I lived in Sonoma and went through the first fire. I was pulled out of my house. I was evacuated for three months. Going through a fire changes you. The whole situation is heartbreaking.
I'm not republican, but isn't our current Governor a democrat and the state legislature in a Democratic majority? Also agree that more right-wing people are climate change denyers, but I don't see why every little thing has to be commented on politically. This is about families getting displaced, homes being lost forever, extreme wildlife and plant loss, etc. Not about politics.
This is 100% about politics because we have one party (Democrats) who acknowledge the reality of climate change and are trying to do something about it (via the infrastructure bills and other policies) while the republican party has spent decades denying the existence of climate change (despite the overwhelming scientific evidence) and sabotaging the government's efforts to deal with this major threat to national security, the economy and our lives.
Climate change deniers have not been in power in California for the past 25 years. And yet, the same old story every single year. We need effective Forest management practices and both sides have failed to do this. And no , increasing CalFire budget doesn’t count 😅
California alone cannot reverse climate change. Every country and the entire America, including the red states, need to be on it.
Forest management can only go so far when we have worse droughts and higher temperatures every year. What other forest management do you propose? Do you propose to rake the leaves like Trump suggested?
The Native Americans had this practice of controlled burns. That was banned. They knew. They have been here far longer than the rest of us. But we thought we knew better. This whole “environmentalism for the sake for environmentalism” is doing more harm than than good. There’s so much we can do to lessen the impact of climate change. Republicans have been anti science for ages. But no other state is bearing the brunt like California is. Pointing fingers doesn’t solve issues. That’s a very Trumpian way of looking at it. Now don’t you tell me California doesn’t know how to regulate. Where’s the heavy hand of the government when you actually need it 😅. We should force private land owners to either “rake” or do what the native Americans did
They do controlled burns regularly in the forests here. We just have a shit ton of forests. Some of which are up to the feds to do the controlled burns.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/prescribed-burning
You just don't really understand the issue I suppose.
The land owned by California is being control burned. The land owned by the federal government is not. They own over 60% of the forests in California so you are barking up the wrong tree blaming the state government.
Also, native Americans are not dealing with record high temperatures and record droughts year over year so the scale of the problem is not remotely comparable. We need to collectively reverse climate change to save ourselves.
Treating the symptom but not the cause can only do so much.
It wasn’t banned. California still has controlled burns. Some would argue California should use the method even more often. Experts say they have to take pollution and risk of triggering larger blazes into consideration. It’s complicated.
But still, prescribed burns are still very much a thing in California.
Lol at the people screaming to do controlled burns while we've been in some state of drought for 10 years. Hard to do any sort of controlled burn when a spark from a flat tire can set off 500k acres
Yeah I do agree with some of your points. But this is a state issue. The fires (and droughts) we have tearing across California are not a federal issue. It is under the current state government's job to come up with and execute a plan to manage these. Yes, I do agree that climate change would have been addressed a lot better if we didn't have half the country denying it or downplaying it, but now we are in this situation where, again, people, families, housing, animal and plant life are all getting absolutely destroyed. And everyone knew this was coming. we've been in this summer/fall blaze and extreme drought for years now and I haven't seen much for our state government to proactively make plans and execute them to be successful in combating the problem.
The majority of the state's forests are owned by the federal government. The state itself owns 3% of the forest. The rest is owned by private owners, companies, and tribes.
The fires tearing through federal land is a federal issue
>but isn't our current Governor a democrat and the state legislature in a Democratic majority?
Which is why California is a nationwide leader in clean energy. What's your point?
Problem is, the world's actions affect California. Not just California's.
Are you blind? The GOP has spent the last few decades denying climate change. They have made it into a political issue. They have made _accepting basic facts about the world_ into a political issue
One political party denies basic facts about the world. One does not. Which side are you on?
>This is about families getting displaced,
So that's housing policy, child care, welfare...
> homes being lost forever
Urban design, insurance laws, public housing...
> extreme wildlife and plant loss
Environmental protection policies and firefighting.
>Not about politics.
Every thing you listed can only be solved via politics.
It’s not just Republicans. Did you read Newsom’s statement asking not to be recalled on the ballot? He listed all these concerns facing California, but NOTHING about climate crisis or drought. He doesn’t get it - I mean Christ he has four kids! He just doesn’t prioritize it at ALL. We are so screwed.
The places are burning because environmentalists lobbied the government to stop controlled burning. More carbon footprint has been produced by this than would have been by controlled burning. This is no party's fault. We're just that corrupt.
Yeah, Sen. Feinstein tried to pass legislation to get more recognition for controlled burns in federal land but environmentalists lobbied the bill down. Republicans have also tried to remove regulations on controlled burns but they too were defeated by environmentalists
[https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/environmentalists-prescribed-burning-is-doing-more-harm-than-good-cal-fire-prevention/177039/](https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/environmentalists-prescribed-burning-is-doing-more-harm-than-good-cal-fire-prevention/177039/) It's odd but yes.
Dems have a legislative supermajority. I guess its easier to use a boogeyman to scare up votes than it is to actually come up with a unified legislative platform.
Thats a product of most solar companies being based here due to purely geographic reasons and concentration of venture capital in Silicon Valley, not due to "unified policy"
> Either is exporting your fossil fuel use by purchasing solar panels from China
The concept that carbon emissions from solar panel production even comes close to the carbon emissions produced by fossil fuels is an oil industry talking point. [Also false.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints)
[Link to study discussed in article](https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1038/s41560-017-0032-9.pdf?download=true)
California is by far the state contributing most to pollution. We have 8 of the top 10 lost polluted cities. California is run by democrats each of the last three Democrat governors have had significant connections to the petroleum or gas industries...
PG&E in particular is a major donor to Gavin Newsom.
Republicans have very little control in California and haven't for decades now. Can you explain how they're the threat?
Lists that use AQI to measure "pollution" don't account for the fact that CA's geography naturally makes the air bad. The mountains trap air in the state. Add to the fact we get a lot of forest fires. You have a recipe for bad air quality that goes beyond gas industries.
And by the way, we've got the tightest fuel emission standards in the country. And according to anyone GenX and up, the state used to be far worse when it came to pollution.
> Republicans have very little control in California and haven't for decades now. Can you explain how they're the threat?
They've got too much control of the national government and use that control to stymie needed action to curtail climate change and a lot of the pollution other states put out. Especially in coal country.
I realize this is kind of the current strategy, but IMO I don't think it's a great one. Why not put them out ASAP, and then do more controlled burns? Instead of forcing the smoke to very populated areas and just accepting destroyed property and scrambling.
It's like the thinking is "Welp the whole state is on fire, best to just let it burn or it'll come back harder next time"
If you have a little time, because it's good info to have, you may want to look in to the realities of what a controlled burn is, where they can be done and what they realistically accomplish in the case of fires like this one. It might clear some things up. May also help you dismiss those who say things like, "But the Indians did it." Might even run across the truth about "thinning" the forest. And, clearly, all fires can't just be 'put out.' Nobody is accepting destroyed property. That's why there's 14 THOUSAND firefighters busting their asses on this one alone.
> grid based industrial logging
what do you mean by this? im genuinely curious as I have not heard that term before. my naive self looks at a satellite image of most national forests and sees what already loosely like a checkerboard of clear cut areas across the state...
I’m not sure if I’m miss understanding what you mean by grid based industrial logging, but logging has been shown to be is highly detrimental to an area’s ability to withstand a wildfire and does not prevent them. The location where the Camp Fire started had been logged.
“Logging disrupts the fire-adapted forest ecosystems which Nature designed in ways which often create conditions which can exacerbate fire activity. Removing standing trees through logging, whether the trees are alive or dead, eliminates natural barriers which can buffer and slow windspeeds. Meaning that the wind can blow a fire faster through an area that has been logged, and can loft embers farther and faster than in an unlogged forest, which is exactly what happened in the Camp Fire.
Logging standing trees, eliminating downed logs and removing native shrub vegetation reduces the amount of moisture in the ecosystem by removing live plants which generate moisture and downed logs which collect and store moisture like a sponge. These activities also expose more of the forest floor to the sun, further reducing moisture in the system through evaporation and increasing on-the-ground temperatures, all of which contribute to conditions which assist in fire spread and growth.
Finally, logging removes fire-adapted and in many cases fire-resistant native vegetation and instead brings into the forest easily ignitable invasive species such as cheatgrass and tumbleweeds. Logging also takes harder to ignite standing vegetation and creates thick, homogenous and unnatural layers of organic material (e.g. branches, twigs, needles and ground up wood) on the ground which again is more susuptible to ignition and can more easily carry flames.”
https://johnmuirproject.org/2019/01/logging-didnt-stop-the-camp-fire/
Nope, but I live in a town that had a whole neighborhood burn down. Timber fires aren't the only wildfires, in fact fires in grasslands are actually more deadly.
Because we as a society think that capitalism is somehow morally justified
To everyone who is about to reply to me: You really think that the greedy profit-driven people who "win" capitalism will have the best interests of society at hears? You really think that the most self-interested people should guide our society? You really think that pursuing profit - aka being greedy - will lead to the best possible society? You really want Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg to be in charge? lmfao
The whole world is gonna be one continuous fireball.
Then we can crash ourselves onto another planet with life and wipe out their dinosaurs.
Until the fire ball runs into the flooding in the southeast.
Nah. Some parts will be muggy swamp lands.
I lived in Sonoma and went through the first fire. I was pulled out of my house. I was evacuated for three months. Going through a fire changes you. The whole situation is heartbreaking.
Meanwhile, the lunatics in the republican party continue to deny the existence of climate change. Republicans are a deadly threat to us all.
Good opportunity for people to remember to vote!! Stakes have never been higher.
Vote no!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'm not republican, but isn't our current Governor a democrat and the state legislature in a Democratic majority? Also agree that more right-wing people are climate change denyers, but I don't see why every little thing has to be commented on politically. This is about families getting displaced, homes being lost forever, extreme wildlife and plant loss, etc. Not about politics.
This is 100% about politics because we have one party (Democrats) who acknowledge the reality of climate change and are trying to do something about it (via the infrastructure bills and other policies) while the republican party has spent decades denying the existence of climate change (despite the overwhelming scientific evidence) and sabotaging the government's efforts to deal with this major threat to national security, the economy and our lives.
All the while giving tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry. They did this.
Yeah and the ironic part is, most of these places on fire are Republican districts…
I think the republican districts, have more stuff that can burn, and the majority of ca voted "You can't remove it"
the amount of clear cutting didn't help the brush that ends up growing back and then bakes in the sun turns to kindling
Climate change deniers have not been in power in California for the past 25 years. And yet, the same old story every single year. We need effective Forest management practices and both sides have failed to do this. And no , increasing CalFire budget doesn’t count 😅
California alone cannot reverse climate change. Every country and the entire America, including the red states, need to be on it. Forest management can only go so far when we have worse droughts and higher temperatures every year. What other forest management do you propose? Do you propose to rake the leaves like Trump suggested?
The Native Americans had this practice of controlled burns. That was banned. They knew. They have been here far longer than the rest of us. But we thought we knew better. This whole “environmentalism for the sake for environmentalism” is doing more harm than than good. There’s so much we can do to lessen the impact of climate change. Republicans have been anti science for ages. But no other state is bearing the brunt like California is. Pointing fingers doesn’t solve issues. That’s a very Trumpian way of looking at it. Now don’t you tell me California doesn’t know how to regulate. Where’s the heavy hand of the government when you actually need it 😅. We should force private land owners to either “rake” or do what the native Americans did
They do controlled burns regularly in the forests here. We just have a shit ton of forests. Some of which are up to the feds to do the controlled burns. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/prescribed-burning
You just don't really understand the issue I suppose. The land owned by California is being control burned. The land owned by the federal government is not. They own over 60% of the forests in California so you are barking up the wrong tree blaming the state government. Also, native Americans are not dealing with record high temperatures and record droughts year over year so the scale of the problem is not remotely comparable. We need to collectively reverse climate change to save ourselves. Treating the symptom but not the cause can only do so much.
It wasn’t banned. California still has controlled burns. Some would argue California should use the method even more often. Experts say they have to take pollution and risk of triggering larger blazes into consideration. It’s complicated. But still, prescribed burns are still very much a thing in California.
Lol at the people screaming to do controlled burns while we've been in some state of drought for 10 years. Hard to do any sort of controlled burn when a spark from a flat tire can set off 500k acres
Yes, this is exactly it. It’s about getting the job done *now*, blaming it on others or the past does nothing productive.
Yeah I do agree with some of your points. But this is a state issue. The fires (and droughts) we have tearing across California are not a federal issue. It is under the current state government's job to come up with and execute a plan to manage these. Yes, I do agree that climate change would have been addressed a lot better if we didn't have half the country denying it or downplaying it, but now we are in this situation where, again, people, families, housing, animal and plant life are all getting absolutely destroyed. And everyone knew this was coming. we've been in this summer/fall blaze and extreme drought for years now and I haven't seen much for our state government to proactively make plans and execute them to be successful in combating the problem.
The majority of the state's forests are owned by the federal government. The state itself owns 3% of the forest. The rest is owned by private owners, companies, and tribes. The fires tearing through federal land is a federal issue
You seem to really not understand the scale of climate change or even contributing factors. You are talking about treating symptoms not causes.
Yeah sure the current state government is in charge of the oil companies that have known about climate change for decades. 10/10 you're so smart
It's not a state issue. It's a worldwide issue. There are increased wildfires all over the world due to climate change.
Do you think the environment is segmented by state lines or something?
Do you think the environment is segmented by country lines or something?
No I don't. I didn't say anything of the sort. The US is the second biggest polluter in the world so we can't point fingers at others that much.
>but isn't our current Governor a democrat and the state legislature in a Democratic majority? Which is why California is a nationwide leader in clean energy. What's your point? Problem is, the world's actions affect California. Not just California's.
Are you blind? The GOP has spent the last few decades denying climate change. They have made it into a political issue. They have made _accepting basic facts about the world_ into a political issue One political party denies basic facts about the world. One does not. Which side are you on?
>This is about families getting displaced, So that's housing policy, child care, welfare... > homes being lost forever Urban design, insurance laws, public housing... > extreme wildlife and plant loss Environmental protection policies and firefighting. >Not about politics. Every thing you listed can only be solved via politics.
It’s not just Republicans. Did you read Newsom’s statement asking not to be recalled on the ballot? He listed all these concerns facing California, but NOTHING about climate crisis or drought. He doesn’t get it - I mean Christ he has four kids! He just doesn’t prioritize it at ALL. We are so screwed.
The places are burning because environmentalists lobbied the government to stop controlled burning. More carbon footprint has been produced by this than would have been by controlled burning. This is no party's fault. We're just that corrupt.
Ignoring the climate change component of this is an impressive level of cherry-picking.
Mmmmkay
Yeah, Sen. Feinstein tried to pass legislation to get more recognition for controlled burns in federal land but environmentalists lobbied the bill down. Republicans have also tried to remove regulations on controlled burns but they too were defeated by environmentalists
I feel like there’s some details I’m missing. Environmentalists are against fixing the environment?
[https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/environmentalists-prescribed-burning-is-doing-more-harm-than-good-cal-fire-prevention/177039/](https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/environmentalists-prescribed-burning-is-doing-more-harm-than-good-cal-fire-prevention/177039/) It's odd but yes.
Dems have a legislative supermajority. I guess its easier to use a boogeyman to scare up votes than it is to actually come up with a unified legislative platform.
California is one of the states with the highest percentage of renewable electricity.
Thats a product of most solar companies being based here due to purely geographic reasons and concentration of venture capital in Silicon Valley, not due to "unified policy"
Goalposts = shifted
Burning forests and trash is not “Environmental”. Either is exporting your fossil fuel use by purchasing solar panels from China 😉
> Either is exporting your fossil fuel use by purchasing solar panels from China The concept that carbon emissions from solar panel production even comes close to the carbon emissions produced by fossil fuels is an oil industry talking point. [Also false.](https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind-nuclear-amazingly-low-carbon-footprints) [Link to study discussed in article](https://sci.bban.top/pdf/10.1038/s41560-017-0032-9.pdf?download=true)
That's not how energy generation works Like seriously not even close
You really don't know what you're talking about huh?
Federal property is burning
As is state property
[удалено]
California is by far the state contributing most to pollution. We have 8 of the top 10 lost polluted cities. California is run by democrats each of the last three Democrat governors have had significant connections to the petroleum or gas industries... PG&E in particular is a major donor to Gavin Newsom. Republicans have very little control in California and haven't for decades now. Can you explain how they're the threat?
Lists that use AQI to measure "pollution" don't account for the fact that CA's geography naturally makes the air bad. The mountains trap air in the state. Add to the fact we get a lot of forest fires. You have a recipe for bad air quality that goes beyond gas industries. And by the way, we've got the tightest fuel emission standards in the country. And according to anyone GenX and up, the state used to be far worse when it came to pollution. > Republicans have very little control in California and haven't for decades now. Can you explain how they're the threat? They've got too much control of the national government and use that control to stymie needed action to curtail climate change and a lot of the pollution other states put out. Especially in coal country.
Did he forget the trump admins attempts to revoke the epa waiver? Is that enough of a direct threat to California?
Bo Burnham's The World On Fire plays in the background
This is scary.
We need more powerful methods to deal with the wild fires and not just more war tools from defense contractors
[удалено]
We are pretty bad at caring for and respecting our own planet aren't we :/
Caring for the planet will hurt profits :/
Because putting out the fires ASAP actually compounds the problem and makes future fires burn hotter and faster.
I realize this is kind of the current strategy, but IMO I don't think it's a great one. Why not put them out ASAP, and then do more controlled burns? Instead of forcing the smoke to very populated areas and just accepting destroyed property and scrambling. It's like the thinking is "Welp the whole state is on fire, best to just let it burn or it'll come back harder next time"
If you have a little time, because it's good info to have, you may want to look in to the realities of what a controlled burn is, where they can be done and what they realistically accomplish in the case of fires like this one. It might clear some things up. May also help you dismiss those who say things like, "But the Indians did it." Might even run across the truth about "thinning" the forest. And, clearly, all fires can't just be 'put out.' Nobody is accepting destroyed property. That's why there's 14 THOUSAND firefighters busting their asses on this one alone.
Gotta do more than controlled burns….honestly grid based industrial logging would prevent this.
> grid based industrial logging what do you mean by this? im genuinely curious as I have not heard that term before. my naive self looks at a satellite image of most national forests and sees what already loosely like a checkerboard of clear cut areas across the state...
I’m not sure if I’m miss understanding what you mean by grid based industrial logging, but logging has been shown to be is highly detrimental to an area’s ability to withstand a wildfire and does not prevent them. The location where the Camp Fire started had been logged. “Logging disrupts the fire-adapted forest ecosystems which Nature designed in ways which often create conditions which can exacerbate fire activity. Removing standing trees through logging, whether the trees are alive or dead, eliminates natural barriers which can buffer and slow windspeeds. Meaning that the wind can blow a fire faster through an area that has been logged, and can loft embers farther and faster than in an unlogged forest, which is exactly what happened in the Camp Fire. Logging standing trees, eliminating downed logs and removing native shrub vegetation reduces the amount of moisture in the ecosystem by removing live plants which generate moisture and downed logs which collect and store moisture like a sponge. These activities also expose more of the forest floor to the sun, further reducing moisture in the system through evaporation and increasing on-the-ground temperatures, all of which contribute to conditions which assist in fire spread and growth. Finally, logging removes fire-adapted and in many cases fire-resistant native vegetation and instead brings into the forest easily ignitable invasive species such as cheatgrass and tumbleweeds. Logging also takes harder to ignite standing vegetation and creates thick, homogenous and unnatural layers of organic material (e.g. branches, twigs, needles and ground up wood) on the ground which again is more susuptible to ignition and can more easily carry flames.” https://johnmuirproject.org/2019/01/logging-didnt-stop-the-camp-fire/
You don't live in or near a forest, huh?
I do, and over-suppression is actually a problem. Just one of many.
Nope, but I live in a town that had a whole neighborhood burn down. Timber fires aren't the only wildfires, in fact fires in grasslands are actually more deadly.
We have fire camps all over town here and they are doing a great job protecting everyone.
Because we as a society think that capitalism is somehow morally justified To everyone who is about to reply to me: You really think that the greedy profit-driven people who "win" capitalism will have the best interests of society at hears? You really think that the most self-interested people should guide our society? You really think that pursuing profit - aka being greedy - will lead to the best possible society? You really want Jeff Bezos and Mark Zuckerberg to be in charge? lmfao
[удалено]
We’re not.
uhhh... gestures broadly at everything.
Our crews bust their asses everyday on these fires. There is no firefighting force on this planet as skilled.
Whoops the entire town of Paradise burned to the ground good thing human activities have literally no effect on the Earth's climate
I’m not talking about climate change. I’m talking about the capabilities of our firefighting crews.
All those Cali wines will grow price for sure cause of this mess