4 ms·

I worry that we may committing a historical fallacy. Fires were good, back when the climate was very different. Can we extrapolate that forward given rapid chan

I worry that we may committing a historical fallacy. Fires were good, back when the climate was very different. Can we extrapolate that forward given rapid changes in climate. Maybe there are other ways to accomplish similar effects. Logging gets a bad name, but maybe in today’s ecosystem and the ecosystem as it will be in future years leaving it up to fire to do naturally is longer optimal. We are no longer in the garden of eden. Some things do change.

antisthenes 5y ago
Well, our current choices may be between 2 fallacies. First one is the one you described, and the second one is that given the changes in climate that it's even possible to contain these wildfires using mechanical means, such as trenches and water drops. It may not be. The question then is which one is the lesser evil.
maxerickson 5y ago
Loggers make big waste piles and then burn them.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
almost_usual 5y ago
The fallacy is thinking humans can prevent fire in forests forever.
bawolff 5y ago
I don't see why climate change would affect the positive aspects of fire. Logging generally does not have the same effect (logging takes big trees and leave small stuff, fires leave big trees and kill small stuff. Also the heat from fire is important for the germination of some types of trees)
- chris_va 5y ago
  Climate change brings invasive species, so fire behavior can be very different (and regrowth post-fire can be very different).
  - lazide 5y ago
    One thing is clear - it is impossible to stop fire in these areas. So either it happens on a small scale in a semi-controlled fashion, eliminating fuel when it won’t destroy everything and the like, or it happens catastrophically and in a uncontrolled fashion when some random event happens - often destroying everything in it’s path, and sometimes being so intense it sterilizes the soil and destroys everything. So the point you’re making is kind of besides the point I think? There is no apparent option where we don’t have fire. Lightning, utility failure, random people smoking, a trailer with a flat tired (that happened), prescribed burns - it’s inevitable it happens at some point.
    - chris_va 5y ago
      Just responding to this statement: > I don't see why climate change would affect the positive aspects of fire. ... since it has a strong effect on the fire and the forest, both pre and post fire. It changes a lot of calculus, including the relative benefit of letting things burn out. We could have a really long discussion on the best wildlands management practices, and the tradeoffs. Prescribed burns, in recent history, have only covered a very very tiny fraction of land. Scaling that up would be logistical difficult, expensive, and probably politically infeasible. Letting things burn is also problematic, as the species mix is no longer well adapted for fire in many places. Suppressing every fire is equally problematic, kind of like plugging the vent in a pressure cooker. Fire breaks, logging, prescribed burns, and other means of fuel load reduction are all traditional fixes that we can use tactically (around cities, etc), but are only going to go so far. In my opinion, we've backed ourselves into a corner in the US west, and with climate change there isn't necessarily a good option going forward. (disclaimer: I study wildfires as part of my work in a Climate & Energy R&D group, though by no means an expert)
      - lazide 5y ago
rurp 5y ago
Logging is such a different process that I can't imagine this working well. As one example, certain seeds require extremely hot temperatures from forest fires in order to germinate. Forest ecosystems are so complex, trying to micro manage them is probably impossible.
spfzero 5y ago
The article mentions that climate change only has a small effect, and that with or without it, natural management works to improve forest ecology as well as reduce the impact of fires.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
We have essentially never been in the garden of eden. Humans have been shaping the landscapes that they live, hunt, gather and farm in for at least 10s of thousands of years.

antisthenes 5y ago

Well, our current choices may be between 2 fallacies. First one is the one you described, and the second one is that given the changes in climate that it's even possible to contain these wildfires using mechanical means, such as trenches and water drops. It may not be. The question then is which one is the lesser evil.

maxerickson 5y ago

Loggers make big waste piles and then burn them.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

almost_usual 5y ago

The fallacy is thinking humans can prevent fire in forests forever.

bawolff 5y ago

I don't see why climate change would affect the positive aspects of fire. Logging generally does not have the same effect (logging takes big trees and leave small stuff, fires leave big trees and kill small stuff. Also the heat from fire is important for the germination of some types of trees)

chris_va 5y ago
Climate change brings invasive species, so fire behavior can be very different (and regrowth post-fire can be very different).
- lazide 5y ago
  One thing is clear - it is impossible to stop fire in these areas. So either it happens on a small scale in a semi-controlled fashion, eliminating fuel when it won’t destroy everything and the like, or it happens catastrophically and in a uncontrolled fashion when some random event happens - often destroying everything in it’s path, and sometimes being so intense it sterilizes the soil and destroys everything. So the point you’re making is kind of besides the point I think? There is no apparent option where we don’t have fire. Lightning, utility failure, random people smoking, a trailer with a flat tired (that happened), prescribed burns - it’s inevitable it happens at some point.
  - chris_va 5y ago
    Just responding to this statement: > I don't see why climate change would affect the positive aspects of fire. ... since it has a strong effect on the fire and the forest, both pre and post fire. It changes a lot of calculus, including the relative benefit of letting things burn out. We could have a really long discussion on the best wildlands management practices, and the tradeoffs. Prescribed burns, in recent history, have only covered a very very tiny fraction of land. Scaling that up would be logistical difficult, expensive, and probably politically infeasible. Letting things burn is also problematic, as the species mix is no longer well adapted for fire in many places. Suppressing every fire is equally problematic, kind of like plugging the vent in a pressure cooker. Fire breaks, logging, prescribed burns, and other means of fuel load reduction are all traditional fixes that we can use tactically (around cities, etc), but are only going to go so far. In my opinion, we've backed ourselves into a corner in the US west, and with climate change there isn't necessarily a good option going forward. (disclaimer: I study wildfires as part of my work in a Climate & Energy R&D group, though by no means an expert)
    - lazide 5y ago

rurp 5y ago

Logging is such a different process that I can't imagine this working well. As one example, certain seeds require extremely hot temperatures from forest fires in order to germinate. Forest ecosystems are so complex, trying to micro manage them is probably impossible.

spfzero 5y ago

The article mentions that climate change only has a small effect, and that with or without it, natural management works to improve forest ecology as well as reduce the impact of fires.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

We have essentially never been in the garden of eden. Humans have been shaping the landscapes that they live, hunt, gather and farm in for at least 10s of thousands of years.