4 ms·

I've got a bit of a problem with articles like this one. I'll try and illustrate it with an analogy: Imagine some asshole puts an incendiary in an orphanage, a

I've got a bit of a problem with articles like this one. I'll try and illustrate it with an analogy: Imagine some asshole puts an incendiary in an orphanage, and rigs it to go off when a nearby speed trap detects someone going more than 10mph over. Eventually, someone does, and the orphanage catches fire. Further, the group responsible for constructing and maintaining the orphanage hasn't looked at the place for 50 years, and so all the orphans are trapped inside and die. Who's at fault? Obviously the the asshole, and almost certainly the maintainer. But the driver? They were the direct cause of everything, and had they not broken the law those orphans would still be alive! Right? But most people will identify the driver as being at worst minimally at fault. They may have triggered things, and it may have even been predictable that speeding could kill someone, but someone was going to come along and trigger things eventually, or the speed trap would misfire, or lightning would strike the orphanage and cause a fire directly. To me, PG&E is the driver here. Yes, they didn't do maintenance they should have. But as fires have demonstrated this year... fires are going to happen. Lightning, gender reveals, a broken muffler... Something will provide the spark. So instead we should blame the people who set up the situation such that a fire in the wrong place could kill dozens. Which, IMO, is two things. One is the set of forestry management practices that lets brush build up to the point that crown fires are inevitable - which we do by putting out all fires as soon as possible - and the second is constructing houses to be vulnerable to forest fires. Forest fire proof construction is possible! It's just not quite so cheap, or might not allow a tree right up next to a house in the most aesthetically pleasing fashion. But until we fix at least one of (and preferably both of) those things, fires like this will keep happening. No matter how much PG&E gets fined.

zbrozek 6y ago
You're right that it does draw attention to other systemic problems that we need to address. Forest management in a changing climate needs to change and we're definitely socially negligent there. But let's not apologize for PG&E. Read the whole Butte DA report. It's extremely damning without needing to resort to hyperbole or sensationalism. PG&E has willfully ignored problems and chosen to "run to failure" effectively their entire system, ignoring outcomes of those failures. And on top of that, they're absolutely milking the ratepayer.
_ph_ 6y ago
That fires would happen for other reasons is completely inconsequential to me in this case. This tower was criminally neglected even in basic maintenance. Such a tower should not exist in any place, and if only the consequence would be long power outages without forwarning. Separately, everyone responsible for the failing tower to be able to light such a disastrous fire, should be prosecuted as well. PG&E certainly isn't solely responsible for the fire, but they are completely responsible for the tower failing.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  And to me, the fact that the fires would happen for other reasons is the most important thing in the case. Blame should fall on the people with the power to prevent an accident from happening, and PG&E did not have that power. (They instead had the power to prevent the accident from happening in one specific way, but it still would have happened in another way)
  - _ph_ 6y ago
    I don't claim that blame for the fires rests on PG&E. My point was rather, that the towers were in an unacceptable state of maintenance. Any kind of accident or disaster could happen any time from towers in that state. And a disaster did happen. That others greatly contributed greatly or even mainly to the disaster taking its scale, is a question for the precise liability and punishment split.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      And what I'm saying is that if every tower in the forest was in a similar state of maintenance, or had a flamethrower pointing off the side that went off every week, the number of deaths would be lower.
imtringued 6y ago
I don't understand your analogy. It was the tower that was abandoned for "50 years". The transmission tower has an inbuilt failure that triggers after 100 years (the failed hook = the incendiary) except it wasn't some asshole that added the incendiary, it was the group (PG&E) responsible for constructing and maintaining the tower. The tower hasn't been maintained by PG&E for around 100 years (close to your 50 years) so all the trees trapped near or under the transmission tower die in a wild fire. You have picked your analogy in such a way that it is extremely confusing. Even after reading "To me, PG&E is the driver here." it still felt extremely forced because the entire "twitter article" is about the failure of PG&E to maintain their infrastructure. That also includes cutting down trees near power lines.
mdavidn 6y ago
Driving too fast is not analogous to mismanaging a 115 kV conductor.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  You're right - driving too fast is an active choice, while lack of maintenance is an accident.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > driving too fast is an active choice, while lack of maintenance is an accident. Its quite possible for the former to be accidental and the latter deliberate, such as when you both deliberately reduce inspections and deliberately by policy eliminate the training for inspectors. And when you create a program with a name that indicates it is being used to follow up on safety problems to deceive regulators and just use it as a slush fund for capital improvements with no safety criteria. Which are just a few of the things the investigation that led to PG&E’s manslaughter convictions in the Camp Fire (not it's first felony convictions in deadly incidents!) revealed.
    - DuskStar 6y ago
      Sure, but I'd put money on the majority of people speeding doing so intentionally, and while determining whether lack of maintenance was an accident isn't trivial (and depends on the definition of 'intentional') even in the PG&E case here they did not specifically and knowingly leave a broken part on the line.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > even in the PG&E case here they did not specifically and knowingly leave a broken part on the line. They specifically and knowingly failed to maintain the lines, eliminating training for the people who were supposed to inspect the lines, and took active steps to conceal those facts; the lack of maintenance was a deliberate choice, and, also, they specifically and knowingly left many broken parts on the line for extended periods of time, which was extensively documented in the investigative document produced from the investigation that led to their manslaughter charges.
nebulous1 6y ago
> have. But as fires have demonstrated this year... fires are going to happen. Lightning, gender reveals, a broken muffler... Something will provide the spark. I've seen this sentiment in other replies also. To me it implies that you're saying that fires are being started at near the maximal rate allowed by the forest conditions, so that increased sparks are ultimately meaningless. Is this the case?
- DuskStar 6y ago
  I do not believe that fires are being started at anywhere near the maximal rate allowed by forest conditions. I DO believe that having vastly more fires started (on the order of 100x or more) would reduce the overall deaths and ecological damage, though. (Having more fires more often makes each fire smaller and less intense, which massively decreases the risk to life) To the best of my knowledge, this belief is shared by most modern forestry experts.
205guy 6y ago
I hate these extreme thought puzzles. They try to simplify the problem by analogy and try to highlight the issues of the original problem through severe imagery (incendiary in an orphanage, wtf), but all they do is mislead, because the choice of what is magnified is an opinion, and the lesson to be learned is shaped by bias. In this example, we are meant to assume that the incendiary is the equivalent of fuel overload in mismanaged forests. But the analogy is bunk. No one is planting bombs (it's not a willful act), the policy of stopping fires was once considered good, and when it was no longer considered good, there were also issues of homes and property to protect. And then there is climate change that is ostensibly creating dryer and longer fire seasons, so the underlying factors have changed. Yet the thought puzzle is designed to have obvious answers (aka bias) that the author wants us to apply in the real world. This is manipulation. Give us the real world problem and more information to think about it, we are smart enough.

zbrozek 6y ago

You're right that it does draw attention to other systemic problems that we need to address. Forest management in a changing climate needs to change and we're definitely socially negligent there. But let's not apologize for PG&E. Read the whole Butte DA report. It's extremely damning without needing to resort to hyperbole or sensationalism. PG&E has willfully ignored problems and chosen to "run to failure" effectively their entire system, ignoring outcomes of those failures. And on top of that, they're absolutely milking the ratepayer.

_ph_ 6y ago

That fires would happen for other reasons is completely inconsequential to me in this case. This tower was criminally neglected even in basic maintenance. Such a tower should not exist in any place, and if only the consequence would be long power outages without forwarning. Separately, everyone responsible for the failing tower to be able to light such a disastrous fire, should be prosecuted as well. PG&E certainly isn't solely responsible for the fire, but they are completely responsible for the tower failing.

DuskStar 6y ago
And to me, the fact that the fires would happen for other reasons is the most important thing in the case. Blame should fall on the people with the power to prevent an accident from happening, and PG&E did not have that power. (They instead had the power to prevent the accident from happening in one specific way, but it still would have happened in another way)
- _ph_ 6y ago
  I don't claim that blame for the fires rests on PG&E. My point was rather, that the towers were in an unacceptable state of maintenance. Any kind of accident or disaster could happen any time from towers in that state. And a disaster did happen. That others greatly contributed greatly or even mainly to the disaster taking its scale, is a question for the precise liability and punishment split.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    And what I'm saying is that if every tower in the forest was in a similar state of maintenance, or had a flamethrower pointing off the side that went off every week, the number of deaths would be lower.

imtringued 6y ago

I don't understand your analogy. It was the tower that was abandoned for "50 years". The transmission tower has an inbuilt failure that triggers after 100 years (the failed hook = the incendiary) except it wasn't some asshole that added the incendiary, it was the group (PG&E) responsible for constructing and maintaining the tower. The tower hasn't been maintained by PG&E for around 100 years (close to your 50 years) so all the trees trapped near or under the transmission tower die in a wild fire. You have picked your analogy in such a way that it is extremely confusing. Even after reading "To me, PG&E is the driver here." it still felt extremely forced because the entire "twitter article" is about the failure of PG&E to maintain their infrastructure. That also includes cutting down trees near power lines.

mdavidn 6y ago

Driving too fast is not analogous to mismanaging a 115 kV conductor.

DuskStar 6y ago
You're right - driving too fast is an active choice, while lack of maintenance is an accident.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > driving too fast is an active choice, while lack of maintenance is an accident. Its quite possible for the former to be accidental and the latter deliberate, such as when you both deliberately reduce inspections and deliberately by policy eliminate the training for inspectors. And when you create a program with a name that indicates it is being used to follow up on safety problems to deceive regulators and just use it as a slush fund for capital improvements with no safety criteria. Which are just a few of the things the investigation that led to PG&E’s manslaughter convictions in the Camp Fire (not it's first felony convictions in deadly incidents!) revealed.
  - DuskStar 6y ago
    Sure, but I'd put money on the majority of people speeding doing so intentionally, and while determining whether lack of maintenance was an accident isn't trivial (and depends on the definition of 'intentional') even in the PG&E case here they did not specifically and knowingly leave a broken part on the line.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > even in the PG&E case here they did not specifically and knowingly leave a broken part on the line. They specifically and knowingly failed to maintain the lines, eliminating training for the people who were supposed to inspect the lines, and took active steps to conceal those facts; the lack of maintenance was a deliberate choice, and, also, they specifically and knowingly left many broken parts on the line for extended periods of time, which was extensively documented in the investigative document produced from the investigation that led to their manslaughter charges.

nebulous1 6y ago

> have. But as fires have demonstrated this year... fires are going to happen. Lightning, gender reveals, a broken muffler... Something will provide the spark. I've seen this sentiment in other replies also. To me it implies that you're saying that fires are being started at near the maximal rate allowed by the forest conditions, so that increased sparks are ultimately meaningless. Is this the case?

DuskStar 6y ago
I do not believe that fires are being started at anywhere near the maximal rate allowed by forest conditions. I DO believe that having vastly more fires started (on the order of 100x or more) would reduce the overall deaths and ecological damage, though. (Having more fires more often makes each fire smaller and less intense, which massively decreases the risk to life) To the best of my knowledge, this belief is shared by most modern forestry experts.

205guy 6y ago

I hate these extreme thought puzzles. They try to simplify the problem by analogy and try to highlight the issues of the original problem through severe imagery (incendiary in an orphanage, wtf), but all they do is mislead, because the choice of what is magnified is an opinion, and the lesson to be learned is shaped by bias. In this example, we are meant to assume that the incendiary is the equivalent of fuel overload in mismanaged forests. But the analogy is bunk. No one is planting bombs (it's not a willful act), the policy of stopping fires was once considered good, and when it was no longer considered good, there were also issues of homes and property to protect. And then there is climate change that is ostensibly creating dryer and longer fire seasons, so the underlying factors have changed. Yet the thought puzzle is designed to have obvious answers (aka bias) that the author wants us to apply in the real world. This is manipulation. Give us the real world problem and more information to think about it, we are smart enough.