3 ms·

Because we don't live in a direct democracy?

username90 6y ago
Hiding your true intentions and then showing your 15 year plan after you get elected is not in the spirit of representative democracies. Here in Sweden we discuss these things before elections and in general have more climate measures than California, so I don't see why a politician would need to be this heavy handed.
- natch 6y ago
  > I don't see why... The mistake here is assuming that just because you don’t see a reason, that must mean there is no reason. Maybe you should visit California next time we are in peak firestorm mode and then you might see.
  - blackflame7000 6y ago
    So this will stop the fires then? Better than say mandating forest management?
    - tstrimple 6y ago
      Stop fires? No. In the long term it's meant to address the conditions to lead to the size and severity of fires we're seeing today. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46183690 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46183690 > In terms of loss of life and damage to property, the data shows the worst fires have all been in the past 10 years or so - except for one fire in 1991 in Alameda County. > And this year, there have also been unusually strong winds combined with periods of drought across parts of the western US. Six of the largest fires recorded in California have all happened this year. > Prof Doerr says a combination of drier, hotter and windy conditions is the key factor in these recent fires. > He adds that even in areas where there have been attempts to reduce flammable material in forests, it's not clear how much difference this would have made. > "The bottom line remains that the extreme meteorological conditions are the main drivers for these extreme fires."
      - throwawaysea 6y ago
        But climate change is not the main driver of recent wildfires, and it at most one contributing factor among many. If old growth trees remained, if forests were cleared of dead trees, if stands were thinned, if logging companies were allowed to harvest in a timely/economical fashion, or if controlled burns were used with the frequency they used to be, most of these fires would not happen. If there are fewer fires, the smaller number of bad fires that do still happen are much easier to put out quickly, because we would not have to spread fire fighting resources too thinly. Here's a survey of articles covering the West coast fires (CA, OR, WA) that make this clear: - https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-california-looks-to-what-tribes-have-known-all-along https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-... mentions that before 1800, several million acres were burned every year through indigenous burning and also lightning-caused fires. In 2019, California committed to burning just half a million acres a year, but is far from reaching even that modest goal. - https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911592361/are-recent-wildfires-enough-to-restore-the-equilibrium-with-fire https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911592361/are-recent-wildfire... mentions that California needs to address 20M acres every year (through thinning or burning). In 2019, $160M was spent putting out wildfires in CA, but the economic damage was $80B - and yet preventative measures are not being taken. - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-m... notes that California's focus on fire suppression has led to mass quantities of dead trees resulting from a lack of smaller fires and increased infestation (due to increased forest density enabling transmission of pests/disease) - https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/09/did-global-warming-play-significant.html https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/09/did-global-warming-pl... mentions that the wind patterns that caused recent wildfires in Oregon is unlikely to have been caused by climate change - https://katu.com/news/on-your-side/lack-of-forest-management-allowed-fuels-to-accumulate-expert-says https://katu.com/news/on-your-side/lack-of-forest-management... notes that in Oregon, a lack of forest management has led to a buildup of dense fuels - https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop-wildland-fires-forestry-not-climate-policy-is-the-priority https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop... notes various policy failures that have caused Washington forests to grow out of control, unharvested, and with high density. - Both the WA state Department of Natural Resources (https://www.dnr.wa.gov/StrategicFireProtection https://www.dnr.wa.gov/StrategicFireProtection) and WA timber industry (http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/reduce-wildfire-risk/ http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/reduce-wildfire-ris...) have been increased investment/assistance/regulatory support in thinning forests and conducting prescribed burns. Despite these calls being made for over a decade, despite ever increasing state budgets, and despite a consistent single-party rule, the governor and legislature have done little to respond to those calls for help. The reality is that all three West Coast governors - Newsom (CA), Brown (OR), and Inslee (WA) - are operating in states that have left-leaning legislatures, judiciaries, and executive leadership. The failure to prevent wildfires or manage them effectively is entirely their fault. It's much more convenient however, to blame an externality like climate change, than to be honest about their own failures. And at the same time, the political theater of blaming wildfires on climate change allows them to forward their political/ideological agendas through far-reaching proposals like Green New Deal, which are much broader than just environmental issues.
gnicholas 6y ago
CA regularly amends its constitution via voter initiatives, so I'd say we (Californians) actually do live in a fairly direct democracy. Also, I'm not sure anyone has ever characterized representative democracy as: politicians campaign on certain issues, and then after getting elected — and with no material intervening factors — they enact sweeping regulations that they never even hinted at during their campaign (or decades-long prior political life).
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > we (Californians) actually do live in a fairly direct democracy California has direct democratic elements. It is not a direct democracy. There is a lot of writing and research on why direct democracies are probably not a good idea for all questions, from antiquity to the modern era. One field that dies with proximity to democracy is law, e.g. the ancient Athenian system of trial by popular assembly. Another is the management of commons, e.g. fisheries, forestry and, I would argue, our atmosphere. Note that such delegation doesn't mean usurpation. It just means the elected leaders negatively consent to, and constrain, rule making. This is the basis of the agency-driven civil service model, which first–to my knowledge–flourished in China before making it West by way of the Middle East.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    Why do you believe management of the commons would fail under direct democracies? That seems like an arbitrary claim but maybe I don't understand the reasoning. I feel like any flaw that is claimed about direct democracy can be claimed about high-turnout representative democracy as well (and therefore broadly about democracy in general). After all, we elect representatives effectively on popularity contexts, echo chambers squeezing out marginal leads, and poor/manipulable information flows. A related question: wouldn't a representative democracy always perform more poorly than a (benevolent) technocracy?
- s17n 6y ago
  Pretty sure the original concept of representative democracy didn't involve campaigning on issues at all, it was more like "the people decide who they want to represent them by picking the wisest and most honorable citizens, and then the representatives decide what to do about the issues."

Hiding your true intentions and then showing your 15 year plan after you get elected is not in the spirit of representative democracies. Here in Sweden we discuss these things before elections and in general have more climate measures than California, so I don't see why a politician would need to be this heavy handed.

natch 6y ago
> I don't see why... The mistake here is assuming that just because you don’t see a reason, that must mean there is no reason. Maybe you should visit California next time we are in peak firestorm mode and then you might see.
- blackflame7000 6y ago
  So this will stop the fires then? Better than say mandating forest management?
  - tstrimple 6y ago
    Stop fires? No. In the long term it's meant to address the conditions to lead to the size and severity of fires we're seeing today. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46183690 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46183690 > In terms of loss of life and damage to property, the data shows the worst fires have all been in the past 10 years or so - except for one fire in 1991 in Alameda County. > And this year, there have also been unusually strong winds combined with periods of drought across parts of the western US. Six of the largest fires recorded in California have all happened this year. > Prof Doerr says a combination of drier, hotter and windy conditions is the key factor in these recent fires. > He adds that even in areas where there have been attempts to reduce flammable material in forests, it's not clear how much difference this would have made. > "The bottom line remains that the extreme meteorological conditions are the main drivers for these extreme fires."
    - throwawaysea 6y ago
      But climate change is not the main driver of recent wildfires, and it at most one contributing factor among many. If old growth trees remained, if forests were cleared of dead trees, if stands were thinned, if logging companies were allowed to harvest in a timely/economical fashion, or if controlled burns were used with the frequency they used to be, most of these fires would not happen. If there are fewer fires, the smaller number of bad fires that do still happen are much easier to put out quickly, because we would not have to spread fire fighting resources too thinly. Here's a survey of articles covering the West coast fires (CA, OR, WA) that make this clear: - https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-california-looks-to-what-tribes-have-known-all-along https://www.npr.org/2020/08/24/899422710/to-manage-wildfire-... mentions that before 1800, several million acres were burned every year through indigenous burning and also lightning-caused fires. In 2019, California committed to burning just half a million acres a year, but is far from reaching even that modest goal. - https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911592361/are-recent-wildfires-enough-to-restore-the-equilibrium-with-fire https://www.npr.org/2020/09/10/911592361/are-recent-wildfire... mentions that California needs to address 20M acres every year (through thinning or burning). In 2019, $160M was spent putting out wildfires in CA, but the economic damage was $80B - and yet preventative measures are not being taken. - https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-million-dead-trees-prompt-fears-of-giant-wildfires.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/19/us/california-today-100-m... notes that California's focus on fire suppression has led to mass quantities of dead trees resulting from a lack of smaller fires and increased infestation (due to increased forest density enabling transmission of pests/disease) - https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/09/did-global-warming-play-significant.html https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2020/09/did-global-warming-pl... mentions that the wind patterns that caused recent wildfires in Oregon is unlikely to have been caused by climate change - https://katu.com/news/on-your-side/lack-of-forest-management-allowed-fuels-to-accumulate-expert-says https://katu.com/news/on-your-side/lack-of-forest-management... notes that in Oregon, a lack of forest management has led to a buildup of dense fuels - https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop-wildland-fires-forestry-not-climate-policy-is-the-priority https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/to-stop... notes various policy failures that have caused Washington forests to grow out of control, unharvested, and with high density. - Both the WA state Department of Natural Resources (https://www.dnr.wa.gov/StrategicFireProtection https://www.dnr.wa.gov/StrategicFireProtection) and WA timber industry (http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/reduce-wildfire-risk/ http://www.wfpa.org/sustainable-forestry/reduce-wildfire-ris...) have been increased investment/assistance/regulatory support in thinning forests and conducting prescribed burns. Despite these calls being made for over a decade, despite ever increasing state budgets, and despite a consistent single-party rule, the governor and legislature have done little to respond to those calls for help. The reality is that all three West Coast governors - Newsom (CA), Brown (OR), and Inslee (WA) - are operating in states that have left-leaning legislatures, judiciaries, and executive leadership. The failure to prevent wildfires or manage them effectively is entirely their fault. It's much more convenient however, to blame an externality like climate change, than to be honest about their own failures. And at the same time, the political theater of blaming wildfires on climate change allows them to forward their political/ideological agendas through far-reaching proposals like Green New Deal, which are much broader than just environmental issues.

gnicholas 6y ago

CA regularly amends its constitution via voter initiatives, so I'd say we (Californians) actually do live in a fairly direct democracy. Also, I'm not sure anyone has ever characterized representative democracy as: politicians campaign on certain issues, and then after getting elected — and with no material intervening factors — they enact sweeping regulations that they never even hinted at during their campaign (or decades-long prior political life).

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> we (Californians) actually do live in a fairly direct democracy California has direct democratic elements. It is not a direct democracy. There is a lot of writing and research on why direct democracies are probably not a good idea for all questions, from antiquity to the modern era. One field that dies with proximity to democracy is law, e.g. the ancient Athenian system of trial by popular assembly. Another is the management of commons, e.g. fisheries, forestry and, I would argue, our atmosphere. Note that such delegation doesn't mean usurpation. It just means the elected leaders negatively consent to, and constrain, rule making. This is the basis of the agency-driven civil service model, which first–to my knowledge–flourished in China before making it West by way of the Middle East.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  Why do you believe management of the commons would fail under direct democracies? That seems like an arbitrary claim but maybe I don't understand the reasoning. I feel like any flaw that is claimed about direct democracy can be claimed about high-turnout representative democracy as well (and therefore broadly about democracy in general). After all, we elect representatives effectively on popularity contexts, echo chambers squeezing out marginal leads, and poor/manipulable information flows. A related question: wouldn't a representative democracy always perform more poorly than a (benevolent) technocracy?
s17n 6y ago
Pretty sure the original concept of representative democracy didn't involve campaigning on issues at all, it was more like "the people decide who they want to represent them by picking the wisest and most honorable citizens, and then the representatives decide what to do about the issues."