3 ms·

One problem is infrastructure- how does one cut, process, and transport enough lumber to meaningfully affect homelessness or fire risk, and not build up an equi

One problem is infrastructure- how does one cut, process, and transport enough lumber to meaningfully affect homelessness or fire risk, and not build up an equivalent carbon footprint? I suppose an idea would be to construct the homes where the lumber is, but then you run into a host of other problems: building a housing development miles away in the middle of brushland exposes the people in it to increased higher fire risk, and would still require a significant investment in infrastructure (and thus carbon output) to put in place. Lets not forget that California is still undergoing record draught each year and there's still plenty of other vegetation at risk here- fire risk can only be mitigated so much by this sort of deforestation. I was going to suggest burying the wood, but my guess is this would just increase methane emission from microbes, which is far worse than the CO2 released by burning. I think controlled burns are still the best option at the moment.

qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago
There are already cities in California surrounded by forest. We could expand them by adding new homes, building robust fire-fighting infrastructure (including fire breaks) in the process so the homes don't burn down. My intuition is that a city will be easiest to defend from fire if its area-to-perimeter ratio is low, i.e. it is big. For example, there is no real risk of San Jose burning down in a fire, because its area (square of the radius) means it has lots of water mains and firefighters, while its perimeter (linear in the radius) is comparatively defendable. That suggests the strategy of expanding existing forest cities.
- IntrepidWorm 5y ago
  I see your point, though I'm still skeptical that it would be sustainable. At best, it would have a marginal effect on the overall fire risk, a significant effect in local fire risk, and some effect on the housing crisis (I admit having almost no understanding of the situation, but reasonably suspect it is a complicated and interwoven issue).

qPM9l3XJrF 5y ago

There are already cities in California surrounded by forest. We could expand them by adding new homes, building robust fire-fighting infrastructure (including fire breaks) in the process so the homes don't burn down. My intuition is that a city will be easiest to defend from fire if its area-to-perimeter ratio is low, i.e. it is big. For example, there is no real risk of San Jose burning down in a fire, because its area (square of the radius) means it has lots of water mains and firefighters, while its perimeter (linear in the radius) is comparatively defendable. That suggests the strategy of expanding existing forest cities.

IntrepidWorm 5y ago
I see your point, though I'm still skeptical that it would be sustainable. At best, it would have a marginal effect on the overall fire risk, a significant effect in local fire risk, and some effect on the housing crisis (I admit having almost no understanding of the situation, but reasonably suspect it is a complicated and interwoven issue).