Untitled topic
1–4 of 4 posts
Re: undefined
#2[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-doge-cuts-forest-se...
Re: undefined
#3I am not defending DOGE. I am rejecting the casual claim that has not been demonstrated merely because it aligns with a political opinion. It also relies on a former ranger who is running for office in the affected district. This reads like a political ad
Re: undefined
#4The article is doing a lot more casual work than the headline than the article suggests. Yes, fuel-reduction projects are intended to slow fire spread, not prevent lighting. It proves only that work was delayed, not how much would have been completed, whether the fire crossed the planned treatment area, or whether it would have materially changed the fire's outcome. Even the source admits that is unknown. I am not de…
Meaning they cut forest fire prevention measures that would have been deployed before the dry season.
These measures are typically aimed to stopping spreads more than they are aimed at preventing causes (lightning is a tad bit hard to prevent, unless you want to build a gigantic grids of extremely high lightning rod towers). E.g. you cut corridors of trees through the woods and keep them clear of any flammable materials, this way the fire can hopefully be compartmentalized or at least slowed down.
I am not sure why you feel the need to defend this, when it is very clear that Doge didn't exactly deploy what anybody would call "care" in selecting what to cut.