Are they advocating for intentional burns? Because if not they're doing it wrong.
[deleted]
Can we end megafires? These companies are trying to
21–30 of 51 posts
Re: Can we end megafires? These companies are trying to
#22I guess it takes a lifetime of wisdom to truly realize companies will never 'end' anything, as their whole existence depends on the thing happening at least enough to keep selling the cure.
There are plenty of economic models that can support cures to recurrent issues. For example, internal sprinklers & smoke detectors have dramatically improved survivability of structure fires, but that "cure" supports a whole industry of sprinkler and alarm system companies.
I never said things will not 'improve', even drastically, just not 'end' as the article touts. If sprinklers and smoke detectors truly ended fires happening (as opposed to mitigating the consequences), over time we would neglect them and de-prioritize them in the budget. Wy spend money on tings no-one has heard of in two generations when we have more pressing needs? Psychology and game-theory go hand in hand.
Re: Can we end megafires? These companies are trying to
#23Are they advocating for intentional burns? Because if not they're doing it wrong.
Yes they are. It's a good article and not very long. If you are interested in this stuff I recommend reading it.
Re: Can we end megafires? These companies are trying to
#24Are they advocating for intentional burns? Because if not they're doing it wrong.
Yes, the article does advocate for intentional burns and is educational to the public about it.
Re: Can we end megafires? These companies are trying to
#25I guess it takes a lifetime of wisdom to truly realize companies will never 'end' anything, as their whole existence depends on the thing happening at least enough to keep selling the cure.
wait so you're telling me that every political organization that claims to be fighting against e.g. discrimination and inequality is actually wholly dependent on the existence of e.g. discrimination and inequality in order to continue functioning, such that they'll never put an end to the thing that gives them reason to exist in the first place?
OP said:
>I guess it takes a lifetime of wisdom to truly realize companies will never 'end' anything...
You said:
>wait so you're telling me that every political organization...
A company is fundamentally different from a political organization, especially in the context of this conversation.
Re: Can we end megafires? These companies are trying to
#26I guess it takes a lifetime of wisdom to truly realize companies will never 'end' anything, as their whole existence depends on the thing happening at least enough to keep selling the cure.
This is a shallow take. Even on its face it’s wrong. Ending mega-fires would be an ongoing expenditure, since you constantly monitor and manage smaller fires to achieve that. Plenty of juicy government dollars to sustain vendors in that space indefinitely.
I partially agree, but you are ending the reasoning one level short. The government budget is a tradeoff. People react more to recent events than those far past, even if rationally they should not. So sadly, if no mega-fire had disastrous consequences, over the years there would be cutbacks, neglect and denial on mitigating this particular threat as opposed to so many others that required our recent attention.
Re: Can we end megafires? These companies are trying to
#27I'm curious, with such giant swathes of forest being burnt off annually, and large contiguous chunks being burnt up, leaving only smaller contiguous areas;
1) given the average size of a megafire, how many more megafires can happen (assuming regrowth to current fuel levels takes 50 years)
2) what is the largest megafire that could still happen, given the forested area unburnt for at least 50 years
The chronicle has a map somewhere that lists all the wildfires that have happened in the last 30-40 years, at a casual glance it is looking like any forest areas that haven't burnt yet, are getting increasingly smaller. According to the USDA california has about 101 million acres of forest[1], and the august complex (2020) alone burnt 1 million acres, almost 1%, dixie fire was also almost 1%. The next 18 largest fires burnt another 5% (4.7%) [2]. Since 2001 We've burnt up 22% of all the forests in california [3]
7% in ~12 years seems like a lot, but it takes a long time to grow that much fuel, also the space in between those burnt spaces is going to be increasingly smaller and smaller, or at least so it would seem.
[1] https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm8_037652.h...
[2] https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/4jandlhh/top20_acres.pdf
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_wildfires#A...
Re: Can we end megafires? These companies are trying to
#28I'm curious, with such giant swathes of forest being burnt off annually, and large contiguous chunks being burnt up, leaving only smaller contiguous areas; 1) given the average size of a megafire, how many more megafires can happen (assuming regrowth to current fuel levels takes 50 years) 2) what is the largest megafire that could still happen, given the forested area unburnt for at least 50 years The chronicle has a…
I think it's a false assumption that when something burns in a high severity fire, it returns to a healthy state afterwards. Historically, natural fire was low severity because it was high frequency, burning through once a decade (or even more frequently). This left large trees and soil intact, and so dense regrowth was limited, since there was still shade.
With high severity fire, two things can happen. Trees can be totally wiped out (called a stand-replacing fire) which causes extremely dense, brushy regrowth (prone to another high severity fire). Or in really bad conditions, the soil can be damage so no regrowth happens, causing strange moonscape-like forests that are completely dead. This affects watersheds, causes mudslides, etc. Neither is good.
If we could burn large swaths of landscape with low severity fire, that would be a huge step in the right direction but is extremely difficult. We are treating only a small fraction of the acreage in that manner.
Note: This varies from landscape to landscape but is directionally correct. For example, in some climates, stand-replacing fires are healthy and normal. But in most climates, bad.
Re: Can we end megafires? These companies are trying to
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
wait so you're telling me that every political organization that claims to be fighting against e.g. discrimination and inequality is actually wholly dependent on the existence of e.g. discrimination and inequality in order to continue functioning, such that they'll never put an end to the thing that gives them reason to exist in the first place?
OP said: >I guess it takes a lifetime of wisdom to truly realize companies will never 'end' anything... You said: >wait so you're telling me that every political organization... A company is fundamentally different from a political organization, especially in the context of this conversation.
how so? do political organizations differ from corporations in that they somehow don't have an inherent need to perpetuate their own existence, so as to keep people employed?
Re: Can we end megafires? These companies are trying to
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
wait so you're telling me that every political organization that claims to be fighting against e.g. discrimination and inequality is actually wholly dependent on the existence of e.g. discrimination and inequality in order to continue functioning, such that they'll never put an end to the thing that gives them reason to exist in the first place?
OP said: >I guess it takes a lifetime of wisdom to truly realize companies will never 'end' anything... You said: >wait so you're telling me that every political organization... A company is fundamentally different from a political organization, especially in the context of this conversation.
They are somewhat analogous, though. Not to mention intertwined. What keeps our dominant political parties running? Money from big business. Where do they get their money? By selling stuff. All the better for their profits if they can externalize costs. Which the politicians they bought will be reluctant to do anything about.