4 ms·

Saying that air pollution shouldn't be one of the deciding factors when considering whether to do a controlled burn is very different from saying it should be a

Saying that air pollution shouldn't be one of the deciding factors when considering whether to do a controlled burn is very different from saying it should be a free for all.

taeric 3y ago
But, pollution should be a factor? Like, literally. Is a big part of why you are not allowed to burn garbage. Rightly so.
- jaywalk 3y ago
  You're completely missing the point. It's not burn vs. no burn, it's controlled burn vs. uncontrolled burn. The fire is going to happen one way or another, so why is pollution a bigger concern than saving lives and property?
  - taeric 3y ago
    Sadly, that is you missing my point. I am not claiming that pollution alone should preclude the idea of doing burns. I am claiming that to reduce pollution concerns to being "dumb" is wrong. This is a hard area to regulate. Any attempt to minimize that is reductive and unlikely to be helpful. Is why I picked something i know is allowed, burning in your yard, but with a condition I know is basically never allowed, against my fence.
    - jaywalk 3y ago
      The pollution is going to happen one way or another. That's why the idea of pollution concerns preventing controlled burns is dumb. The pollution cannot be prevented. Do you understand that?
      - taeric 3y ago
        But nobody is claiming that pollution alone will prevent controlled burn? That is the reductive part that is problematic. They are a factor, in that you have to do it in a way that addresses pollution concerns. At large, that is probably going to include what accelerants and controls are allowed, as they will have a unique impact on the pollution generated. Or are you suggesting that the pollution can, in fact, not be controlled and impacted in ways that may need special mitigations?
        bobthepanda 3y ago
        Pollution happens as a result of fire. Under current regulations, people are often prevented from controlled burns due to air quality concerns under CEQA. This leads to fuel buildup. When the eventual real wildfire happens, the risk to property and lives is much worse, and so is the pollution; places experiencing wildfire experience AQIs of 300,400+ when the WHO considers 150+ to be unhealthy. Mother Nature doesn’t have much concern for laws and regulations, and we have trouble controlling these large fires. There is no way to control and thin fuel that does not result in pollution. Manual excavation is impractical and arguably worse since we’d be certainly trampling ecosystems in the process; these ecosystems are often expecting some baseline level of fire.
        taeric 3y ago
        That... is mostly not how this has gone down. It is easy to contrive that current pollution regulations prevent controlled burns, but at large that is not accurate. See the rules I posted about how you can do controlled burns in your yard. Look up similar rules in other states, and you'll often find carve outs specifically for "forest health" reasons. (Edit: forgot to say that you will still almost always have rules about the accelerants and extinguishing methods you are allowed to use. Largely for ecological pollution concerns.)
        bobthepanda 3y ago
        Those regulations are different on a state by state basis. The entire discussion thread is about California, the CEQA in my parent comment is the California Environmental Quality Act, and here is an article describing the differences between the South and the West on burning policy: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/1029821831/to-stop-extreme-wildfires-california-is-learning-from-florida https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/1029821831/to-stop-extreme-wi... > Florida has done prescribed burns on more than 1.6 million acres so far this year. California has only burned around 35,000 acres. The state is 2.5 times larger than Florida. > About half of California is privately owned, and landowners have had little support from public agencies to conduct burns on their property. Permits from firefighting agencies and air quality regulators can be cumbersome to secure. > In May [2021], Quinn-Davidson helped lead the first burn manager certification course in California. Fourteen local groups, known as prescribed burn associations, recently formed to help private landowners with burns across the state.
- bagacrap 3y ago
  With garbage, the alternative is to haul it off to a dump. Fine. With a forest, what is the alternative? Are you going to call in landscapers to clear out a forest and set up a giant composting facility?
  - taeric 3y ago
    I'm not entirely clear what you are asking, all told? Alternative to what? If you are strawmanning that I'm somehow saying you can't cause any pollution, I can only say that is not what I said. I said pollution should be a factor, but that is not the same as "you cannot cause pollution." And to insist that that is all it can be is again reductive and not helpful.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      >Alternative to what? The world burning down in a roaring conflagration, or have you missed the entire chain of this conversation? The pollution is going to happen. You get to chose what the scope of it is with controlled burns. Or you can give up that choice and enjoy the smoke of burning homes and cars.
      - taeric 3y ago
        So, yeah, you are strawmanning my argument to be that "pollution says you can't do controlled burn." :(
        pixl97 3y ago
        No, not exactly. There is a trade off between both sides, and the fact that the pollution factor is far too strong to the "no pollution side at all" currently, which leads to "violent uncontrolled deadly pollution". There are some places where it will be unlikely that we can do controlled burns, pollution only being one of the factors. We should try to burn as much around those areas to reduce the likelihood a fire spreads to that area. But note, those controlled burns will create their own pollution. We (humans) moved in to fire country, now we need to learn how to live with those poor choices.

Saying that air pollution shouldn't be one of the deciding factors when considering whether to do a controlled burn is very different from saying it should be a free for all.

taeric 3y ago

But, pollution should be a factor? Like, literally. Is a big part of why you are not allowed to burn garbage. Rightly so.

jaywalk 3y ago
You're completely missing the point. It's not burn vs. no burn, it's controlled burn vs. uncontrolled burn. The fire is going to happen one way or another, so why is pollution a bigger concern than saving lives and property?
- taeric 3y ago
  Sadly, that is you missing my point. I am not claiming that pollution alone should preclude the idea of doing burns. I am claiming that to reduce pollution concerns to being "dumb" is wrong. This is a hard area to regulate. Any attempt to minimize that is reductive and unlikely to be helpful. Is why I picked something i know is allowed, burning in your yard, but with a condition I know is basically never allowed, against my fence.
  - jaywalk 3y ago
    The pollution is going to happen one way or another. That's why the idea of pollution concerns preventing controlled burns is dumb. The pollution cannot be prevented. Do you understand that?
    - taeric 3y ago
      But nobody is claiming that pollution alone will prevent controlled burn? That is the reductive part that is problematic. They are a factor, in that you have to do it in a way that addresses pollution concerns. At large, that is probably going to include what accelerants and controls are allowed, as they will have a unique impact on the pollution generated. Or are you suggesting that the pollution can, in fact, not be controlled and impacted in ways that may need special mitigations?
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        Pollution happens as a result of fire. Under current regulations, people are often prevented from controlled burns due to air quality concerns under CEQA. This leads to fuel buildup. When the eventual real wildfire happens, the risk to property and lives is much worse, and so is the pollution; places experiencing wildfire experience AQIs of 300,400+ when the WHO considers 150+ to be unhealthy. Mother Nature doesn’t have much concern for laws and regulations, and we have trouble controlling these large fires. There is no way to control and thin fuel that does not result in pollution. Manual excavation is impractical and arguably worse since we’d be certainly trampling ecosystems in the process; these ecosystems are often expecting some baseline level of fire.
        taeric 3y ago
        That... is mostly not how this has gone down. It is easy to contrive that current pollution regulations prevent controlled burns, but at large that is not accurate. See the rules I posted about how you can do controlled burns in your yard. Look up similar rules in other states, and you'll often find carve outs specifically for "forest health" reasons. (Edit: forgot to say that you will still almost always have rules about the accelerants and extinguishing methods you are allowed to use. Largely for ecological pollution concerns.)
        bobthepanda 3y ago
        Those regulations are different on a state by state basis. The entire discussion thread is about California, the CEQA in my parent comment is the California Environmental Quality Act, and here is an article describing the differences between the South and the West on burning policy: https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/1029821831/to-stop-extreme-wildfires-california-is-learning-from-florida https://www.npr.org/2021/08/31/1029821831/to-stop-extreme-wi... > Florida has done prescribed burns on more than 1.6 million acres so far this year. California has only burned around 35,000 acres. The state is 2.5 times larger than Florida. > About half of California is privately owned, and landowners have had little support from public agencies to conduct burns on their property. Permits from firefighting agencies and air quality regulators can be cumbersome to secure. > In May [2021], Quinn-Davidson helped lead the first burn manager certification course in California. Fourteen local groups, known as prescribed burn associations, recently formed to help private landowners with burns across the state.
bagacrap 3y ago
With garbage, the alternative is to haul it off to a dump. Fine. With a forest, what is the alternative? Are you going to call in landscapers to clear out a forest and set up a giant composting facility?
- taeric 3y ago
  I'm not entirely clear what you are asking, all told? Alternative to what? If you are strawmanning that I'm somehow saying you can't cause any pollution, I can only say that is not what I said. I said pollution should be a factor, but that is not the same as "you cannot cause pollution." And to insist that that is all it can be is again reductive and not helpful.
  - pixl97 3y ago
    >Alternative to what? The world burning down in a roaring conflagration, or have you missed the entire chain of this conversation? The pollution is going to happen. You get to chose what the scope of it is with controlled burns. Or you can give up that choice and enjoy the smoke of burning homes and cars.
    - taeric 3y ago
      So, yeah, you are strawmanning my argument to be that "pollution says you can't do controlled burn." :(
      - pixl97 3y ago
        No, not exactly. There is a trade off between both sides, and the fact that the pollution factor is far too strong to the "no pollution side at all" currently, which leads to "violent uncontrolled deadly pollution". There are some places where it will be unlikely that we can do controlled burns, pollution only being one of the factors. We should try to burn as much around those areas to reduce the likelihood a fire spreads to that area. But note, those controlled burns will create their own pollution. We (humans) moved in to fire country, now we need to learn how to live with those poor choices.