[HN Gopher] Bill introduced to promote prescribed fire intends t...
___________________________________________________________________
Bill introduced to promote prescribed fire intends to reduce fire
risk
Author : blendo
Score : 105 points
Date : 2020-10-03 16:38 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wildfiretoday.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (wildfiretoday.com)
| hash872 wrote:
| Can I ask a bit of a dumb question though? It seems like educated
| opinion has swung towards doing prescribed burns, and I remember
| hearing about this decades ago too. But- don't the same areas
| keep burning in California every fire season? Shouldn't these
| uncontrolled burns have already swept out the detritus, easily
| burnable material, etc.? If the same areas burn every year-
| doesn't that sort of indicate that controlled burns aren't
| effective?
| naringas wrote:
| as far as I know the recent terrible fires swept through parts
| that hadn't burned in decades
| reportingsjr wrote:
| No, they typically don't burn the same regions.
|
| The crux of the matter here is that getting forested areas to
| the point of being able to do controlled/prescribed burns is
| going to take an insane amount of effort and is only happening
| to a fraction of the forest needed to keep things under
| control.
|
| You can't just go start a fire in a forest and hope it goes
| well. You have to manually go through and clear the brush in
| the understory, or else the fire will be so hot it will burn
| down large trees.
|
| Once you've cleared much of the small woody brush, etc that
| causes these fires to be absolutely massive, regular fires will
| typically be much more mild and continue helping keep the
| forest understory clear without requiring much manual labor.
|
| It really is pretty effective, but it does require lots of
| little fires quite frequently.
| almost_usual wrote:
| The fire that burned east Santa Rosa in the past week went
| between burn scars from the fire in 2017.
| pixl97 wrote:
| It's a complicated issue for a few reasons...
|
| Most of it doesn't burn every year, but many places that have
| been logged and now have no trees will have issues with
| invasive species that grow quickly and explode into flame.
|
| Those invasive species will be displaced when larger tress grow
| over them, but in the meantime will be a substantial fire risk.
|
| Having both the invasive species and high fuel loads under
| large trees leads to megafires.
|
| At the end of the day things are going to burn. The question is
| can we build better to lessen some parts of the human impact,
| such as houses not burning to the ground. We may not be able to
| do anything about the air quality at all.
| cma wrote:
| It's sort of the trolley problem. Prescribed fire might get out
| of control sometimes and kill a few people and damage property,
| but overall it should save way more.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| The real question is whether it is enough to stop huge fires
| from happening: is it enough to counteract global warming?
| wtracy wrote:
| If it doesn't, hopefully it will take us one step closer to
| forcing Republicans to face reality.
| almost_usual wrote:
| Anyone who cares about global warming should want
| controlled burns.
| almost_usual wrote:
| Imagine these two scenarios:
|
| 1.) Everyone in California got rid of their gas vehicle in
| July and drove an electric vehicle. Fires still burned in
| August-October.
|
| 2.) No change, gas drivers kept their vehicles and no fires
| happened.
|
| The emissions in California would have been the _same_.
|
| If it were Oregon option 1.) would have been _worse_ than
| option 2.)
|
| That's how much co2 is being emitted from these fires. Of
| course we want to do calculated controlled burns to not let
| them explode uncontrollably.
|
| https://qz.com/1903191/western-wildfires-are-producing-a-
| rec...
| xiphias2 wrote:
| Of course, I'm not arguing against controlled burns at all.
|
| My question was: are they enough to stop the huge emissions
| from forest fires, or are we as a species already over that
| point, and even with the best available methods air quality
| will get worse every year?
|
| I'm asking because I have vasomotor rhinitis and I'm
| extremely scared that I won't have any place on earth to
| hide from air pollution.
| bluGill wrote:
| Depends on what emissions you are worried about.
|
| Let'ssstarts with pollution, smoke and particals. There
| will always be emissions from fires. Smaller fires spread
| the emissions out over several years, while this large
| fire is many years at once. However smaller fires don't
| burn as much of their emissions, so the total over a
| large number of years is greater. However the earth is
| better able to absorb them when spread out over time. If
| you live next to the fire it is better to evacuate every
| 20 years than live next to the smaller fire every year
| (Small means you don't need to evacuate) for the rest of
| the world though the small fire means the pollution
| doesn't reach you and so smaller is better.
|
| If you are worried about CO2, then smaller fire leave a
| bit more unburned charcoal (sequestered carbon) behind
| every year and contribute to a long term global cooling.
| (it will take thousands of years to make up for one year
| of the rest of what we do, so don't get excited).
| wavefunction wrote:
| I don't see the connection between prescribed or wild fires
| with global warming other than global warming has led to
| droughts and climate change that make these fires worse to
| manage.
| xiphias2 wrote:
| That's what I was writing about. I see wildfires around the
| world getting more serious (Australia had huge fires
| effecting the whole southern hemisphere's air quality). I'm
| worried that forrest management is not enough at this point
| to stop air quality from getting worse.
| Maximus9000 wrote:
| Has that ever happened?
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Yes. There was a death last year in South Carolina (Angela
| Chadwick Hawkins) when a device used for starting fires blew
| up.
|
| According to one article [1] there were 6 deaths from
| prescribed burns between 1963 and 2013 (and 201 deaths from
| undesired wildfires). While looking this up,I was also
| surprised to learn that the #1 cause of death when fighting
| wildfires is vehicle accidents, and the majority of those are
| plane crashes
|
| [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4605741/
| xrd wrote:
| I'm really interested in hearing from someone that knows much
| more than me about this question:
|
| Don't we generally know that we need to do more prescribed fire
| burning? Isn't this generally highjacked by the timber industry
| to protect valuable "product?"
|
| If that's true, will this federal bill address that? It seems
| like it allocates money but doesn't talk about the other 53% of
| the lands that are not federally managed. And, it doesn't talk
| about whether the 47% lands are the problem or not. In Oregon
| where I live, the massive fires were ten miles from me in largely
| residentially adjacent lands. Are those going to be helped?
|
| I love that this bill offers jobs to formerly incarcerated people
| that have been fighting fires.
|
| If I'm wrong about my first assumption, would really like to
| know.
|
| Also, I saw a statistic that said California needs to do
| prescribed burns of about a million acres a year to manage
| wildfire risk. They are currently doing only 40,000. But these
| massive fires over the last month are approaching that million
| acre number: does anyone know if next year we will be safer
| because of those fires?
| muststopmyths wrote:
| https://www.propublica.org/article/they-know-how-to-prevent-...
|
| "In February 2020, Nature Sustainability published this
| terrifying conclusion: California would need to burn 20 million
| acres -- an area about the size of Maine -- to restabilize in
| terms of fire."
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Cost estimates I'm seeing say the cost/acre for prescribed
| burns is ~$100/acre. A very large works project but So maybe
| more achievable than it sounds, and it could be spread over a
| decade.
|
| Naive calculation thus puts the cost at 2 billion dollars, or
| about 1/3rd of the final cost of the east span of the Bay
| Bridge. :)
| rsync wrote:
| "Don't we generally know that we need to do more prescribed
| fire burning?"
|
| Yes.
|
| "Isn't this generally highjacked by the timber industry to
| protect valuable "product?""
|
| No, I don't believe that to be the case. Broadly speaking,
| prescribed burns are thwarted by a mix of local objections to
| smoke, noise and traffic ... and environmental objections
| relating to specific watersheds, protected species and
| (literally) individual birds that are witnessed in the burn
| area.[1] Remember: this is California - these people didn't
| move here to not have their very, very specific voice, and
| preferences, heard and respected. (I kid because I love)
|
| "But these massive fires over the last month are approaching
| that million acre number: does anyone know if next year we will
| be safer because of those fires?"
|
| I can't speak to "safer" but, absolutely there will be less
| fuel to burn next year. Almost the _entire land area_ of Napa
| County has burned this year. I suspect they can skate for many
| decades on this (rapid, violent) fuels reduction.
|
| Personally, as the owner of 25-ish acres of wooded land in this
| area (Marin County), I am not waiting. We are _simulating_ fire
| by dramatically reducing fuel loads on our lands. I am assuming
| these forests will burn and trying to reduce the speed and
| intensity of that eventual fire.
|
| [1]
| https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/26/a-trailblazing...
| dfsegoat wrote:
| > _Personally, as the owner of 25-ish acres of wooded land in
| this area (Marin County), I am not waiting. We are simulating
| fire by dramatically reducing fuel loads on our lands._
|
| As a lifelong sonoma county resident, curious why were you
| not managing fuels already? It's a duty to your neighbors.
| CalFire is very aggressive up here in certain areas, and will
| red tag your property if it gets past a point.
|
| > _" No, I don't believe that to be the case. Broadly
| speaking, prescribed burns are thwarted by a mix of local
| objections to smoke, noise and traffic"_
|
| Can confirm this for Sonoma County, CA. They used to burn a
| lot when I was young. Not much anymore, mostly because of the
| $$$ moving up here and they have no understanding of the need
| for it. Well, this is the alternative.
|
| Also, a lot of land is private.
| sgc wrote:
| Unfortunately it's not as clear that fire risk is lowered by
| a one off burn. There are then many dead trees that are
| tinder in the coming seasons. Prescribed burns work when they
| are regular and done in a less damaging season like spring
| where they burn slower due to plant moisture content etc, and
| hopefully kill fewer trees.
| born_a_skeptic wrote:
| Ahhh, I didn't think about the Lumber Industry pushing for less
| prescribed fires. Makes sense.
| redis_mlc wrote:
| Some things to research:
|
| 1) the lumber industry obviously prefers clearcutting in the
| short-term, but generally follows selection laws if they get
| access to more forests and the logging equipment fits, but
| that means logging roads.
|
| 2) It's needed to harvest fallen trees within about a year of
| a fall for lumber. By 6 years they're rotten and not
| economically viable, but still contribute to fires - this was
| a problem in 2020.
|
| 3) Generally scheduled, controlled burns only quickly burn
| the forest floor (detritis like branches, deadfalls, etc.)
| and some outside bark, which trees evolved to tolerate, and
| not the inner core of trees, so doesn't affect logging.
|
| When you wait too long, trees actually heat and explode,
| setting the canopy on fire far and wide. If you make
| charcoal, that's a more persistent fire.
|
| Source: very lucky to have grown up outside a national park,
| which makes one a hard-core ecologist.
| bitbckt wrote:
| A cousin of mine spent about 10 years as a Hotshot[0], and now
| runs an engine in Plumas County, CA.
|
| A few things that have stuck with me over the years of
| discussing his work:
|
| * Much like floods, he returns the same burn areas year after
| year (ex. Paradise, CA and surrounding area). Some of that is
| recent encroachment into wilderness boundary areas, but much is
| also historically-inhabited land whose climate has changed
| drastically.
|
| * Prescribed burns quickly run up against environmental
| regulations (esp. those intended to reduce smog), property
| rights concerns, and coordinating the patchwork of agencies and
| individuals who own and manage this land - BLM, USFS, CalFire,
| Sierra Pacific Industries, &c.
|
| * To hear him tell it, CalFire is woefully incompetent and
| fiscally irresponsible, leaving much of the work to over-
| burdened and under-funded federal agencies. I live in a CalFire
| "State Responsibility Area" (i.e. any fire in my area would be
| served by CalFire), and I've seen very little actual evidence
| to contradict him.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotshot_crew
| taurath wrote:
| To be fair so much of the overall land prone to fire is under
| control of the feds - literally 47% according to the article.
| Having grown up in northern CA there's just vast swathes of
| land to cover, and I doubt they're spending nearly enough on
| controlled burns for the current climate. It's 100% true that
| the land just wants to burn, pine needles 1-2" thick across
| an area half the size of New York State.
| seunosewa wrote:
| Why aren't those needles degrading naturally? Perhaps
| nitrogen fertilization will help?
| sgc wrote:
| Probably another one of the uses that active fungi
| management could help with. I know most about Paul
| Stamets, but the TED list [1] is fascinating.
|
| [1] https://www.ted.com/topics/fungi
| ip26 wrote:
| Pine needles are pretty slow to break down. They're
| actually a great weed guard around garden beds.
| bryan0 wrote:
| > Don't we generally know that we need to do more prescribed
| fire burning?
|
| Yes, everyone generally agrees we need to do more prescribed
| burns, but it's easier said than done. The three main
| impediments (at least in CA) seem to be: [0]
|
| 1. tight environmental regulations
|
| 2. limited resources
|
| 3. concerns about negative public opinion.
|
| I think the biggest problem is there is a patchwork of air
| quality regulations in CA plus federal regulations like the
| Clean Air Act which makes it very difficult to do prescribed
| burns.[1] So this bill might help with the federal regulations
| but I'm not sure how it would impact local regs.
|
| [0] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Top-scientist-knew-
| Bi...
|
| [1] https://reason.com/2020/09/14/western-wildfires-can-be-
| preve...
| lostapathy wrote:
| No - it's not the timber industry. Fires are bad fire them.
| Environmental interests are the main issue. There is always
| some "compelling" interest that manages to block a planned
| burn, no matter how niche or how much it might actually help
| their concern long term.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Keep in mind that "environmental interests" is a cover worn
| by numerous _other_ interests as cover for their actions. It
| is simultaneously strongly sympathetic _and_ a convenient
| scapegoat, whilst masking true motives or dynamics.
| ChuckMcM wrote:
| Prescribed burning is resisted by folks for environmental
| reasons. The alternative is going in and cutting down trees and
| mulching brush which runs into the "we are damaging a natural
| environment" groups.
|
| An interesting counterpoint is to look at a managed forest in
| the northwest to get a feel for what companies that harvest
| wood do to manage fire risk.
| vermontdevil wrote:
| Or southeast Georgia. They do burns every year. Because they
| do farm for southern pine so they have an interest in keeping
| fires under control.
| ip26 wrote:
| Most of the opposition I've heard from environmental groups
| centers around fear that logging interests are using thinning
| as a "foot in the door".
| cultus wrote:
| We absolutely need more prescribed burns. This needs to be
| combined with selective cutting and brush clearance. The
| selective cutting can pay for itself much of the time with
| timber sales. On forest service land, timber cruisers select
| trees to cut based on scientific concerns, and then private
| companies (often smaller ones) come in to remove the trees.
|
| It's worth noting that whenever you see big clearcuts, its
| almost always private land (aka, "tree farms"). That is where
| most of the wood comes from these days. I'm really not sure
| about the regulations on those lands, considering they can pose
| a hazard for neighboring areas if improperly managed.
|
| The total amount of burned area in California is very small
| compared to the area that is susceptible to severe fires, so
| unfortunately this year didn't move the needle much. Worse,
| really hot fires kill everything, and actually make it easier
| for dense brush and stunted trees to pop up again.
|
| What you really want in drier areas is an open forest with few,
| large trees.
| smileypete wrote:
| >What you really want in drier areas is an open forest with
| few, large trees
|
| This is what the aborigines in Australia used to do:
|
| 'To Help Australia, Look to Aboriginal Fire Management'
|
| https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2020/01/13/australia.
| ..
| wwweston wrote:
| If you're interested in this topic (and if you live in
| California, you probably should be), I recommend reading reports
| like this one from a California State policy arm:
|
| https://lhc.ca.gov/report/fire-mountain-rethinking-forest-ma...
|
| It'll take you through a better-than-surface understanding of the
| problem history and how we got here, contributing factors,
| potential solutions, and political/social obstacles.
| Lammy wrote:
| A lot of discussion on this issue rightfully centers on
| California and often touches on the prison labor aspect without
| exploring the history. Anyone who wants to understand the real
| priorities behind California's "honor camps" (later "conservation
| camps") should compare their history and expansion [0] to the
| demographic changes happening in the state around the same time
| [1].
|
| [0] http://archive.oah.org/special-
| issues/teaching/2009_12/artic...
|
| [1]
| https://depts.washington.edu/moving1/map_black_migration.sht...
| clairity wrote:
| i was hoping to see mention of employing cultural burning methods
| used by indigenous folks[0], who have multiple generations of
| experience already in this area. it seems possible some of this
| money does end up being employed this way, but it's disappointing
| that it's not more prominently featured in a story like this.
|
| [0]: for instance,
| https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-09-01/california-and-austra...
| rch wrote:
| As an amature biodiversity-focused conservationist, I've found
| it hard to keep policy conversations from devolving into zero
| sum economic reasoning. It seems like once a certain threshold
| of wealth and equity issues is crossed, systems thinking goes
| out the window completely.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Similarly:
| https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/09/17/1008473/wildfire...
| clairity wrote:
| some takeaways on size and cost:
|
| * 33 million acres of forest in CA, 57% owned by the feds, 3%
| by CA, 14% by the logging industry, 26% by others
|
| * $200/acre for prescribed burns, $1000/acre for thinning,
| ~$800/acre on average for the US fire service
|
| * 1.1 million acres need treatment each year (~$1B/year) to
| be effective, according to the little hoover commission
|
| * ~$2B committed by CA, but over at least 5 years
|
| * this bill would appropriate $300M/yr from feds
|
| on the flipside, it's harder to pin down benefits. they cite
| $9B in costs from one fire, but how much of that is
| (socialized) losses from excessive (private) risk-taking?
| it's unclear, but likely not none. how does insurance account
| for and/or distort that risk?
|
| none of the articles spend much time quantifying health or
| environmental costs (e.g., CO2e) of forest fires on the
| population, and the potential reductions from better
| management.
|
| it's hard to take a reasonable position without knowing the
| magnitude of these benefits as well.
| pvaldes wrote:
| So the plan seems to remove water from the soil to fight the lack
| of water in the ecosystem, that is bone dry because the water has
| been removed previously... I can't wait to see the results.
| almost_usual wrote:
| "The fires have released about half the typical annual emissions
| from the transportation sector. And they've topped annual
| emissions from all of the state's power plants--a threshold that
| hasn't been passed even in recent severe fire seasons."
|
| "In Oregon, a similar story is unfolding--except there, wildfire
| emissions have managed to surpass annual transportation emissions
| as well."
|
| https://qz.com/1903191/western-wildfires-are-producing-a-rec...
|
| This was weeks ago before the recent fires in Napa, Zogg, and the
| August complex kept burning.
|
| Kinda incredible and gives you perspective into how much co2 is
| being released.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| Trees work on a much shorter carbon cycle though so shouldn't
| be equated to digging million year old oil out of the ground
| and burning that. 20 years time, most of that carbon will be
| sequestered back in the form of new trees.
| [deleted]
| kanox wrote:
| The carbon released by wildfires was previously captures by
| trees as they grew, right?
|
| So if a wooded area burns and then grows back again it is
| carbon-neutral.
| ip26 wrote:
| Unsettling observations of past wildfires have hinted that,
| thanks to climate change, some of these burning wooded areas
| may _not_ grow back, and instead convert permanently into
| scrubland or grassland.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| I think this is a good idea, but I doubt it will end up being
| popular. One of these prescribed fires is going to get out of
| control, then the victims will sue the state, and it will end up
| being much more expensive for the taxpayers than a larger fires
| with less payout per victim. Any such law should include a
| component freeing the state from any liability for damage.
| ip26 wrote:
| I agree, although it's ridiculous- judging by past news
| releases, a prescribed fire that gets out of control will grab
| headlines if it burns 50 acres more than planned. What is 50
| acres compared to preventing the next August Complex?
| exabrial wrote:
| Prescribed fire is also necessary to preserve species and
| habitat. Native species have long evolved to deal with natural
| fires, whereas invasive species have not. Like many things with
| nature, it's counterintuitive, but proven science.*
|
| If populated areas are nearby, logging and subsequent mowing flat
| are alternatives in some circumstances (and act as a great carbon
| sink).
|
| 1. Source: I worked and volunteered many years in college on the
| Kanza Tallgrass Prairie preserve which experienced natural fires
| regularly through it's evolutionary history.
| baybal2 wrote:
| One more thing, add a line to the building code that you cannot
| build a residential building within 1km of a tree line.
|
| Less chances of somebody setting the forest on fire
| unintentionally, and vice versa.
|
| You also need prescribed forest clearings inside the forest
| around settlements to create multiple rings of fire stops.
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| _cannot build a residential building within 1km of a tree
| line_
|
| Absolutely. I've got somewhere an edition of Tacitus'
| _Germania_ with commentary that states as a matter of fact,
| no explanation needed that "the forest is not part of the
| human sphere". Why is this so controversial that it needs to
| be downvoted?
|
| It is baffling that anyone would want to live on the wrong
| side of the urban-wilderness interface, especially if
| wilderness means wildfire risk.
| jimmaswell wrote:
| This suggestion is baffling. The nicest place to have a
| home is in an enclave of forest.
| skmurphy wrote:
| It's OK to build there as long as you acknowledge that
| fire is a natural inhabitant of any forest and over a
| 20-30 year period is likely to come for a visit at least
| once.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Forests burn with regularity, and this is a normal and
| essential process for them. Stands to reason that if you
| want to build a house, it either be not in a place that
| burns, or be constructed in a way that it isn't
| significantly damaged by fire.
|
| People have been shown to be willing to rebuild
| repeatedly in fire zones, with massive economic and
| public safety impact. Makes sense to legislate to prevent
| this.
| scottlamb wrote:
| By choosing to live in a forest, you are creating
| problems for the society you are part of. Asking them:
| risk you cause a fire that affects others, need to
| protect you from fires. It makes sense to have rules
| and/or fees to prevent or offset that.
|
| It's funny. In a recent discussion I was arguing against
| someone wanting to increase power costs on rural
| customers, because I think doing so carelessly would
| impact the food supply chain. But it doesn't take too
| much "living in forests is great" in the middle of a
| discussion of wildfires to make me wonder if I was on the
| wrong side of that one.
| ip26 wrote:
| What makes Tacitus the final authority on the matter?
| HarryHirsch wrote:
| The apparently controversial remark is in the commentary.
| Tacitus (Germania 1,16) merely says that the Germanic
| tribesmen, barbarians they are, do not live in towns but
| each family in their cleared patch of forest. The
| commentary expands on that, saying that that statement
| doesn't need much elaboration, humans do not belong in
| the forest.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| The end of the article talks about grants for homes in fire-prone
| areas. No thanks; this sounds just like the FEMA rebuilding the
| same flood-prone areas again and again.
|
| Let's not subsidize the exurbs, but get people away from dry
| Forests.
| jayd16 wrote:
| This is getting voted down but I also think we should consider
| the moral hazards.
| bleepblorp wrote:
| Ideally, people shouldn't live in high risk fire areas.
| However, there's already a shortage of housing on the west
| coast. Removing housing stock from fire areas will reduce the
| fire risk to human life but will also make the housing shortage
| worse.
|
| Short of resolving the NIMBY problem that prevents higher-
| density construction in fire-safe areas, paying residents in
| fire-prone areas to harden their communities is the best choice
| out of a selection of bad options.
|
| Also keep in mind that keeping people away from fires does
| nothing to reduce the smoke problem, which is very severe in
| its own right. The solution needs to be fewer fires, whether
| they pose an immediate risk to human life or not.
| spaetzleesser wrote:
| Totally agree. You just have to look around and see tons of
| really nice houses up in the hills that will be very hard and
| extremely expensive to defend. These people should have to buy
| market based fire insurance or figure out something else. It's
| much more efficient to defend groups of hundreds or thousands
| of houses in towns.
| alextheparrot wrote:
| > Risk-related barriers (fear of liability and negative public
| perceptions) prevent landowners from beginning the burn planning
| process. Both resource-related barriers (limited funding, crew
| availability and experience) and regulations-related barriers
| (poor weather conditions for burning and environmental
| regulations) prevent landowners from conducting burns, creating a
| gap between planning and implementation [0]
|
| My opinion is that this legislation does not go far enough to
| address the chronic disregard of action to inhibit these
| cataclysmic events. I would much rather have the government over-
| correct and over-allocate instead of taking an incremental
| approach on this. I do not want to wake up to months of awful
| quality air or see the forests that I have come to love so much
| be scorched more than is necessary.
|
| [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0451-7
| torstenvl wrote:
| Original title is poorly worded, recommend instead:
|
| _Senate bill would promote controlled burns to reduce wildfire
| risk_
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Send email to hn@ycombinator.com requesting this & linking
| submission & source.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Whats the argument for managing these forests in such a hands on
| way? For the health of the forest or to make it easier to live in
| them?
|
| The talk that fires are a natural part of a forest and that we
| should also do prescribed burns seems at odds.
| bigbubba wrote:
| Decades of putting out naturally occurring fires has already
| precluded a _' hands off all natural'_ approach.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Actual Old Growth Forest is very cool, but it's totally
| unsuitable anywhere near humans. It will sometimes burn
| spectacularly for various reasons, which would be devastating
| locally, and so if there are humans they'll try to stop it
| doing that because they don't want to die or have their homes
| destroyed.
|
| So - we're not talking about Old Growth Forest, these are
| managed forests, humans are _already_ messing with them, the
| only question is what management strategies to use. "Let's
| just not manage the forest" is not an option unless you are
| going to evacuate essentially all the humans from the region.
| Like, if the only human for 100km is a government official
| surveying the forest or something, that doesn't need managing.
| If there's a _town_ there, you have no choice, you 're managing
| that forest now, like it or not.
| almost_usual wrote:
| The reality is we forced nature to _not_ burn for far too long
| and now it's exploding when it happens.
|
| You could argue this is a "flattening the curve" approach to
| wildfires.
|
| https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_hessburg_why_wildfires_have_g...
| supernova87a wrote:
| Newsom was touting the other day that the state is dedicating
| another $2B (not sure if incremental or what) towards fighting
| wildfires.
|
| The problem is, the more money you make available, the more that
| the agencies will find to justify that it needs to be spent. How?
| Well, we'll figure that out later. Probably something having to
| do with more planes, technology, contractors, etc. I.e. bandaids.
|
| Seems similar to healthcare -- you pay for treatments, and that's
| what you're gonna incentivize. As many treatments as doctors can
| justify, with outcome or root cause only as an afterthought.
| dannykwells wrote:
| Healthcare worker here. Love this comment, spot on. Newsom
| should allocate 2B, or 20B, and create a metric of fire
| prevention relative to fire risk, and then reward communities
| with a higher value (i.e., fewer fires per unit of fire risk
| means more dough). That would align incentives and fix the
| problem (or at least, not make it worse).
| forgotmypw17 wrote:
| How often do prescribed fires run out of control?
| pixl97 wrote:
| Often enough.
|
| With this said, if the prescribed burn goes out of control,
| when they tend to be burnt in the best of conditions.
|
| What's going to happen when a spark hits the ground in the same
| area when the wind is blowing 35+ knots?
|
| It's time to rethink the WUI.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-10-03 23:00 UTC)