4 ms·

I'd like to add one more that this article doesn't touch on: wildfires are as much of a political phenomenon as an environmental one[0]. Thomas Sowell wrote a

I'd like to add one more that this article doesn't touch on: wildfires are as much of a political phenomenon as an environmental one[0]. Thomas Sowell wrote a column[1] about this that is spot on, twenty years later. 0: I love these types of economic theories (x is a political problem, not an exogenous problem). Amartya Sen's theory of famines is another one. 1: https://www.ocregister.com/2007/10/31/thomas-sowell-preserving-conditions-that-spawn-wildfires/ https://www.ocregister.com/2007/10/31/thomas-sowell-preservi...

defrost 8mo ago
Thomas Sowell had three paragraphs and a short sentence using his "thoughts about wildfires" as a lever for a political point and a chance to bash his strawman "environmentalist" caracatures. Useful commentary about wildfires looks very different and people actually concerned about the land are not as he paints them.
- postalcoder 8mo ago
  Yes, I suppose it is unfair to lump every economic agent (like NIMBYs, etc) into an "environ mentalist" straw man. The general point is true, though. If you go past seeing wildfires as boogiemen and instead view them as allocation issues, they become more solvable.
  - defrost 8mo ago
    His general point appears to be pave over wild areas: No matter how much open space there is, it is never enough for environmental extremists, who will make political trouble if anyone is allowed to break up those miles and miles of solid vegetation with buildings, even though pavement and masonry don’t burn. In other words, government preserves all the conditions for wildfires and subsidizes people who live in their path. He seems .. urbanised. Not everybody wants to live on Trantor and the people local to the wildfires discussed in the article lived alongside and with them for 70,000 years sans parking lots. On this matter Sowell appears to be unqualified, uninformed, and worse than an idiot.
    - postalcoder 8mo ago
      I think it'd be productive to unhitch from the imperfect vessel that is Sowell. Are you against controlled burns?
      - defrost 8mo ago
        Nothing wrong at all with controlled burns / cool burns / fuel reduction / fire breaking / mosaicing / etc. see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKdZpRbzMk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKdZpRbzMk et al. - I've spent much of the past month and a half on tender watch during harvest in an Australian summer - we had one day with 14 spot fires from lightning strikes just a few weeks past. Detaching from Sowell is an excellent idea.
        postalcoder 8mo ago
        Indigenous people had it right. And yep, this was a distraction. My bad.
        defrost 8mo ago
        My apologies for a seeming over reaction, I had thought there might be something useful or relevant there to wildfires at large rather than wildfires as a prop to take a swipe at some disliked group in a small part of on US state. Your inital point was correct though, wildfires are politicized. The Australian Black Summer, the season that went viral across the globe, was heavily pounced upon by News Corp. et al to push a contra AGW climate change narrative .. which was staggering to watch unfold in the face of data to the contrary.

defrost 8mo ago

Thomas Sowell had three paragraphs and a short sentence using his "thoughts about wildfires" as a lever for a political point and a chance to bash his strawman "environmentalist" caracatures. Useful commentary about wildfires looks very different and people actually concerned about the land are not as he paints them.

postalcoder 8mo ago
Yes, I suppose it is unfair to lump every economic agent (like NIMBYs, etc) into an "environ mentalist" straw man. The general point is true, though. If you go past seeing wildfires as boogiemen and instead view them as allocation issues, they become more solvable.
- defrost 8mo ago
  His general point appears to be pave over wild areas: No matter how much open space there is, it is never enough for environmental extremists, who will make political trouble if anyone is allowed to break up those miles and miles of solid vegetation with buildings, even though pavement and masonry don’t burn. In other words, government preserves all the conditions for wildfires and subsidizes people who live in their path. He seems .. urbanised. Not everybody wants to live on Trantor and the people local to the wildfires discussed in the article lived alongside and with them for 70,000 years sans parking lots. On this matter Sowell appears to be unqualified, uninformed, and worse than an idiot.
  - postalcoder 8mo ago
    I think it'd be productive to unhitch from the imperfect vessel that is Sowell. Are you against controlled burns?
    - defrost 8mo ago
      Nothing wrong at all with controlled burns / cool burns / fuel reduction / fire breaking / mosaicing / etc. see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKdZpRbzMk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJKdZpRbzMk et al. - I've spent much of the past month and a half on tender watch during harvest in an Australian summer - we had one day with 14 spot fires from lightning strikes just a few weeks past. Detaching from Sowell is an excellent idea.
      - postalcoder 8mo ago
        Indigenous people had it right. And yep, this was a distraction. My bad.
        defrost 8mo ago
        My apologies for a seeming over reaction, I had thought there might be something useful or relevant there to wildfires at large rather than wildfires as a prop to take a swipe at some disliked group in a small part of on US state. Your inital point was correct though, wildfires are politicized. The Australian Black Summer, the season that went viral across the globe, was heavily pounced upon by News Corp. et al to push a contra AGW climate change narrative .. which was staggering to watch unfold in the face of data to the contrary.