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

Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

boulderbeat.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 241 posts

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#31

Post by eunoia »

njarboe wrote: post #13

One of the big problems is that controlled burns can and do become uncontrolled burns. The largest ever wildfire in New Mexico was started as a planned burn (more honest label) just last year. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2022/05/2...

This unfortunately has happened more than once in NM. The Cerro Grande fire started in similar circumstances and almost burned down LANL.

IIRC they actually had to temporarily displace the radioactive glass from the original Trinity tests as it was in danger from the fire.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#33

Post by fwungy »

Try cutting down trees on your forested property in California. Environmental regulations can make that really tricky.

California should have regular wildfires. It's part of the ecosystem. Government regulations that prevent fires have created the tinder box we have now.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#34

Post by anoncow »

motohagiography wrote: post #18

This 'controlled burn' issue is a general principle in risk management as well, where you respond to minor issues so as to not let them pile up into a tinderbox inferno. Risk aversion isn't prudent, ethical, or professional either. It's a source of false conflict whose purpose is to centralize the objector so that they can direct and manage a proposed change. This is from someone who has been working in security for…

I think the equivalent analogy here is to prevent a big issue from occurring, management creates small issues that it can control. Or do I have it wrong?

If you handle small issues, it’s similar to handling small fires and not letting the small fires eat away at a certain portion of the forest.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#35

Post by Analemma_ »

vuln wrote: post #28
jackphilson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this just generalizes to the recurring problem of individualism vs collectivism. Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here

> Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here Do you have any examples of Government Regulations that are applied efficiently and do not cause harm to any individuals?

You are demonstrating the exact problem the OP is complaining about. "Does not cause harm to any individuals" is an impossible standard to meet, and should not be weighed against "do nothing, and eventually cause a catastrophe for which there is no clear agent to blame".

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#36

Post by l33t233372 »

vuln wrote: post #28
jackphilson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this just generalizes to the recurring problem of individualism vs collectivism. Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here

> Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here Do you have any examples of Government Regulations that are applied efficiently and do not cause harm to any individuals?

I’m not sure where you make the leap to “do not cause harm to any individuals.”

This thread is about managing and reducing harm in places where having “no harm” (whatever that means) isn’t an option.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#38

Post by ncallaway »

vuln wrote: post #28
jackphilson wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this just generalizes to the recurring problem of individualism vs collectivism. Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here

> Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here Do you have any examples of Government Regulations that are applied efficiently and do not cause harm to any individuals?

> and do not cause harm to any individuals

Your bar for a government regulation is really “not a single individual is harmed”? That’s insane, and almost exactly the problem anonporridge was describing.

Almost every government regulation harms someone, in that it almost always is limiting the actions available to someone.

To answer your question: no, there is no such regulation, but it’s not relevant, because I think your metric is atrocious.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#39

Post by hcurtiss »

jackphilson wrote: post #20
anonporridge wrote: post #17

This illustrates a more generic problem with our legal system. When the option for positive action to mitigate a problem exists, we often don't do it because the action creates legal liability for any and all negative externalities of the action, even if the negative externalities as a whole are drastically less than what would happen doing nothing. We resist permitting prescribed burns because when they cause uninte…

And this just generalizes to the recurring problem of individualism vs collectivism. Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here

I don't think that's it. I think it's more a consequence of democracy versus autocracy. An autocracy could make these trade-offs without political consequence. Of course, autocracies come with other profound challenges. Most I think agree that a benevolent dictator produces the best outcomes. The problem is that human benevolence is fickle, and subject to interpretation -- invariably leading to violence.

Re: Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible

#40

Post by steve_adams_86 »

exabrial wrote: post #24

They also destroy invasive species: plants, animals, bugs. Native species evolved long ago to deal with fire. Research has also shown its net carbon negative.

Intuitively I’d guess the carbon is net negative because so many forests require fire in order to differentiate strong, durable trees from weaker ones, which then opens the canopy, returns nutrients to the soil, and creates conditions more like we see in old growth forests which are able to store absolutely massive amounts of carbon compared to young (even very dense) forests.

Not only that but they store water better, too. They’re less likely to burn as they stay wetter later in the dry season and hold onto rain and atmospheric moisture far better.

Cutting down old forests was a much worse idea than anyone would have guessed.

Post reply on HN