3 ms·

WSJ ran a commentary piece on this yesterday that includes some improvement details not in this article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/fight-fire-with-fire-if-e

by kyrra 3y ago

WSJ ran a commentary piece on this yesterday that includes some improvement details not in this article. https://www.wsj.com/articles/fight-fire-with-fire-if-epa-allows-particulate-pollution-canada-prescribed-burn-54f52987 https://www.wsj.com/articles/fight-fire-with-fire-if-epa-all... > Under the Clean Air Act, wildfires are considered “exceptional events,” and the pollutants they emit are typically exempt from regulatory scrutiny. Prescribed burns generally receive no such exemption when the Environmental Protection Agency measures a state’s compliance with air quality standards. States may face penalties including loss of federal highway money if they exceed pollution standards while mitigating against more harmful smoke from wildfires. ... > Obtaining an exemption for a prescribed fire under the Clean Air Act is already so arduous that states are reluctant to implement or expand burn programs. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that the approval process is so burdensome that only one state has submitted and been granted an exemption from the EPA, a project in Kansas in 2012.

jonnycomputer 3y ago
Just one more obstacle to having a sensible fire regime. Sheesh. If you do prescribed burns early in the season, the fires will be small, and not out of control (generally). That prevents worse air pollution later. In general this differentiation between "acts of God" and "acts of Man" is a real problem. You neglect a forest until it burns down a community, and you're innocent. It was an act of God. You try to prevent that from happening by doing controlled burns, something goes wrong, and it burns down some houses; busted.
2devnull 3y ago
The EPA is not as powerful as they should be. We should prioritize clean air over property damage from fires. Sadly the voters and both parties will get that wrong, albeit for different reasons.
- kyrra 3y ago
  The question is, does it prescribed burn cause more air particulates than a wildfire caused by too much underbrush?
  - 2devnull 3y ago
    A valid question if you can first prove that wildfires are “caused” by too much underbrush in a way that could not be otherwise mitigated. Many of the recent fires have been caused by arson or pg&e and merely facilitated by poor forest management practices caused by real estate values being absurd in California.

by kyrra 3y ago

jonnycomputer 3y ago

Just one more obstacle to having a sensible fire regime. Sheesh. If you do prescribed burns early in the season, the fires will be small, and not out of control (generally). That prevents worse air pollution later. In general this differentiation between "acts of God" and "acts of Man" is a real problem. You neglect a forest until it burns down a community, and you're innocent. It was an act of God. You try to prevent that from happening by doing controlled burns, something goes wrong, and it burns down some houses; busted.

2devnull 3y ago

The EPA is not as powerful as they should be. We should prioritize clean air over property damage from fires. Sadly the voters and both parties will get that wrong, albeit for different reasons.

kyrra 3y ago
The question is, does it prescribed burn cause more air particulates than a wildfire caused by too much underbrush?
- 2devnull 3y ago
  A valid question if you can first prove that wildfires are “caused” by too much underbrush in a way that could not be otherwise mitigated. Many of the recent fires have been caused by arson or pg&e and merely facilitated by poor forest management practices caused by real estate values being absurd in California.