3 ms·
Is there any evidence most wild fires are not direct consequence of human action? This "act of good" argument seems disingenuous as even if no direct human acti
by master-lincoln 3y ago
Is there any evidence most wild fires are not direct consequence of human action?
This "act of good" argument seems disingenuous as even if no direct human action caused the fire, there is evidence that human actions caused general higher risks for wild fires in certain areas.
- bombcar 3y agoSomething can be the consequences of human action and still not under the purview of the particular agency. The EPA could likely require changes to certain things that might mitigate some possible causes of wildfires (like building clearances, smokestack spark arrestors, etc) - but other cases of "human caused" including direct arson aren't under it's jurisdiction. The problem comes when there's stuff that falls through the cracks as it is under nobody's jurisdiction.
- bluGill 3y agoForesters have been complaining for years that they are not allowed to manage forests the way they should be. Every time they try to start a fire to burn of underbrush someone goes to court to get an injunction against it.