Controlled burns can prevent wildfires; regulations make them nearly impossible • Hacker News Board

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

#81

Post by username7282919 » Wed, May 17, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

lazide wrote: post #57

anonporridge wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this does hit something. There's a reason by China is having no problem rolling out high speed rail across the entire country on the order of a decade while California can't even roll out a single line in the same time. China can just bulldoze entire villages while the little people have no recourse to resist. That power is incredibly useful for getting things done, but the big problem of succession makes tha…

1) it’s all good until you’re one of the ‘little people’ 2) succession/plan B is always the problem with dictators/dictatorships. If you’re lucky, the interests of those in power are genuinely aligned with your best interests and they’re competent - (Singapore/PAP, at least historically), but nothing lasts forever.

Most people in China actually want to be one of the “little people”. They get compensated way more than what they could make in their lifetime.

Doing the same in California would be 10-100x more expensive though, people are just cheaper there.

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

#82

Post by somenameforme » Wed, May 17, 2023, 5:30 PM UTC

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…

In general I'd be in agreement with you, but I think this is one case where the typical argument is quite clearly true. I've lived in regions with slash and burn agriculture, which uses seasonal controlled burns. It is horrible. Air quality levels spike into the hundreds for a period of weeks to months, depending on the specifics of the season. It's difficult to tolerate in my hoity toity life with indoor work, air conditioning, and multiple air purifiers [barely] managing to keep the air breathable.

At the same time this is happening, there are countless people working outdoors or in other sorts of conditions where they don't have such luxuries. And the cost is masked because, somewhat like smoking, many of the consequences happen over many years if not decades. And even when you do hit a climax, it may be argued that the bad air contributed, but did not provably cause, e.g. some cardiovascular event.

Of course, if you don't burn - then a lightning strike, or a firebug, means you're going to really burn. Clearly we need an army of sheep. Gah, then people would complain about the methane and massive marbled mutton fests. Cripes things are tricky.

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

#83

Post by robohoe » Wed, May 17, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #68

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…

While you're not wrong, the issue from the article is about a local issue, not necessarily with the legal system. In some places, proscribed burns are routine. Just not in the place that the article is about. Heck, the Chicago Parks District does proscribed burns in Lincoln Park, which is a very urban location.

Yep. We have them outside of Chicago in IL as well. Pretty common to see them happen every year around here.

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

#84

Post by ROTMetro » Wed, May 17, 2023, 5:31 PM UTC

riskable wrote: post #73

Curvature5868 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 susc…

Being the devil's advocate, when my mother was dying of cancer there were forest fires here. She had to leave the area and stay at a hotel far away at great cost/physical discomfort (at that point she had a hospital bed at home). There are people who physically can't handle the higher particulate amount, what do you propose we do with them? Let them suffer/die?

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

#85

Post by allemagne » Wed, May 17, 2023, 5:33 PM UTC

hcurtiss wrote: post #39

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

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.

>The problem is that human benevolence is fickle, and subject to interpretation

Basically, the "benevolent" half of the "benevolent dictatorship" is a long-shot at best and a total fantasy at worst. I think this is well-understood by reasonable people, but I'd also argue that "dictatorship" in this context is even more of a fantasy.

>An autocracy could make these trade-offs without political consequence

See, I don't think this is true at all.

Nobody rules alone, every dictator needs enforcers, those enforcers need enforcers, all the way down, and suddenly the well-oiled autocracy that can cut through red tape like butter looks more and more like it requires an endless hierarchy of "benevolent" (i.e. compliant) dictators or a bureaucracy overburdened by rules that was supposed to be democracy's great weakness.

Every decision you make as an autocrat is a gamble that your enforcers will carry out your vision faithfully, with a bunch of details you haven't even thought of also accounted for, while maintaining the facade that you are actually all-powerful.

All it takes is a few slip-ups for your underlings to have flexible loyalties, where "of course" you're in charge but maybe next time leave some wiggle-room for an alternative path of implementing your omnipotent decrees.

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

#86

Post by stainablesteel » Wed, May 17, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

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…

yeah there's no nuance allowed in liability

kids grow up without taking enough risks and it affects their brain development

we've sacrificed healthy risks for unhealthy fear

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

#87

Post by exabrial » Wed, May 17, 2023, 5:35 PM UTC

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #40

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 bette…

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

It's species dependent.. Cutting down trees that take 250 years to mature probably isn't sustainable for example.

However, logging can be a carbon negative practice if done with correct practices and the correct species. You're literally taking the mass of the air and turning it into a useful building material.

I'll try to find a source

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

#88

Post by sosodev » Wed, May 17, 2023, 5:35 PM UTC

fwungy wrote: post #33

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.

Living in Southern California is frustrating in that way. It's obvious that the plants here are adapted for regular fires. The native people of this area knew the importance of controlled burns and had incorporated them into their tradition. They likely were doing controlled burns for thousands of years before their lives were disrupted.

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

#89

Post by anonymouskimmer » Wed, May 17, 2023, 5:36 PM UTC

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 assuming that taxes, fees, and other standardized costs are not considered harm, as well as other such incidental costs, otherwise no, nothing can be done by anyone that does not cause harm to someone else at the margin.

Mandating that the US postal service deliver to every address at a single price. This results in an efficient single price, efficiencies of scale that private carriers don't even have, and does not harm anyone outside of the externalities that would already exist for mail delivery regardless of who was doing the delivering.

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

#90

Post by vkou » Wed, May 17, 2023, 5:37 PM UTC

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 don't think this is true, or at least it is nonobvious.

Texas capped medical malpractice damages, because surely, all the frivilous lawsuits were the reason for driving up medical costs. This resulted in gems like this guy maiming dozens of people[1].

You couldn't sue him, because lawyers aren't going to front their own money to take on a case like this, when the likely awards will exceed legal costs. Hospitals wouldn't fire him, because he'd sue them, and because they get a share of the business he brings in. Other surgeons couldn't pooh-pooh him, because he'd sue them.

Presumably, if he maimed someone who had enough out-of-pocket money to pay a lawyer, and then vindictively pursue litigation against him, this could have been resolved earlier. That's a lot of 'if's. In practice, he just... Kept on maiming people, shielded by protection from financial liability.

[1] https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/novem...