4 ms·

Don't get confused by this. The takeaway isn't "See how useless our efforts are; greenhouse gas is a load of bunk!" The takeaway is "We're doing a shit job of

Don't get confused by this. The takeaway isn't "See how useless our efforts are; greenhouse gas is a load of bunk!" The takeaway is "We're doing a shit job of reducing greenhouse gasses."

themark 4y ago
and a shit job of managing wildfires.
- NDizzle 4y ago
  I mean, we're fighting wildfires about as good as anyone could. What CA doesn't do well is manage forests.
  - hindsightbias 4y ago
    The vast majority of burns are on federal land. CA does not manage national forests.
    - NDizzle 4y ago
      Last I knew (as I lived right by areas that were constantly burning) Cal Fire had the contacts to maintain the majority of the federal land in northern California.
- nomel 4y ago
  The only real tool for managing wildfires is controlled burns. The problem is, California isn't burning often enough [1]. The question is, if these areas were managed properly, with controlled burns, what would the greenhouse gas emissions be? I imagine proper management wasn't included in the emissions goals. Related, we have some endangered pyrophytic [2] plants near where I live. I imagine they'll be extinct, within my lifetime. 1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-07/newsom-signs-fire-law-paving-way-for-more-prescribed-burns https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-07/newsom-s... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte edit: perhaps you had this in mind with "managing wildfires".
  - eastbound 4y ago
    > what would the greenhouse gas emissions be? Zero or minus, because you’re still burning a carbon capture tool. It’s not a joke, it’s important. In Australia they forbade controlled burnings for 10 years. Result: A 10-year burn. CO2 emissions: Still 0 over 10 years, but lots of homesteads burnt.
melling 4y ago
I hear all kinds of narratives on this. According to this EPA article, US emissions are down 20% since 2005. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... Of course, global emissions are way up but we were warned 40 years ago about global coal use. https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI
- bombcar 4y ago
  The US has continued to export emissions to other countries, as we export more and more manufacturing.
  - melling 4y ago
    Yes, everyone knows this. China built the second largest economy, the second largest military, and 3x as much greenhouse gas on the back of US consumer spending. But hey, people on HN don’t like it when you point out stuff like this. I think people are hoping for plausible deniability. With half a century of warning, how did we end up in this climate mess? “ hey, let’s blame the oil companies“
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Only 16% of US imports come from China. The majority of US imports are from nations with falling emissions. Obviously that isn't perfectly illustrative of exact shares of CO2 represented by those imports, but it's a useful proxy.
      - melling 4y ago
        China is responsible for 27% of total global emissions. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/06/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions-exceed-us-developed-world-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/06/chinas-greenhouse-gas-em... Some of it can be tied directly to US trade, and some of it can be tied to taking the all those profits and building internally. We exported all that manufacturing which used a lot of dirty coal The US is 11% of the total.
onepointsixC 4y ago
I don't think that's the take away as much as "were doing a shit job at forestry and that's just as important as green initiatives".
- eastbound 4y ago
  And maintaining the electrical network. Anyone knows why the electricity companies didn’t do a good job to avoid sparks and contact with trees?
  - mistrial9 4y ago
    one document you could read is: Pacific Northwest Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment: Methods and Results; PyroLogix/ USFS 27Aug2018
akira2501 4y ago
And in the same period of time being considered, California's population got 18% larger. Perhaps the takeaway should be "be wary of non-per-capita figures when trying to measure the totality of a problem."
- lupire 4y ago
  What do you mean? Pollution effect is per habitat, not per capita. Population growth is a baseline goal for emissions. If we can't cut pollution generation faster than population growth, we are losing.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    > What do you mean? Pollution effect is per habitat, not per capita. What I mean is that you can still see higher total pollution even if you reduce per capita rates while experiencing population growth. Focusing solely on outputs while ignoring input considerations is bad engineering. > Population growth is a baseline goal for emissions. If we can't cut pollution generation faster than population growth, we are losing. Does the article suggest that's happening? Or is it just looking at a year in isolation of all other facts?
lupire 4y ago
Your logic implies that the efforts we made so far are useless, and we should be doing something else.

Don't get confused by this. The takeaway isn't "See how useless our efforts are; greenhouse gas is a load of bunk!" The takeaway is "We're doing a shit job of reducing greenhouse gasses."

themark 4y ago

and a shit job of managing wildfires.

NDizzle 4y ago
I mean, we're fighting wildfires about as good as anyone could. What CA doesn't do well is manage forests.
- hindsightbias 4y ago
  The vast majority of burns are on federal land. CA does not manage national forests.
  - NDizzle 4y ago
    Last I knew (as I lived right by areas that were constantly burning) Cal Fire had the contacts to maintain the majority of the federal land in northern California.
nomel 4y ago
The only real tool for managing wildfires is controlled burns. The problem is, California isn't burning often enough [1]. The question is, if these areas were managed properly, with controlled burns, what would the greenhouse gas emissions be? I imagine proper management wasn't included in the emissions goals. Related, we have some endangered pyrophytic [2] plants near where I live. I imagine they'll be extinct, within my lifetime. 1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-07/newsom-signs-fire-law-paving-way-for-more-prescribed-burns https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-07/newsom-s... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte edit: perhaps you had this in mind with "managing wildfires".
- eastbound 4y ago
  > what would the greenhouse gas emissions be? Zero or minus, because you’re still burning a carbon capture tool. It’s not a joke, it’s important. In Australia they forbade controlled burnings for 10 years. Result: A 10-year burn. CO2 emissions: Still 0 over 10 years, but lots of homesteads burnt.

melling 4y ago

I hear all kinds of narratives on this. According to this EPA article, US emissions are down 20% since 2005. https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica... Of course, global emissions are way up but we were warned 40 years ago about global coal use. https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI https://youtu.be/Wp-WiNXH6hI

bombcar 4y ago
The US has continued to export emissions to other countries, as we export more and more manufacturing.
- melling 4y ago
  Yes, everyone knows this. China built the second largest economy, the second largest military, and 3x as much greenhouse gas on the back of US consumer spending. But hey, people on HN don’t like it when you point out stuff like this. I think people are hoping for plausible deniability. With half a century of warning, how did we end up in this climate mess? “ hey, let’s blame the oil companies“
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Only 16% of US imports come from China. The majority of US imports are from nations with falling emissions. Obviously that isn't perfectly illustrative of exact shares of CO2 represented by those imports, but it's a useful proxy.
    - melling 4y ago
      China is responsible for 27% of total global emissions. https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/06/chinas-greenhouse-gas-emissions-exceed-us-developed-world-report.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/05/06/chinas-greenhouse-gas-em... Some of it can be tied directly to US trade, and some of it can be tied to taking the all those profits and building internally. We exported all that manufacturing which used a lot of dirty coal The US is 11% of the total.

onepointsixC 4y ago

I don't think that's the take away as much as "were doing a shit job at forestry and that's just as important as green initiatives".

eastbound 4y ago
And maintaining the electrical network. Anyone knows why the electricity companies didn’t do a good job to avoid sparks and contact with trees?
- mistrial9 4y ago
  one document you could read is: Pacific Northwest Quantitative Wildfire Risk Assessment: Methods and Results; PyroLogix/ USFS 27Aug2018

akira2501 4y ago

And in the same period of time being considered, California's population got 18% larger. Perhaps the takeaway should be "be wary of non-per-capita figures when trying to measure the totality of a problem."

lupire 4y ago
What do you mean? Pollution effect is per habitat, not per capita. Population growth is a baseline goal for emissions. If we can't cut pollution generation faster than population growth, we are losing.
- akira2501 4y ago
  > What do you mean? Pollution effect is per habitat, not per capita. What I mean is that you can still see higher total pollution even if you reduce per capita rates while experiencing population growth. Focusing solely on outputs while ignoring input considerations is bad engineering. > Population growth is a baseline goal for emissions. If we can't cut pollution generation faster than population growth, we are losing. Does the article suggest that's happening? Or is it just looking at a year in isolation of all other facts?

lupire 4y ago

Your logic implies that the efforts we made so far are useless, and we should be doing something else.