3 ms·
and a shit job of managing wildfires.
by themark 4y ago
and a shit job of managing wildfires.
- NDizzle 4y agoI mean, we're fighting wildfires about as good as anyone could. What CA doesn't do well is manage forests.
- hindsightbias 4y agoThe vast majority of burns are on federal land. CA does not manage national forests.
- NDizzle 4y agoLast 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 agoThe 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.