3 ms·
There used to be redwoods all over california. Hardy fire resistant trees, now they are relatively scarce. Second,wood is heavy. The economics to remove dead tr
by seadan83 2y ago
There used to be redwoods all over california. Hardy fire resistant trees, now they are relatively scarce. Second,wood is heavy. The economics to remove dead trees is not there, does not get done for reasons. Next, the area of the land is immense. Cutting fird brakes through it us tens of millions of acres. Further, fire breaks do little in high wind situations. What does move the needle are forest fires. Letting them burn. We've been practicing industrial scale fire suppression since the 50s. Next, immense areas of tree farms, second and third growth forests.
Best thing, get the hell out of the forests and let them all burn on a regular basis.
- hedora 2y agoRedwoods are fire resistant. Their thick bark acts as shielding and their canopies are way above the height where fires historically burnt.
- seadan83 2y agoIndeed - the fact they were cut down nearly to the point of extinction is something of a tragedy. The trees that replaced them are not fire resistant. Thus is counter evidence for the idea that humans need to be cutting down anything to improve the fire resistant of forests.
- nine_k 2y agoForest fires may be fine, as long as they are not catastrophic. No need to prevent every fire. But it must be possible to prevent the fires from making air dangerous to breathe in cities, and certainly to prevent forest fires from burning down human settlements. No need to terraform the whole land, but culturing it a little bit to make more habitable should be fine.