California Wild fires

[D'Lo Brown]

Is it really politicized?  Pro-environmental issues are usually associated with left-leaning politics, yet one of our most left-leaning states, if not the most, is perhaps the greatest environmental offender in North America.  California is more than eager to tell you they're the 2nd lowest state in CO2 emissions per capita, but when it comes to CO2 emissions per square mile, they rank 28th, just behind Michigan and Missouri (for reference, Wisconsin is 23rd, Illinois 41st, Minnesota 18th).  Apparently, their answer to being a carbon rock star is to cram more people into smaller areas; probably not a coincidence then that all the environmentalist posers out west will tell you that a dense population is actually good for the environment, all the while ignoring the data on heat islands and urban sprawl which speak otherwise.

And hypocrisy knows not the boundaries of political divides... Texas is an even worse offender than California by just about every measure.  Moreover, what does it say when the primary adversary to conservation call themselves conservatives?!?  I'm no etymologist, but pretty sure the old Roman explanation is bvllvs shiitvs (or ano intra cranium for the Latin scholars).

Then again, politics is all about hypocrisy, so maybe you are correct.  Environment is politicized.


Moral of Story: Mother Nature is getting raped by both sides of the aisle... the only difference is one side has no regard for the victim and the other side simply forgets there was ever a victim at all.

Thanks for proving my point for me. I was saying that it is overly politicized, and you disagreed by trying to place blame on one political party over another.

That's all this really is, right? A blame game that goes around and around, but in the end goes nowhere. Some fall for it easier than others I guess. Problem is, even though some people think they are "winning", nobody wins in the end.

[WarriorDad]

I don't know why we don't just send in the national guard, or 15,000 troops with a bunch of rakes.

Appears they will be trying something new out there.  Saw on CNN that Governor and President both agreed (that's saying something) that current policies need to change.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facing-deadlier-fires-california-tries-something-new-more-logging-1542390642?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=12

[#UnleashSean]

A story on fires turns into a political thread. Oh scoop 

[Benny B]

Thanks for proving my point for me. I was saying that it is overly politicized, and you disagreed by trying to place blame on one political party over another.

A story on fires turns into a political thread. Oh scoop 

Apparently some of us won't be giving thanks for our reading comprehension skillz this year.

I thought I made it quite clear that there is no divide between parties when it comes to environmental issues, i.e. the blame falls to everyone, not just one party.  How is that political?

[tower912]

And like every other trade off.... rains are coming that will help extinguish the fire.     And cause mud slides.    And further help the undergrowth in areas that didn't burn to grow.... before it, too becomes kindling during the next drought. 

[mu03eng]

I think the thing to keep in mind that as tragic as the wild fires are, they are the resulting combination of human decision making and as yet uncontrolled natural laws. Humans made the decision to live there...they also made decisions about how to manage the forests, how to build homes, etc etc etc. Forest fires are inevitable, they are part of the life cycle of a forest. My point is, that we should be sympathetic and supportive, but this is an inevitable consequence of a whole bunch of decisions from the micro to macro that were made that isn't bound by politics....it's simply human hubris that makes us believe we can do things in the world without consequence when we can't control all the factors that result in the consequence.

[WarriorFan]

As a California logger once told me (while we were sitting on the top of a hill watching a crew take down a giant redwood), the FIRES are 100% natural and are the best possible thing for the forests - long term.  The HUMANS in the forest are what's not natural. 

[jsglow]

I think the thing to keep in mind that as tragic as the wild fires are, they are the resulting combination of human decision making and as yet uncontrolled natural laws. Humans made the decision to live there...they also made decisions about how to manage the forests, how to build homes, etc etc etc. Forest fires are inevitable, they are part of the life cycle of a forest. My point is, that we should be sympathetic and supportive, but this is an inevitable consequence of a whole bunch of decisions from the micro to macro that were made that isn't bound by politics....it's simply human hubris that makes us believe we can do things in the world without consequence when we can't control all the factors that result in the consequence.

Yep, just like the folks in flood plains.

[Benny B]

It seems to me that all these disasters, be them natural or human-made, keep happening in the same places.  California, Florida, North Carolina...

So at what point does one say, “you know, I don’t think God wants us living here.”

(And if you’re an atheist, it’s even worse because there’s no illusion of some random omnipotent being saving your ass when it counts.)

Chicago may not have the luxurious weather of a place like, say, Charlotte this time of year, but we haven’t had a environmental disaster since the the cow (or myth of your preference) started that fire.  It’s so great here, in fact, that people’s kids live here.  Christ and Spaghetti, we get a foot of snow here and people grab their sleds in joy; rain pours down, and we tell people to drive their boats at no wake speed; funnel clouds brew up, and we tell Marengo to turn their lights on bright enough for Mother Nature to see.

Detroit and Cleveland notwithstanding (since those places are a whole different kind of disaster) but has anyone else noticed that the Great Lakes metropolii (metropolisses?) seem to be statistically insulated from disasters?

Global warming or not, last place I’d want to be over the past few years is within a few hundred miles of an ocean.