3 ms·
Better managing fire trap towns would reduce the risks to human life but doesn't do anything about CA fires burning down natural landmarks or blanketing the ent
by bleepblorp 6y ago
Better managing fire trap towns would reduce the risks to human life but doesn't do anything about CA fires burning down natural landmarks or blanketing the entire west coast, from Alaska to Mexico, in toxic smoke every summer.
Keeping people out of harm's way is a necessary, but not sufficient, step to manage California's fire problem.
Fires have health and economic impacts on people who aren't in immediate danger of being burned to death and the only way to minimize these impacts to reduce the number of fires.
- rgossiaux 6y ago>Fires have health and economic impacts on people who aren't in immediate danger of being burned to death and the only way to minimize these impacts to reduce the number of fires. Reducing the number of fires isn't really a viable strategy; the flammable material just accumulates more and more. California has always had wildfires, they're just a part of the ecosystem. A lot has been written lately about how the strategy of trying to suppress every fire the last century is a big part of why we have so many giant, out-of-control wildfires now.
- novok 6y agoCalifornia does not do fire management properly. It's old info, just not applied because tourist boards complain about the controlled burns.
- RhysU 6y agoCan one ballpark how many million acres must burn on average to reach steady state given the transformation of sunlight into captured energy via photosynthesis on the impacted areas? Can we say that a noble management goal is for precisely that amount to burn every calendar year? This feels like a simple control volume analysis.
- nradov 6y agoWe need to increase, not reduce the number of fires. But the fires should be frequent, small controlled burns to reduce the fuel. We'll just have to accept poor air quality in those areas on some days.