3 ms·
The frustrating thing about this argument is that you can't even begin to have it because it challenges climate change as the cause of the forest fires. This is
by jdoliner 5y ago
The frustrating thing about this argument is that you can't even begin to have it because it challenges climate change as the cause of the forest fires. This is completely stupid because climate change just makes it more important that we do prescribed burns for a couple reasons. First it makes the fires more likely, so decreasing the fuel to burn is that much more important. Second, fires themselves create more CO2, much more than prescribed burns.
- AvesMerit 5y agoAre we reading the same article? Here's the text from article mentioning climate change # 4. Climate change hasn’t helped. “Increasing heat, changing rain and snow patterns, shifts in plant communities, and other climate-related changes have vastly increased the likelihood that fires will start more often and burn more intensely and widely than they have in the past,”
- jdoliner 5y agoThis article does a good job of acknowledging global-warming as a cause. Which I do too. I'm agreeing with it that the best way to respond is to do prescribed burns. They ameliorate the short-term and long-term ill effects of the megafires. Which ultimately contribute more to climate change. The frustrating thing is that no-burns is typically seen as the pro-climate change response, which makes a certain amount of sense because doing a burn puts smoke into the air. It's also naturally controversial because it affects the air quality around where you do the burn. No one wants to have smokey air. With a prescribed burn they blame the government. So it carries a lot of political liability.