4 ms·

Not sure about California in particular, but I think a pretty solid case can be made for controlled burning of environments that have evolved around regular wil

Not sure about California in particular, but I think a pretty solid case can be made for controlled burning of environments that have evolved around regular wildfires. It's how these ecosystems work, and have worked well for a long, long time, and we risk damaging or collapsing those ecosystems if we take fire suppression too far. Besides, while having lunatics torch forests is not desirable at all, fuel accumulation isn't fictional. Again, no idea about California in particular, but it's definitely a problem in parts of Spain, and controlled burns are already a thing there, I believe that's being done in the US, too, with good success so far. I get that it's no fun having wildfires, even controlled ones, behind one's backyard, but it's probably not sustainable to not have any at all, forever. Even if fires can be suppressed effectively for a long time, when a fire eventually escapes suppression, and one probably will, it'll find many years of bone-dry plant matter to consume; that'll release all of the CO2 at once, and it would make for a very destructive firestorm. At least that's my layperson's understanding. The criminal burning of the Amazon, way beyond what any wildfires would do, that absolutely must stop.

jupp0r 6y ago
In California, controlled burns are now happening all the time (although not enough).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
pvaldes 6y ago
Of course those ecosystems will collapse, at least in part, they are a transition point towards the ecosystem climax. In the same way as the first week of an artistic work will disappear forever under new layers of paint.
- dividedbyzero 6y ago
  That's not an apt comparison. Painting over an artwork doesn't usually cause wide-ranging consequences apart from some human drama, destroying ecosystems frequently does. Ecosystems influence everything from erosion and flooding, micro/macroclimate, occurrence of disease vectors and pests or lack thereof, wildfire occurrence and severity, avalanche risk, and food production on a large scale. We're putting on totally artificial pressure in a very short timeframe. Will we keep things like this for millennia? Probably not. We need stable environments to thrive, this is a recipe for severe instability. Plus, whatever comes after a collapse may be really bad for us – maybe you get a desert, maybe you get a really bad avalanche situation, maybe you get new pests and disease vectors. This isn't a question of aesthetics, it's about the functioning of the environment we are deeply dependent on to exist.

jupp0r 6y ago

In California, controlled burns are now happening all the time (although not enough).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

pvaldes 6y ago

Of course those ecosystems will collapse, at least in part, they are a transition point towards the ecosystem climax. In the same way as the first week of an artistic work will disappear forever under new layers of paint.

dividedbyzero 6y ago
That's not an apt comparison. Painting over an artwork doesn't usually cause wide-ranging consequences apart from some human drama, destroying ecosystems frequently does. Ecosystems influence everything from erosion and flooding, micro/macroclimate, occurrence of disease vectors and pests or lack thereof, wildfire occurrence and severity, avalanche risk, and food production on a large scale. We're putting on totally artificial pressure in a very short timeframe. Will we keep things like this for millennia? Probably not. We need stable environments to thrive, this is a recipe for severe instability. Plus, whatever comes after a collapse may be really bad for us – maybe you get a desert, maybe you get a really bad avalanche situation, maybe you get new pests and disease vectors. This isn't a question of aesthetics, it's about the functioning of the environment we are deeply dependent on to exist.