41–50 of 51 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that we don't allow stuff to burn naturally, so the answer is we should mess with nature even more . Amazing how humans just can't let anything alone. In 100 years the whole planet will just be one giant bonsai.
We often can't, without displacing humans and damaging property.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that we don't allow stuff to burn naturally, so the answer is we should mess with nature even more . Amazing how humans just can't let anything alone. In 100 years the whole planet will just be one giant bonsai.
Are you suggesting we depopulate the westen US then?
I'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…
Fire is a natural part of the forest lifecycle. We shouldn't try to end it, we should build our housing and infrastructure to minimize the effects of fire on us.
Apart from ecosystems with Eucalyptus trees, I can't think of another environment where fire is a natural part of the forest lifecycle.
Such a beautiful article and really covers the root of the issue. I know we skim a lot of articles but this one really deserves to be read in full. The issue being that natural fires have been suppressed for so long that when they do burn there is so much fuel available that they get way hotter than is natural and end up sterilizing the soil so nothing grows for years. Prescribed burns and thinning are the answer to…
The problem is that we don't allow stuff to burn naturally, so the answer is we should mess with nature even more . Amazing how humans just can't let anything alone. In 100 years the whole planet will just be one giant bonsai.
I guarantee every chart of wildfires you'll see on a major news site will begin after 1960. Typically they want to push the narrative that climate change is causing wildfires when in fact wildfires have everything to do with forest management and nothing to do with climate change. They are of course also ignoring the fact that climate models predict a _wetter_ planet, not a drier one, if current trends continue.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We often can't, without displacing humans and damaging property.
So you're saying that protecting property is more important than a sensible fire policy?
Such a beautiful article and really covers the root of the issue. I know we skim a lot of articles but this one really deserves to be read in full. The issue being that natural fires have been suppressed for so long that when they do burn there is so much fuel available that they get way hotter than is natural and end up sterilizing the soil so nothing grows for years. Prescribed burns and thinning are the answer to…
The problem is that we don't allow stuff to burn naturally, so the answer is we should mess with nature even more . Amazing how humans just can't let anything alone. In 100 years the whole planet will just be one giant bonsai.
