5 ms·

I asked a firefighter what she thought about controlled burns awhile back. She said that one of the advantages of controlled burns is that you can set them whe

by elihu 9y ago

I asked a firefighter what she thought about controlled burns awhile back. She said that one of the advantages of controlled burns is that you can set them when conditions are favorable so that they won't get out of control and burn areas they didn't want to burn just then. So, the "just let it burn" strategy when fires start might lead to a lot more property damage than a strategy of proactive burning. Also, from a carbon footprint point of view, it seems advantageous to mix burning and logging, so that not all the carbon returns straight into the atmosphere.

wahern 9y ago
So, the "just let it burn" strategy when fires start might lead to a lot more property damage than a strategy of proactive burning. The U.S. is _huge_. There's too much land to do controlled burning. And an intentionally set fire is morally perilous, so there are strong incentives to avoid burning except where it's easy and obvious; that is, _away_ from housing or in only very small patches to create fire breaks. Also, from a carbon footprint point of view, it seems advantageous to mix burning and logging, so that not all the carbon returns straight into the atmosphere. But loggers are gonna take the good trees and leave behind the young ones, precisely the opposite of what a fire would do. I know this isn't how it's supposed to work on paper, but the incentives aren't well aligned. A natural fire isn't going to lobby Congress to increase its quota of high-value trees. I think any practical land management plan that has a shot at restoring forest health requires letting many more natural fires burn, and to burn more widely. The dilemma is that things are so bad that these fires are much more dangerous than they'd normally be. But I don't see how you ever get over that hump unless you can send out an armada of autonomous, self-replicating robots to cut down the underbrush. Perhaps we'll just have to wait for that solution.
- discodave 9y ago
  The US is only 25% bigger than Australia and has more than 10x the population.... soo the argument that the US is too big doesn't really hold much water. * 3.797 to 2.97 square miles * 323 / 24 million
  - dennyabraham 9y ago
    This does not take into account the vastly greater proportion of habitable or treed land in the US than in Australia

by elihu 9y ago

wahern 9y ago

So, the "just let it burn" strategy when fires start might lead to a lot more property damage than a strategy of proactive burning. The U.S. is _huge_. There's too much land to do controlled burning. And an intentionally set fire is morally perilous, so there are strong incentives to avoid burning except where it's easy and obvious; that is, _away_ from housing or in only very small patches to create fire breaks. Also, from a carbon footprint point of view, it seems advantageous to mix burning and logging, so that not all the carbon returns straight into the atmosphere. But loggers are gonna take the good trees and leave behind the young ones, precisely the opposite of what a fire would do. I know this isn't how it's supposed to work on paper, but the incentives aren't well aligned. A natural fire isn't going to lobby Congress to increase its quota of high-value trees. I think any practical land management plan that has a shot at restoring forest health requires letting many more natural fires burn, and to burn more widely. The dilemma is that things are so bad that these fires are much more dangerous than they'd normally be. But I don't see how you ever get over that hump unless you can send out an armada of autonomous, self-replicating robots to cut down the underbrush. Perhaps we'll just have to wait for that solution.

discodave 9y ago
The US is only 25% bigger than Australia and has more than 10x the population.... soo the argument that the US is too big doesn't really hold much water. * 3.797 to 2.97 square miles * 323 / 24 million
- dennyabraham 9y ago
  This does not take into account the vastly greater proportion of habitable or treed land in the US than in Australia