4 ms·

My understanding is that it was being done until relatively recently when CA politicians leaned so heavily left that burning small fires to prevent bigger ones

by proc0 3y ago

My understanding is that it was being done until relatively recently when CA politicians leaned so heavily left that burning small fires to prevent bigger ones was somehow a threat to the environment and global warming. I haven't confirmed this personally, but if lawmakers are passing laws to ban gas powered leaf blowers and kitchen stoves, it's not hard to believe.

asdff 3y ago
At the end of the day politicians weigh the opinions of their constituents who vote them in more than experts. Given two politicians in an area, one who listens to expert advice about controlled burns, and one who buckles to public pressure surrounding local air quality or forest closures, the latter is always going to be more likely to remain in office.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
You should read the article. It is about how they are limiting liability and encouraging more burning. Burning is allowed, has been allowed, and has been an active part of California forest management for decades. Bans on small off-road engines and new indoor gas burning appliances are generally driven by health concerns (smog, indoor air quality, and noise pollution), and backed by pretty solid science. Not that global warming isn't also a damn good reason to ban these things. I'm perfectly fine with politicians who ban convenience devices that cause extreme externalities to other people like smog, excess noise, and childhood asthma. That doesn't seem like a radical left position.
- proc0 3y ago
  The article doesn't explain why this wasn't a problem before, I mean at least I don't remember having "fire season" a decade ago. Maybe it's some other cause but I'm still doubting the reasons behind what I would call "society engineering" in politics instead of incentivizing alternative technologies so that they are better and cheaper.

4 ms·

My understanding is that it was being done until relatively recently when CA politicians leaned so heavily left that burning small fires to prevent bigger ones

by proc0 3y ago

asdff 3y ago
At the end of the day politicians weigh the opinions of their constituents who vote them in more than experts. Given two politicians in an area, one who listens to expert advice about controlled burns, and one who buckles to public pressure surrounding local air quality or forest closures, the latter is always going to be more likely to remain in office.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
You should read the article. It is about how they are limiting liability and encouraging more burning. Burning is allowed, has been allowed, and has been an active part of California forest management for decades. Bans on small off-road engines and new indoor gas burning appliances are generally driven by health concerns (smog, indoor air quality, and noise pollution), and backed by pretty solid science. Not that global warming isn't also a damn good reason to ban these things. I'm perfectly fine with politicians who ban convenience devices that cause extreme externalities to other people like smog, excess noise, and childhood asthma. That doesn't seem like a radical left position.
- proc0 3y ago
  The article doesn't explain why this wasn't a problem before, I mean at least I don't remember having "fire season" a decade ago. Maybe it's some other cause but I'm still doubting the reasons behind what I would call "society engineering" in politics instead of incentivizing alternative technologies so that they are better and cheaper.