3 ms·

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 prev

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.
      - taeric 3y ago
        That article is frustrating. It seems to completely ignore the drought conditions in the western states as a big reason why they can't burn as often in the year as FL can... More, none of this actually shows that it is "air quality regulators" that is specifically preventing prescribed burns. That actually reads more as a dog whistle to get people riled up over the idea. And indeed, the linked article presents a better explanation. Liability concerns on decontainment and other impacts goes a long way to stopping people from doing anything. Straight forwardly, if they do a controlled burn and it impacts others, they are liable to make the others whole. If a wildfire happens, they are both victims. That is, this article is a direct downstream event from the "prescribed burn associates" effort of the NPR story. If you have a certified associate, you can get insurance to limit your liability. And this is largely because the certified associate will be following necessary rules and regulations to limit the impact. Any reason to think the associates will not be looking to pollution and safety concerns.

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.
    - taeric 3y ago
      That article is frustrating. It seems to completely ignore the drought conditions in the western states as a big reason why they can't burn as often in the year as FL can... More, none of this actually shows that it is "air quality regulators" that is specifically preventing prescribed burns. That actually reads more as a dog whistle to get people riled up over the idea. And indeed, the linked article presents a better explanation. Liability concerns on decontainment and other impacts goes a long way to stopping people from doing anything. Straight forwardly, if they do a controlled burn and it impacts others, they are liable to make the others whole. If a wildfire happens, they are both victims. That is, this article is a direct downstream event from the "prescribed burn associates" effort of the NPR story. If you have a certified associate, you can get insurance to limit your liability. And this is largely because the certified associate will be following necessary rules and regulations to limit the impact. Any reason to think the associates will not be looking to pollution and safety concerns.