4 ms·
(disclaimer, I work in a Climate&Energy group and have been studying wildfires, though by no means a deep expert in forestry) The implication of this article i
by chris_va 5y ago
(disclaimer, I work in a Climate&Energy group and have been studying wildfires, though by no means a deep expert in forestry)
The implication of this article is that we should have let the forests burn, and as a corollary we should go back to doing that.
The former seems like a reasonable argument. This article misses a couple of important details, though, notably the effects of invasive species and how climate change affects the regrowth of forests post fire. As a result, the latter is by no means obvious. At this point, it's unlikely that forests will go back to how things were, even if we stop suppression.
- ysavir 5y agoI'm not sure what's being suggested here. That we continue the current practices of preventing smaller fires? If the eventually of preventing smaller fires is creating a later megafire, aren't were merely delaying the inevitable--and doing more damage in the long term?
- chris_va 5y agoI don't think there is a great prescriptive process here to follow, and we've kind of backed ourselves into a corner (but again I am not a forestry expert). The current practice is not a good equilibrium, but neither is going back to allowing most fires to burn out naturally. Going back to what worked before sounds appealing (minus the smoke), but really it's not likely to work again the second time around because of everything else that has changed. So an ideal solution is probably going to need to be more complicated.