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

Forest Service officials close all California national forests

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 236 posts

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#71

Post by jjulius »

pokstad wrote: post #62
jdavis703 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden manages national forests, Newsom had no say.

> Regarding reducing the fuel load, in an interview four months ago, Newsom said that there are “Hundreds of millions of dead trees” in the state and that it cost his father $35,000 to clear “a small little patch of dead trees” on his property. > Newsom didn’t admit it, but the outrageous cost to remove a few dead trees from private land is a consequence of California’s Byzantine environmental regulatory patchwork. h…

That quote is about privately-owned land, not federally-owned land. You and the post you're responding to are both correct; the state is responsible for some areas, and the federal government is responsible for others.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#72

Post by bcrosby95 »

burlesona wrote: post #39
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #21

The US National Forrest and Calfire have been on the losing side of this fire so far. All the technology that produces memes that spread across the globe in seconds and launches and lands orbital rockets flawlessly cannot stop this fire. This has been a dry summer which can be attributed to global warming. I for one am not a defeatist that will let global warming beat me. We need to think of solutions to fires like t…

As a thought experiment, I wonder what it would cost to build a European village scale town for 22k people (the population of SLT) and then literally build a moat around it as a firebreak.

These fires can jump a 10 lane freeway - the last one by our house did this. So you would need a pretty wide moat.

But it would probably still help. It doesn't have to be perfect to help firefighters out.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#73

Post by fasteddie31003 »

burlesona wrote: post #39
fasteddie31003 wrote: post #21

The US National Forrest and Calfire have been on the losing side of this fire so far. All the technology that produces memes that spread across the globe in seconds and launches and lands orbital rockets flawlessly cannot stop this fire. This has been a dry summer which can be attributed to global warming. I for one am not a defeatist that will let global warming beat me. We need to think of solutions to fires like t…

As a thought experiment, I wonder what it would cost to build a European village scale town for 22k people (the population of SLT) and then literally build a moat around it as a firebreak.

Moats are good at preventing barbarians from attacking your city not stopping a wildfire.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#74

Post by Johnny555 »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #66
Johnny555 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to apply Phos-Chek from ground based units Phos Chek is not great for the environment, especially to aquatic life. So ideally there'd be some solution that doesn't use more of it. agricultural level irrigation at the ready The fires are exacerbated by California's long term drought, if there's large quanties of water laying around, then they probably wouldn't have such a bad fire season. Inhabited locations i…

1. Phos Chek is probably better than the long term effects from a wildfire. I would recommend looking more into consiquentalists ethics. 2. The mountains have excesses of water in the spring which could easily be sequestered for wildfire season. 3. I own land and live in a wildfire prone area. I will not be moving out to live in a human shit ridden city. I am prefer nature over close human habitation.

So you're more of a "Let's sacrifice the fish before I'll sacrifice my lifestyle" person?

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#75

Post by bsder »

pokstad wrote: post #44
tdhz77 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is getting more political. Just something I’ve noticed. Not saying it’s a bad thing, but a reflection of political tribalism.

I don’t belong to a tribe, but I can still appreciate how horribly run California is.

Okay, I'll take the troll bait.

First, California seem to be dealing with the idiots that are the MAGA anti-vax crowd better than most. California isn't currently having people dying of things like pancreatic stones because it takes 6 hours to find an ICU bed. See: Texas and Florida.

Second, California has quite a bit more of its population covered by healthcare because it went all-in on the ACA and Medicaid. See: Texas and Florida

Third, California actually disbursed assistance that was supposed to go out--both unemployment and rental assistance. Contrast to: All Southern red states

Fourth, in the middle of all this, California managed to run a surplus. Pretty good for a state that Republicans always claim is in the middle of meltdown. I really wish some of those Republicans would put their money where their mouth is and leave so I could buy a house.

California sure as hell ain't perfect.

It's easy to bitch and complain. It's easy to tear things down. It's really fucking hard to build shit, and, in some areas, California is trying. It needs to do better, but Democracy is, unfortunately, slow as shit.

So, go pound sand with your talking points rhetoric.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#76

Post by xeromal »

pokstad wrote: post #44
tdhz77 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is getting more political. Just something I’ve noticed. Not saying it’s a bad thing, but a reflection of political tribalism.

I don’t belong to a tribe, but I can still appreciate how horribly run California is.

> "I don’t belong to a tribe"

Is what everyone says

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#77

Post by cdiamand »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #66
Johnny555 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to apply Phos-Chek from ground based units Phos Chek is not great for the environment, especially to aquatic life. So ideally there'd be some solution that doesn't use more of it. agricultural level irrigation at the ready The fires are exacerbated by California's long term drought, if there's large quanties of water laying around, then they probably wouldn't have such a bad fire season. Inhabited locations i…

1. Phos Chek is probably better than the long term effects from a wildfire. I would recommend looking more into consiquentalists ethics. 2. The mountains have excesses of water in the spring which could easily be sequestered for wildfire season. 3. I own land and live in a wildfire prone area. I will not be moving out to live in a human shit ridden city. I am prefer nature over close human habitation.

Is there an argument to be made for just letting the fires burn? Don't the fires have a positive effect on the soil?

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#78

Post by xeromal »

bpodgursky wrote: post #25
jdavis703 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Biden manages national forests, Newsom had no say.

Newsom had opportunities to get PG&E to bury power lines before they burned down half the state.

Some powerlines are over 100 years old. There's untold miles of lines they PG&E themselves don't even have mapped. No way it could be resolved in 2 years.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#80

Post by zoltar »

fasteddie31003 wrote: post #66
Johnny555 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to apply Phos-Chek from ground based units Phos Chek is not great for the environment, especially to aquatic life. So ideally there'd be some solution that doesn't use more of it. agricultural level irrigation at the ready The fires are exacerbated by California's long term drought, if there's large quanties of water laying around, then they probably wouldn't have such a bad fire season. Inhabited locations i…

1. Phos Chek is probably better than the long term effects from a wildfire. I would recommend looking more into consiquentalists ethics. 2. The mountains have excesses of water in the spring which could easily be sequestered for wildfire season. 3. I own land and live in a wildfire prone area. I will not be moving out to live in a human shit ridden city. I am prefer nature over close human habitation.

Anyone else enjoy the dissonance in this comment between the consequentialism reference and refusal to relocate?
Post reply on HN