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

71–80 of 241 posts

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

#71

Post by Analemma_ »

ncallaway wrote: post #47
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…

I think this is a good diagnosis of some of our issues, but it’s a really hard problem. When we go the other way, and allow actions that harm people, we have an unfortunate tendency to allow those harms to fall… extremely disproportionately on those with the least burden to bear the harms and the least power to be compensated for those harms. I think, as the other poster noted it really comes down to the individualis…

> When we go the other way, and allow actions that harm people, we have an unfortunate tendency to allow those harms to fall… extremely disproportionately on those with the least burden to bear the harms and the least power to be compensated for those harms.

I don't think this is true, or at least it is nonobvious. Are prescribed-burns-gone-wrong more likely to harm the most vulnerable, as compared to unprescribed burns? If not, then this objection doesn't really apply.

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

#72

Post by atomize »

All controlled burns have to happen with government regulation for obvious reasons. Fire ecology and the legislation that regulates it in practice (read: research and it's influence on controlled burn methods) revolves mainly around constant disputes between agriculture and conservation efforts. This even winds all the way down to the age-old dispute about grazing cattle on public lands out west. Grazing on public lands leads to a reduction of fuel for natural wildfires in heavily grazed areas, leading to an imbalance in the natural fire cycle, causing the need to do controlled burns in the interest of human habitat and the economy rather than ecology. This ultimately causes a disruption is various parts of the ecosystem. In the high desert of Nevada, California, and other fire prone states that also are the home of agriculture that depends on grazing livestock, this issue is hot, no pun intended, and there is a constant dialogue going on between regulators and scientists researching land management methods in habitat where wildfire is not only necessary, but essential.

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

#73

Post by riskable »

Curvature5868 wrote: post #60
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…

A viable solution might be the creation of an insurance fund to compensate for any unintended damage caused by prescribed burns. This fund, funded by utility companies especially those in wildfire-prone areas, would function similarly to banks' contributions to the FDIC. This could alleviate liability concerns, thereby encouraging proactive wildfire prevention strategies.

This is a good idea but it doesn't address the pollution problem. If a prescribed burn will increase pollution beyond the EPA's acceptable limits then the burn will be against the law.

We need the EPA's emissions/particulate rules to be adjusted to give priority to prescribed burns by certified firefighters and foresters. They don't do burns often enough that the EPA should be limiting their power to manage fire susceptibility. We also need watchdogs to make sure that regular polluters don't increase output during prescribed burns in order to hide their actual emissions.

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

#74

Post by ummonk »

cbsmith wrote: post #59
ummonk wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another example is how many people advocated for (and how many countries essentially adopted) letting covid spread throughout the population (either like wildfire or via "flatten the curve") to get natural herd immunity because letting a poorly understood (but known to be quite deadly) virus spread through the population was doable but giving out vaccines that hadn't been through phase 2 trials wasn't.

That's not entirely accurate. The case for letting covid spread hinges on whether you have the medical infrastructure to manage the pandemic. If you can handle a "more than flu season" chunk of your population needing medical care then there's no real pandemic threat. Unfortunately, many countries in the developed world reduced the size of their medical infrastructure because they could rely on flu vaccines to minimi…

> The thing is, vaccines that haven't been through phase 2 trials can potentially make a pandemic worse. That's why you have to wait for them to resolve.

You can do challenge trials. Especially if you're going to let the virus spread through the population anyway.

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

#75

Post by hammock »

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…

We can start by evaluating and updating regulations, improving training and safety protocols, engaging with local communities, and increasing public awareness about the benefits and risks associated with controlled burns.

The goal is to enable the use of controlled burns as a valuable tool for land management and wildfire prevention while adequately addressing concerns related to potential negative externalities.

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

#76

Post by evo »

Analemma_ wrote: post #71
ncallaway wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a good diagnosis of some of our issues, but it’s a really hard problem. When we go the other way, and allow actions that harm people, we have an unfortunate tendency to allow those harms to fall… extremely disproportionately on those with the least burden to bear the harms and the least power to be compensated for those harms. I think, as the other poster noted it really comes down to the individualis…

> When we go the other way, and allow actions that harm people, we have an unfortunate tendency to allow those harms to fall… extremely disproportionately on those with the least burden to bear the harms and the least power to be compensated for those harms. I don't think this is true, or at least it is nonobvious. Are prescribed-burns-gone-wrong more likely to harm the most vulnerable, as compared to unprescribed bu…

I suspect that they would, if for no other reason that if the direct action is indiscriminate in whom it harms, then the well-heeled will have the resources necessary to seek compensation via litigation while the marginalized will be out of luck.

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

#77

Post by dllthomas »

derefr wrote: post #70
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…

The medical analogy here is the DNR order. Doctors don't want to create liability by explicitly assisting in a patient's death, even of someone in a vegetative state. So instead, they avoid this liability while still "accomplishing death", by following an order to intentionally avoid explicitly reversing any sudden "act of god" event that would cause the patient to die without active intervention. Or, to put that ano…

> why not just build (and maintain) the firebreaks, wait for a wildfire to happen inside the burn zone, and then just refuse to put it out?

Per my understanding, part of performing a controlled burn is mustering more resources near the burn (spatially and temporally) than you could reasonably maintain near every possible burn site all the time.

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

#78

Post by shagie »

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…

https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/science-research/2021-...

> Heather Heward is a senior instructor at the University of Idaho who teaches about forests and fires. She said it’s not just federal land we need to be thinning and burning, it’s private land, too.

> “We have a real lack of (prescribed burn) practitioners, specifically on the private land side, that are able to do this work because – we're scared, honestly. We are scared that something will go wrong and that someone will sue us. I'm scared of that,” she said.

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

#80

Post by wcarron »

Here in Flagstaff and NAZ we've been getting hit hard by huge wildfires. The amount of fuel in these forests is mindblowing, and terrain is often a big challenge, too.

Luckily, we had a heavy monsoon season last year and a brutal winter. So much water that roads/levees have broken and lakes that are normally dry beds were overflowing. This has abated the normally horrible winds of April/May. This wet and abnormally calm weather has allowed for some action and I'm beyond pleased to have seen numerous prescribed burns in the forests around town this year. I really hope they can keep it up and treat a few thousand more acres before conditions turn.

The forest service seems like it does a good job here with fuel and flood management. There are still pockets of land that are wayyyy overladen/undertreated but much of the area, especially near town has been treated with thinning and slash and burn piles.

Unfortunately, the logging industry here is deteriorating and one of the longest-running operators closed shop. A few factors contributed to this, including the failure to open an OSB plant in Winslow, and the closure of a local mill just before the turn of the millenium. A damn shame, as logging ops really bolster the ability of the FS to manage fires.

Post reply on HN