4 ms·

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 for

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.
      - taeric 3y ago
        Right, I never claimed there are not tradeoffs.... I said it is a factor. As such, if you assert that my post said you can't do burns because of pollution, than you have strawmanned it to the weakest possible stance it could be, in spite of my clearly stating that is not my stance. I have literally said the opposite of that, in this very thread. More, it has not been established that it is too far into the "no pollution side at all." Do you have evidence that it is pollution regulation that has caused no controlled burns? Noting that I can bring up plenty of easy evidence of folks literally doing small scale controlled burns. I don't think you all are doing it on purpose, but this is a dog whistle tactic to pull in a lot of anti regulation folks to yell about things.

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.
    - taeric 3y ago
      Right, I never claimed there are not tradeoffs.... I said it is a factor. As such, if you assert that my post said you can't do burns because of pollution, than you have strawmanned it to the weakest possible stance it could be, in spite of my clearly stating that is not my stance. I have literally said the opposite of that, in this very thread. More, it has not been established that it is too far into the "no pollution side at all." Do you have evidence that it is pollution regulation that has caused no controlled burns? Noting that I can bring up plenty of easy evidence of folks literally doing small scale controlled burns. I don't think you all are doing it on purpose, but this is a dog whistle tactic to pull in a lot of anti regulation folks to yell about things.