3 ms·
Of course, I'm not arguing against controlled burns at all. My question was: are they enough to stop the huge emissions from forest fires, or are we as a spec
by xiphias2 6y ago
Of course, I'm not arguing against controlled burns at all.
My question was: are they enough to stop the huge emissions from forest fires, or are we as a species already over that point, and even with the best available methods air quality will get worse every year?
I'm asking because I have vasomotor rhinitis and I'm extremely scared that I won't have any place on earth to hide from air pollution.
- bluGill 6y agoDepends on what emissions you are worried about. Let'ssstarts with pollution, smoke and particals. There will always be emissions from fires. Smaller fires spread the emissions out over several years, while this large fire is many years at once. However smaller fires don't burn as much of their emissions, so the total over a large number of years is greater. However the earth is better able to absorb them when spread out over time. If you live next to the fire it is better to evacuate every 20 years than live next to the smaller fire every year (Small means you don't need to evacuate) for the rest of the world though the small fire means the pollution doesn't reach you and so smaller is better. If you are worried about CO2, then smaller fire leave a bit more unburned charcoal (sequestered carbon) behind every year and contribute to a long term global cooling. (it will take thousands of years to make up for one year of the rest of what we do, so don't get excited).