Guha draws primarily on legal documents that detail the Madras government’s policies on forestry, such as bills, remarks, memorandums, reports, and orders, often written by the forest conservator B. H. Baden-Powell or forest administrator Brandis. Many of the legal documents come from the Board of Revenue in particular. Guha also draws on the work of contemporary historians on the history of Indian forestry in the colonial period. Grove utilizes many secondary sources, namely journal articles and books by contemporary historians. He uses some letters, legal documents, and regional studies as well. Barton’s sources appear to be much more varied; he uses history books, journal articles, censuses, forest management reports, autobiographies, magazines, reports, and speeches, among others. Sivaramakrishnan utilizes journal articles, history books, reports on forestry practices, and Brandis’s work, namely memorandums and suggestions. Barton takes on what is an often unspoken history by describing the way the United States was not only influenced but followed the model set by Indian forestry and conservation efforts. His use of magazines and popular print culture demonstrate that this was not just a communication between officials and foresters from the respective countries, but was also a widespread obsession amongst the general public, implying that forestry was viewed as a source for good. He portrays the relationship between the common people and their right to the forest in a somewhat vague sense that makes it seem as if the people were satisfied with the government’s decision on forest rights. Interestingly, he did not use a significant amount of legal documents which may shed more light on how the public reacted. Through his sources, he sees forestry as intertwined with colonialism, but understands this history through the eyes of the men who were considered founders of American forestry. As for Sivaramakrishnan’s work, he is particularly critical of and focused on the tactics of the colonial state to remove people from forest land in India. He notably cites Guha’s work as a common source, which likely inspired his focus on re-centering villages. Further, the Barton reading has made me consider the concept of climate debt in terms of the United States, especially given the fact that we have India’s example to thank for one of the institutions that supposedly epitomizes conservation: national parks. It makes me wonder if climate debt can also manifest in climate knowledge.