3 ms·

Or just live in places that don't require active management to such a high degree. It's also very energy intensive and completely preventable since humans merel

by vasco 4y ago

Or just live in places that don't require active management to such a high degree. It's also very energy intensive and completely preventable since humans merely would have to move to safer places. It's like people who like to live on a cliff by the water and then are bailed out when few years later the cliff is in risk of collapsing. Just avoid it in the first place. Edit: some governments are already realizing this. It's impossible economicly to properly protect all people who live in remote locations surrounded by forest. At some point we just have to understand that the outsized costs to overall society of keeping small towns with dozens of people safe is not smart when they can move to somewhere safe. I'm just being honest. Governments are doing this implicitly by doing the bare minimum that will fly in the press, while demonstrating through actions that the more time goes on the more you're at your own risk if you live in a small town in a fire zone.

hcurtiss 4y ago
Putting aside the profound ethical implications of shuttering rural towns (and the political hurdles to doing so), this strategy does not address carbon emissions, much less the profound air quality impacts associated with catastrophic wildfire, including impacts in urban areas like Portland Oregon right now.
- vasco 4y ago
  If there's no people or power lines going through those forest areas, the fires will go down by a lot. I do suggest a slow transition away from remote / dangerous places, unless people are willing to deal with the fact that nobody will come to help if bad things happen. It's a bit rich to expect all of society to contribute such a big effort just so small minorities can stay in places where it's not safe or economical to live, once you factor in the fact that Nature exists, and doesn't care about the fact your parents lived there. And by the way, this is how it works in countries that can't afford this already. Even in Portugal after the last round of fires, the prime Minister said that the country cannot afford to protect every remote village in case of fire, and that people should reconsider where they live. More countries will follow.
zbrozek 4y ago
The consequences are vast. Would you abandon much of the American West?

by vasco 4y ago

hcurtiss 4y ago

Putting aside the profound ethical implications of shuttering rural towns (and the political hurdles to doing so), this strategy does not address carbon emissions, much less the profound air quality impacts associated with catastrophic wildfire, including impacts in urban areas like Portland Oregon right now.

vasco 4y ago
If there's no people or power lines going through those forest areas, the fires will go down by a lot. I do suggest a slow transition away from remote / dangerous places, unless people are willing to deal with the fact that nobody will come to help if bad things happen. It's a bit rich to expect all of society to contribute such a big effort just so small minorities can stay in places where it's not safe or economical to live, once you factor in the fact that Nature exists, and doesn't care about the fact your parents lived there. And by the way, this is how it works in countries that can't afford this already. Even in Portugal after the last round of fires, the prime Minister said that the country cannot afford to protect every remote village in case of fire, and that people should reconsider where they live. More countries will follow.

zbrozek 4y ago

The consequences are vast. Would you abandon much of the American West?