Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#31

Post by yters »

zaroth wrote: post #26

How realistic is it for vastly improved monitoring and rapid response to be able to snuff out a major fire before it develops? For example, what if you had the surveillance coverage to detect a fire before it covers, say, even 1 acre, and if you could respond with a tanker of Phos-Chek (or whatever) within some number of minutes? Aside from actually achieving the detection ability for alerting on a new fire, and havi…

Aren't forest fires necessary for the some trees' seeds to open? So if we were able to prevent all fires, then either a large portion of the forest would die off, or we'd have to engineer another huge intervention effort to repopulate the forest?

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#32

Post by leereeves »

npongratz wrote: post #20
paganel wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would also help if the local authorities would not give people permits anymore to build houses close to forested areas. Instead more emphasis should be put on building taller houses/buildings which would accommodate more than one family.

If I own the forested land and I want to build there, I should be able to. Or we should be honest about property ownership in the US: if I have to beg permission from someone calling themselves an "authority", I don't actually own it.

First you should have to sign something acknowledging that you know your house is going to burn and don't expect help, to be used against you if you ever do complain that the forest is on fire.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#33

Post by bluGill »

zaroth wrote: post #26

How realistic is it for vastly improved monitoring and rapid response to be able to snuff out a major fire before it develops? For example, what if you had the surveillance coverage to detect a fire before it covers, say, even 1 acre, and if you could respond with a tanker of Phos-Chek (or whatever) within some number of minutes? Aside from actually achieving the detection ability for alerting on a new fire, and havi…

We don't actually have good records for the number of fires in the past. As soon as white men came to North America they started putting out fires. The natives here before then didn't keep detailed written records, though the general verbal reports suggest they were actually lighting fires)

Letting the fires burns clears out the fuel. IF we go in next year and light that area again there won't be much fuel, so the fire will burn much colder - humans and wildlife caught in that second fire can easily leap over the flames to relative safety (don't get me wrong, some will die in the attempt, but it isn't a death sentence like the larger fires we have now).

That second fire has an additional benefit: carbon sequestration. The big fires we have now turn all carbon to CO2. The smaller fires we could have won't burn hot enough for that and so unburnt carbon will fall to the ground.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#34

Post by zaroth »

konschubert wrote: post #19

Isn't the frequency of fires mostly caused by the drought, which in turn is caused by climate change? How do all of these policies matter of there is no more rain in California?

There will never be “no more rain in California”. Also, fires are not becoming more frequent, but roughly the same number of fires are burning more acreage.

Apparently any and all weather pattern changes are “caused by climate change” whether that be drought or monsoon, heat or cold spells, increased or decreased hurricanes, etc.

And interestingly, no matter which direction the change is said to be occurring (e.g. more rain in the mid-west) it’s always predicted to lead to a catastrophic outcome.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#35

Post by ergothus »

deedubaya wrote: post #22

Forest fires (used) to be a natural occurrence which was healthy for forests. 70 years of "put every fire out" has resulted in forests with excess fuel. That coupled with dry spells and warmer temps = a powder keg instead of natural burns.

I heard this decades ago, and heard that practices were changing, albeit with problems where people have towns/homes up against forest. I even think I recall a big fire a few years ago that was a controlled burn that broke free.

Is the issue truly that practices still havent changed?

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#36

Post by bluGill »

Note that the situation in California is VERY different from most of the US.

In California (this probably only applies to parts of California - it is a big state) the trees are high oil and very flammable. When there is a fire after a drought (which is common) it will be big and hot. The only way to deal with it is to not build near these forests and let them burn naturally.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#37

Post by zaroth »

yters wrote: post #31
zaroth wrote: post #26

How realistic is it for vastly improved monitoring and rapid response to be able to snuff out a major fire before it develops? For example, what if you had the surveillance coverage to detect a fire before it covers, say, even 1 acre, and if you could respond with a tanker of Phos-Chek (or whatever) within some number of minutes? Aside from actually achieving the detection ability for alerting on a new fire, and havi…

Aren't forest fires necessary for the some trees' seeds to open? So if we were able to prevent all fires, then either a large portion of the forest would die off, or we'd have to engineer another huge intervention effort to repopulate the forest?

I think you’re right. It’s one of those “terrible ideas if it actually worked” kind of things.

The best first-order defenses I’ve read about would be strict code for setbacks around houses to give a decent buffer between homes and forest, possibly some material requirements for roofs and siding, and generally making homes and communities more burn-proof. This obviously doesn’t help if there’s a raging inferno next door, but it shifts the curve.

Second, is better warning and alerting systems, and better evacuation management systems to get people prepared to leave, aware of when they absolutely must leave, and able to leave quickly in the moment. These systems are severely lacking for any natural disaster response, not just forest fires, and I think we are long past due a complete rethinking of how our “911” services actually operate.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#38

Post by vixen99 »

konschubert wrote: post #19

Isn't the frequency of fires mostly caused by the drought, which in turn is caused by climate change? How do all of these policies matter of there is no more rain in California?

Here's a Nature paper to set your mind at rest. "Little change in global drought over the past 60 years", Nature volume 491, pages 435–438 (15 November 2012) and no evidence of dramatic changes since 2012,

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#39

Post by mbrumlow »

moultano wrote: post #28
deedubaya wrote: post #22

Forest fires (used) to be a natural occurrence which was healthy for forests. 70 years of "put every fire out" has resulted in forests with excess fuel. That coupled with dry spells and warmer temps = a powder keg instead of natural burns.

The places these fires are burning have no natural sources to start fires. California never gets lightning except in the Sierra's.

I am not sure you can say any region "never" gets anything.

But even so, the region seems perfect for spontaneous combustion.

Re: To Help Prevent the Next Big Wildfire, Let the Forest Burn

#40

Post by jbattle »

foxyv wrote: post #7
fredley wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other than making sure forest fires pose minimal risks to man-made infrastructure, what is 'practicing proper forestry'? These forests existed for millions of years before humans started managing them.

Mostly making forests friendlier to humans. In their natural state the forests were perpetually burning and a lot of plants depended on those burns. But when you build million dollar houses in the middle of the pretty forest that likes to burn every 5 years...

In large parts of north america, for thousands of years, humans intentionally set fires to manage the landscape. It isn't actually super clear what the "natural state of the forests" really looks like.
Post reply on HN