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

201–210 of 236 posts

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#201

Post by olivermarks »

anigbrowl wrote: post #198
gorwell wrote: post #111

Can anyone explain this? "So early on, Newsom identified some key wildfire prevention projects, and that includes things like forest thinning and prescribed burns, and they were meant to protect some of the most vulnerable communities in California. And he claimed 90,000 acres were treated, but we found that's not true. The state's own data shows that, in reality, it was less than 12,000 acres, so just a fraction of…

Explain what part of it? In that article, the California fire chief took responsibility for communicating the wrong information to the governor's office. I'm gonna guess the pandemic had something to do with last year's shortfall, but this really needs more indepth research that can dig through a few years' worth of records.

Newsom was derelict in his duties as governor and lied about forestry management. this is one of the big reasons for his recall along with the rapidly growing homeless crisis.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#202

Post by anigbrowl »

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.

Which would generate complaints like 'Newsom BANKRUPTS Californians - sends electricity bills SKY HIGH' or the like. Not that I'm a fan of Newsom particularly, but a lot of loudest political voices in the state aren't interested in any particular policy solutions, they're just against whatever comes along.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#203

Post by olivermarks »

nradov wrote: post #92
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…

We also need more large firefighting aircraft. There is a perpetual shortage because the state and federal governments typically only hire them on annual contacts. So the operating companies can't afford to invest in more aircraft. If governments put out 10 year contracts that would give them enough stability to expand the fleet. https://slate.com/business/2021/08/california-wildfires-airp...

Annoyingly the biggest plane was taken out of service this spring, partially because of liability issues after a retardent drop killed a firefighter and mostly because it was more lucrative to move freight. https://fireaviation.com/2021/04/23/the-747-supertanker-is-c... We badly need more of this size carrier base don what my fire fighter friends tell me, although removing fuel in winter months would solve the problem at its core

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#204

Post by bamboozled »

bamboozled wrote: post #65
charles_f wrote: post #49

Sad but probably efficient. I'm in bc where we've been devastated by forest fires, with cities burning and thousands evacuated. And yet, every other time I get out into the forest I see idiots smoking their freaking joints. The soil is half buried in super dry pine needles, but people still want their kick.

Do you think that smokin' a joint is really enough to set off something like this? Because it's clearly a combination of things that are required to create a fire of this magnitude. Sure a joint could "start a fire" but a lot of other things could too. Maybe we just don't like to admit it but climate change is here and it's here for real.

Remember the bit where I said: "Sure a join could start a fire"

I know that an embers can mature into big fires, that's obvious.

The issue is, there is a severe drought in California, attributed to climate change, which made the Forrest go up like a house of matches.

It's not _just_ because of joint smoking hippies.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#205

Post by ehvatum »

olivermarks wrote: post #128
mistrial9 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"we also found that the state's fire prevention work overall dropped by half last year" that is utterly not true by any stretch of the words .. it is literally political theater hit piece. see for yourselves... https://www.gov.ca.gov/2021/04/13/governor-newsom-signs-land... https://fmtf.fire.ca.gov/press-publications/ the claim is that a particular State of Calif, Dept of Forestry perhaps, program was supposed to thi…

It's sadly very accurate and apologies were made. https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/06/23/newsom-misled-t...

As required by Newsom’s executive order, the agency said it paid particular attention to equity — focusing on areas with high “poverty levels, residents with disabilities, language barriers, residents over 65 or under five years of age, and households without a car.”

Is the same “equity” philosophy guiding California’s responses to crime and homelessness?

How does one apply this rubric to management of national forests in California? I don’t understand.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#206

Post by ffggvv »

subsubzero wrote: post #193
gorwell wrote: post #111

Can anyone explain this? "So early on, Newsom identified some key wildfire prevention projects, and that includes things like forest thinning and prescribed burns, and they were meant to protect some of the most vulnerable communities in California. And he claimed 90,000 acres were treated, but we found that's not true. The state's own data shows that, in reality, it was less than 12,000 acres, so just a fraction of…

Its basically all Newsoms fault these fires are raging out of control(recently) My family and myself have lived in California my entire life and I have never seen the state in such a state of dysfunction(from environment, to social collapse etc), heres an article that puts the blame solely in his lap: https://www.capradio.org/articles/2021/06/23/newsom-misled-t... Newsom tried to lie his way out by blaming climate ch…

he probably allowed them to get worse so he could blame global warming

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#207

Post by dragonwriter »

wrycoder wrote: post #110
amluto wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The California problems may well be more due to forest mismanagement and PG&E issues than global warming. But 0.14C/decade is not “minimal” in any useful sense — it’s severely problematic.

That’s 1.5 C per century. Where I sit, there was ice a mile thick 15,000 years ago. We are still coming out of the last ice age. Besides that, we have just come out of the so-called Little Ice Age, at the height of which people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in New York Harbor. 1.5 C per century is inconsequential. Not only that, but I predict that humans will stop emitting CO2 in a few decades, in…

> Where I sit, there was ice a mile thick 15,000 years ago. Besides that, we have just come out of the so-called Little Ice Age, at the height of which people walked from Manhattan to Staten Island on the ice in New York Harbor.

At the last glacial maximum, global temperature was about 7°C cooler than today; the “Little Ice Age” wasn't a particular period of global cooling, but a set of unsynchronized localized phenomenon featuring typical less than 1°C of large-area cooling.

> 1.5 C per century is inconsequential.

1.5°C/century of global change is gigantic compared to either of the phenomena you raise to try to minimize it.

> Not only that, but I predict that humans will stop emitting CO2 in a few decades, in any case.

Based on...what?

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#208

Post by anigbrowl »

olivermarks wrote: post #201
anigbrowl wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Explain what part of it? In that article, the California fire chief took responsibility for communicating the wrong information to the governor's office. I'm gonna guess the pandemic had something to do with last year's shortfall, but this really needs more indepth research that can dig through a few years' worth of records.

Newsom was derelict in his duties as governor and lied about forestry management. this is one of the big reasons for his recall along with the rapidly growing homeless crisis.

Looks like you didn't address this part of my comment: the California fire chief took responsibility for communicating the wrong information to the governor's office

Please don't use HN for electioneering. Given that the recall election is the 3rd such effort in 3 years and that said recall efforts predate this forest management issue you allude to, I do not believe it is the major factor you suggest it to be. It seems much more economical to believe the recall proponents learned from their first 2 failures and succeeded on their third attempt.

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#209

Post by garmaine »

montagg wrote: post #144
kaycebasques wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My family has a cabin up there. Grandpa bought the land in the 50s and finally built on it in the 70s. Always imagined it would be there. Will be very strange if that's suddenly not true. Of course it's the way of all things but it's different when it's firsthand.

Everything is renting eventually.

Is this sarcasm?

Re: Forest Service officials close all California national forests

#210

Post by olivermarks »

anigbrowl wrote: post #208
olivermarks wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Newsom was derelict in his duties as governor and lied about forestry management. this is one of the big reasons for his recall along with the rapidly growing homeless crisis.

Looks like you didn't address this part of my comment: the California fire chief took responsibility for communicating the wrong information to the governor's office Please don't use HN for electioneering. Given that the recall election is the 3rd such effort in 3 years and that said recall efforts predate this forest management issue you allude to, I do not believe it is the major factor you suggest it to be. It see…

I'm a registered Democrat voting to recall. Feel free to air your views but please don't tell me not to.
Post reply on HN