4 ms·

> 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 regulati

> 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.
    - lucideer 3y ago
      > they're not really something that can be regulated. They can be and are regulated, often by controlled burn bans. Climate change isn't the sole human cause of uncontrolled wildfires, nor do they need to be intentional to be suggested to (proximate) human decisions.
      - Moomoomoo309 3y ago
        Big agree here with a ban on controlled burns, with one caveat: Pine barrens need controlled burns to continue to exist, and should be exempt from that ban.
- landemva 3y ago
  > EPA can't sue the forest ... > Mother nature doesn't respond to court summons... Conceivably, the EPA could demand changes in forest ownership. When government owns things it does whatever. Some of the worst pollution was from socialst countries without meaningful private property.

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.
  - lucideer 3y ago
    > they're not really something that can be regulated. They can be and are regulated, often by controlled burn bans. Climate change isn't the sole human cause of uncontrolled wildfires, nor do they need to be intentional to be suggested to (proximate) human decisions.
    - Moomoomoo309 3y ago
      Big agree here with a ban on controlled burns, with one caveat: Pine barrens need controlled burns to continue to exist, and should be exempt from that ban.
landemva 3y ago
> EPA can't sue the forest ... > Mother nature doesn't respond to court summons... Conceivably, the EPA could demand changes in forest ownership. When government owns things it does whatever. Some of the worst pollution was from socialst countries without meaningful private property.