4 ms·

Yes, let's keep believing that the increase in wildfires isn't in any way related to human activity at all (climate change and bad forestry practices don't exis

by mrpopo 3y ago

Yes, let's keep believing that the increase in wildfires isn't in any way related to human activity at all (climate change and bad forestry practices don't exist). Dust storms in Asia spread further and further (because of deforestation), is that also totally unrelated to human activity?

malfist 3y ago
EPA regulation is not going to reduce wildfires. Conflating it's pollution measurements with those from non-industrial sources just makes EPA's job harder and less meaningful.
- mrpopo 3y ago
  I was talking about dust storms in my comment, because it happened in the USA as well in the 1930s (dust bowl) and pushed the US government to create the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The point is that there needs to be a regulatory government tool to assess, measure, predict and prevent human-caused natural pollution, be it from dust storms or wildfires or anything else. If you believe that shouldn't be the EPA's job, then it needs to be someone else's.
  - meragrin_ 3y ago
    How is including days where Canadian smoke covered Ohio, Pennsylvania, and whatever other states useful in regulating pollution caused by local industry?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - mrpopo 3y ago
      I explicitly said that if you think it isn't the EPA's job, then it should be someone else's job, and not just ignored. How do you think this could be tackled? Also, if you have read the article, you could see that Ohio and Pennsylvania were low on the list, with <10 days excluded. California and New Mexico have >50, and that smoke ain't coming from Canada, so your point is deceptive...
      - jjk166 3y ago
        Wildfires are handled by the US department of the Interior. That being said, the question "who should tackle forest fires" is completely irrelevant to how the EPA should implement their emissions standards.
      - meragrin_ 3y ago
        > I explicitly said that if you think it isn't the EPA's job, then it should be someone else's job, and not just ignored. How do you think this could be tackled? I did not explicitly say whether it should be the EPA's job or not. The data being nixed is at the local level. No one said it should be ignored at higher levels. > Also, if you have read the article, you could see that Ohio and Pennsylvania were low on the list, with <10 days excluded. California and New Mexico have >50, and that smoke ain't coming from Canada, so your point is deceptive... Sorry, but it is not deceptive. You just seem to fail to understand there can be local level data useful for regulating local companies and macro level data for getting a better overall picture. The article was specifically talking about lower than state level. Should a forest or industrial fire two counties over ruin another county? At least for California, I would imagine the locals have great motivation to have something they have no control over stricken from their record since the state more than likely uses EPA numbers in ways that could hurt them.
- lucideer 3y ago
  > EPA regulation is not going to reduce wildfires. Not in the US so I'm perhaps missing some context related to which bodies are responsible for which regulation but... why can't EPA regulation reduce wildfires?
  - toast0 3y ago
    EPA can't sue the forest and demand it stop emiting pollution through wildfires. Mother nature doesn't respond to court summons. Conceivably, the EPA could demand changes in forest stewardship, but a lot of the wildfires are already in national forest land, so the nation forest service would be a more appropriate agency. EPA could perhaps help issue guidelines and emission allowances for prescriptive burns that should probabalistically reduce wildfire emissions, but will absolutely have emissions during the burns.
    - lucideer 3y ago
      That doesn't seem required nor proposed. The issue highlighted in the article seems to be with the broad classification of all wildfires by the EPA as “natural” or “uncontrollable” events - it's pretty clear that this isn't the reality for the majority of recent wildfires. Though wildfires are historically a natural & necessary occurrence, manmade wildfires are a well-documented occurrence & something the EPA seems well-positioned to take action on. Unless, that is, I as an ignorant non-US observer am unaware of some other regulatory body that is already (or is better suited to) regulating human contribution to wildfire frequency.
      - jjk166 3y ago
        Wildfires are handled by the US Department of the Interior. However they're not really something that can be regulated. Intentionally starting a wildfire is just arson, which would be handled by either local law enforcement or the FBI depending on how big the fires got. But the overwhelming majority of wildfires are unintentional - someone left a campfire unattended, someone didn't properly put out a cigarette, an electrical line went down, etc. But from an emissions standpoint, the proximate cause of a wildfire is irrelevant. The fact is that a wildfire's emissions are not due to industrial pollution, which is what the EPA regulates.
AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
[dead]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
tomatotomato37 3y ago
No, what we should be doing is sorting out the baseline of natural events from the specific events that can be credited to the industries under your jurisdiction, instead of punishing everyone off of whatever gut feeling of environmental virtue you happen to be feeling that day
jjk166 3y ago
No one is claiming the wildfires are unrelated to human activity, just that they are unrelated to the EPA's emissions standards, which neither regulate the gasses responsible for climate change, nor affect actions in other nations.
- lucideer 3y ago
  > they are unrelated to the EPA's emissions standards This seems tautological? Surely the proposal here is a change to said standards to increase their utility?
  - jjk166 3y ago
    How is it tautological? Anthropomorphic climate change is driven by the global emission of greenhouse gasses that have very little direct effect on air quality. These standards are for regulating local emissions of substances that negatively impact local air quality.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Climate change is a driver here, but the smoke itself is local (at least to the same extent as most regulated emissions) and negatively impacts air quality.

by mrpopo 3y ago

malfist 3y ago

EPA regulation is not going to reduce wildfires. Conflating it's pollution measurements with those from non-industrial sources just makes EPA's job harder and less meaningful.

mrpopo 3y ago
I was talking about dust storms in my comment, because it happened in the USA as well in the 1930s (dust bowl) and pushed the US government to create the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The point is that there needs to be a regulatory government tool to assess, measure, predict and prevent human-caused natural pollution, be it from dust storms or wildfires or anything else. If you believe that shouldn't be the EPA's job, then it needs to be someone else's.
- meragrin_ 3y ago
  How is including days where Canadian smoke covered Ohio, Pennsylvania, and whatever other states useful in regulating pollution caused by local industry?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mrpopo 3y ago
    I explicitly said that if you think it isn't the EPA's job, then it should be someone else's job, and not just ignored. How do you think this could be tackled? Also, if you have read the article, you could see that Ohio and Pennsylvania were low on the list, with <10 days excluded. California and New Mexico have >50, and that smoke ain't coming from Canada, so your point is deceptive...
    - jjk166 3y ago
      Wildfires are handled by the US department of the Interior. That being said, the question "who should tackle forest fires" is completely irrelevant to how the EPA should implement their emissions standards.
    - meragrin_ 3y ago
      > I explicitly said that if you think it isn't the EPA's job, then it should be someone else's job, and not just ignored. How do you think this could be tackled? I did not explicitly say whether it should be the EPA's job or not. The data being nixed is at the local level. No one said it should be ignored at higher levels. > Also, if you have read the article, you could see that Ohio and Pennsylvania were low on the list, with <10 days excluded. California and New Mexico have >50, and that smoke ain't coming from Canada, so your point is deceptive... Sorry, but it is not deceptive. You just seem to fail to understand there can be local level data useful for regulating local companies and macro level data for getting a better overall picture. The article was specifically talking about lower than state level. Should a forest or industrial fire two counties over ruin another county? At least for California, I would imagine the locals have great motivation to have something they have no control over stricken from their record since the state more than likely uses EPA numbers in ways that could hurt them.
lucideer 3y ago
> EPA regulation is not going to reduce wildfires. Not in the US so I'm perhaps missing some context related to which bodies are responsible for which regulation but... why can't EPA regulation reduce wildfires?
- toast0 3y ago
  EPA can't sue the forest and demand it stop emiting pollution through wildfires. Mother nature doesn't respond to court summons. Conceivably, the EPA could demand changes in forest stewardship, but a lot of the wildfires are already in national forest land, so the nation forest service would be a more appropriate agency. EPA could perhaps help issue guidelines and emission allowances for prescriptive burns that should probabalistically reduce wildfire emissions, but will absolutely have emissions during the burns.
  - lucideer 3y ago
    That doesn't seem required nor proposed. The issue highlighted in the article seems to be with the broad classification of all wildfires by the EPA as “natural” or “uncontrollable” events - it's pretty clear that this isn't the reality for the majority of recent wildfires. Though wildfires are historically a natural & necessary occurrence, manmade wildfires are a well-documented occurrence & something the EPA seems well-positioned to take action on. Unless, that is, I as an ignorant non-US observer am unaware of some other regulatory body that is already (or is better suited to) regulating human contribution to wildfire frequency.
    - jjk166 3y ago
      Wildfires are handled by the US Department of the Interior. However they're not really something that can be regulated. Intentionally starting a wildfire is just arson, which would be handled by either local law enforcement or the FBI depending on how big the fires got. But the overwhelming majority of wildfires are unintentional - someone left a campfire unattended, someone didn't properly put out a cigarette, an electrical line went down, etc. But from an emissions standpoint, the proximate cause of a wildfire is irrelevant. The fact is that a wildfire's emissions are not due to industrial pollution, which is what the EPA regulates.

AlgorithmicTime 3y ago

[dead]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

tomatotomato37 3y ago

No, what we should be doing is sorting out the baseline of natural events from the specific events that can be credited to the industries under your jurisdiction, instead of punishing everyone off of whatever gut feeling of environmental virtue you happen to be feeling that day

jjk166 3y ago

No one is claiming the wildfires are unrelated to human activity, just that they are unrelated to the EPA's emissions standards, which neither regulate the gasses responsible for climate change, nor affect actions in other nations.

lucideer 3y ago
> they are unrelated to the EPA's emissions standards This seems tautological? Surely the proposal here is a change to said standards to increase their utility?
- jjk166 3y ago
  How is it tautological? Anthropomorphic climate change is driven by the global emission of greenhouse gasses that have very little direct effect on air quality. These standards are for regulating local emissions of substances that negatively impact local air quality.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Climate change is a driver here, but the smoke itself is local (at least to the same extent as most regulated emissions) and negatively impacts air quality.