debate over what is causing larger and more frequent fires. Many people point to fuel buildup from decades of fire suppression and inadequate forest management. They're right. Others point to longer fire seasons, warmer temperatures, and drier conditions. They're right, too. 

Two things can be true, and in this case, maybe three. The smoke affects all of us. 

It doesn't matter whether you're a logger in North Idaho, a rancher in Alberta, a business owner in Spokane, or a family in Calgary. Nobody benefits when communities spend weeks breathing unhealthy air. Nobody wins when forests burn so intensely that watersheds, wildlife habitat, and recreation areas are damaged for decades. 

So here we are with a problem that neither our Canadian neighbors nor we have fully solved. 

Are we going to bicker, or look for ways to benefit everyone who shares this continent? 

This seems like an excellent opportunity to find some common ground. We've already acknowledged that these situations don't recognize invisible lines on a map. If we're serious about addressing what the president himself has acknowledged is becoming an annual problem, then the resources devoted to solving it should be just as unconcerned with borders as the smoke itself. 

To their credit, the United States and Canada already cooperate when fires are actively burning. The bigger challenge appears to be everything that happens before and after the flames. 

That means sharing research, coordinating firefighting resources, improving forest management, expanding prescribed burns where appropriate, and investing in healthier forests on both sides of the border.  

Instead of damages or increased tariffs, have Canada spend that money on ideas for improving forest management. 

Maybe, this time, we should avoid fighting and acknowledge that none of us want this smoke.