Norcal fires.

[DirkG]

I know China has been putting out tremendous amounts of CO2. India as well. But the answers there are also political. It's going to include massive amounts of industrial change in manufacturing and shipping. And trump just doesn't care about this issue particularly with all the rolling back of policy he has done.

I appreciate your response as informative as I enjoy good dialogue without the internet childishness. And I do agree that Trump hasn't done the environment any favors; his approach to the environment and his thick-skinned bedside manner are two of his demerits.

I think your statement is spot-on, "massive amounts of industrial change in manufacturing and shipping" are needed - we know China is not going to change and as a result, the US probably won't either. Not sure if you're old enough to remember the arms race with the USSR (I'm in my 40s), but the US is now actively waged in an economic race / trade war with China.

The environmental change will need to happen on the ground floor. I think the electrification of daily transit is the next step. Electric vehicles, electric GPS-guided drones, and mass acceptance of companies allowing their desktop workforce to telecommute will have a positive effect on CO2 pollution. "Electric GPS-guided drones" means Fedex, UPS, USPS, etc. deliveries as well as Uber-eats, Grubhub, etc. activities will be electric. We have to start on the ground floor of day-to-day and work upwards.

Sponsored

 

[RedTRex]

LOL. Yeah no. Half the US is on fire right now, and a huge chunk of these are in national forests.

If anything it's driven by conservatives refusing to take emissions and global warming seriously. Once we finally got something close to the right path it gets undercut and thrown away by trump.

We have more and larger droughts, higher temperatures, bark beetles don't die off in the winter, wider spread death of trees from the beetles and droughts, etc.

The increase in fires over the past decades directly coincides with increasing CO2 output that drives all of this. Now throw extra fires into the mix and it accelerates it even more.

And you bucketized me too. I was merely implying that the PRC brought it upon itself due to policy.

There's a hole in the bucket dear liza.....

 

[j.o.y.ride]

And you bucketized me too. I was merely implying that the PRC brought it upon itself due to policy.

There's a hole in the bucket dear liza.....

Again. It's the politicians making decisions about emissions standards of, in particular industry. It's not my conservative friends making these choices but the politicians being elected with the business first mentality is behind it. I'm not saying the local reader has caused it, except insofar as electing these people who will let profits rule over the earth.

 

[FLGladiator]

LOL. Yeah no. Half the US is on fire right now, and a huge chunk of these are in national forests.

If anything it's driven by conservatives refusing to take emissions and global warming seriously. Once we finally got something close to the right path it gets undercut and thrown away by trump.

We have more and larger droughts, higher temperatures, bark beetles don't die off in the winter, wider spread death of trees from the beetles and droughts, etc.

The increase in fires over the past decades directly coincides with increasing CO2 output that drives all of this. Now throw extra fires into the mix and it accelerates it even more.

[QUOTE="j.o.y.ride, post: 563572, member: 30619"

If anything it's driven by conservatives refusing to take emissions and global warming seriously.

I’m sorry, do you have a Gladiator that has better emissions than the rest of us?
[/QUOTE]
Climate nuts want to cull all dogs. That is all.

 

[j.o.y.ride]

I’m sorry, do you have a Gladiator that has better emissions than the rest of us?

Climate nuts want to cull all dogs. That is all.

I do. And it gets absolutely horrible mileage. And it's inconsequential compared to what industry and shipping does, and it's now even less consequential to what the fires that have been exploding around the world as a result of the climate change are causing. A single electron in Liza's bucket if you will.

I can change my truck for a prius, it will change nothing when the stroke of a pen can produce billions of tons of carbon a year in the pursuit of profits.

It was 111* at my kids baseball game this past weekend. That's Vegas heat, in SF Bay Area. It's only going to get worse. I guess at least until there's no more trees left to burn in CA and it looks like Vegas.

 

[RedTRex]

Again. It's the politicians making decisions about emissions standards of, in particular industry. It's not my conservative friends making these choices but the politicians being elected with the business first mentality is behind it. I'm not saying the local reader has caused it, except insofar as electing these people who will let profits rule over the earth.

I concur.

 

[j.o.y.ride]

Personally while I of course wish it didn't happen I am grateful for the experience to witness it. It's a very unique situation particularly since we had clean ground air so we could be out and about in it.

Today the air is just gross.

 

[ShadowsPapa]

Notice the irony. On the left "restrictions on logging have allowed forests to accumulate an overload of vegetation" according to scientists (and the NYT) and it's ok when scientists say it - but it's bad if a certain other person suggests it.
That's my beef - good earlier, bad now. I see it over and over.
I was taught by conservationists in Alaska WHY quite often Alaska allows things to burn.
Scientists years ago warned of these fires in CA and if you care to dig, you can find that info.

Even Australia has problems because the Aboriginals BURNED to keep the large uncontrollable fires from happening.
The "only you can prevent forest fires" turned into "we are causing worse fires".

This is not political - it's science.
But some refuse to believe that sometimes you must allow burn to prevent being burned. There are articles out there about keeping the forest floors cleaned out.

 

[j.o.y.ride]

Notice the irony. On the left "restrictions on logging have allowed forests to accumulate an overload of vegetation" according to scientists (and the NYT) and it's ok when scientists say it - but it's bad if a certain other person suggests it.
That's my beef - good earlier, bad now. I see it over and over.
I was taught by conservationists in Alaska WHY quite often Alaska allows things to burn.
Scientists years ago warned of these fires in CA and if you care to dig, you can find that info.

Even Australia has problems because the Aboriginals BURNED to keep the large uncontrollable fires from happening.
The "only you can prevent forest fires" turned into "we are causing worse fires".

This is not political - it's science.
But some refuse to believe that sometimes you must allow burn to prevent being burned. There are articles out there about keeping the forest floors cleaned out.

The difference is trees that are already dead being removed vs living trees being removed. That should have been obvious in the title "100,000,000 DEAD trees".

Removing dead trees is not logging. Logging has been shown to lead to worse fires.

"Left not allowing logging" is not the issue here. Those trees died largely likely due to climate change, be it drought or pine bark beetles. I was in Oakhurst for a week about 6 weeks ago, right next to the massive Creek fire is now. You could see entire hillsides of dead gray trees from pine bark beetles. That isn't lack of logging, that's climate change. They should die off in the winter and they aren't.

And fires are not only in CA. They are in every western state that has large forests or grass plains, they are in Australia, they are in South America. The biggest fires ever in North America were in Canada where they do plenty of logging. The biggest fires in US were in Idaho and Montana.

The 'left wing not logging' as the cause is nothing more than the same old trope from the right wing. It's an excuse to log the forests for profit even though logging has been demonstrated to cause worse fires. Create a false narrative around the cause, use it for profit, make the issue worse, use it for more profit. Race to the bottom.

I suggest you read The Lorax. Very fitting to this.

The two headlines are actually aligned if you read them with a neutral position.

Not surprised to hear these being passed around right wing sites and circles, because all it takes is a little thought to understand why it's a false narrative.

And this is a perfect example of the issue in America today. Little thought, all reaction and meme posting.

 

[Chance_P]

I can change my truck for a prius, it will change nothing when the stroke of a pen can produce billions of tons of carbon a year in the pursuit of profits.

If you don't see the hypocrisy...


Virtue signaling at its finest.

 

[j.o.y.ride]

If you don't see the hypocrisy...

Virtue signaling at its finest.

Lol. A rabbit hole of virtue. I should probably go 100% solar off the grid and drive a Tesla and run my home 100% on batteries. Otherwise... hypocrisy. God forbid I don't do all that. Lol.

 

[j.o.y.ride]

A large number of these fires are burning in national forests. But it doesn't fit the fright wing narrative of 'left wing doesn't allow logging' so it's ignored.

Most of the green around NorCal and EasternCal is National Forest. But never mind that tidbit because the fright wing is trying to sell the false narrative of 'lack of logging' which would actually make these worse, but make some profit for a few donors.

There's a video clip of a 30 year fire veteran saying a lot of the forest fire fighting efforts revolve around saving timber runs. Save some privately owned trees as a priority.



He is talking about dozer lines but he talks about choices to save private timber stands, about extreme dryness (aka climate change)

But hey... trump says it's poor timber management that's the issue here, so let's cut trees down (and make the issue actually worse) and blame the left.

Classic slight of hand for profit.

A LOT of these fires burn in national forests where the 'left won't let us log' narrative dies out. There's been enough republican administrations to remedy this "left wing problem" that it should no longer be an issue... if that truly were the cause. But hey... it's trump in there now, it's a left leaning state, and we know all about California fires from flyover country. Because we read a meme on a right wing site.

 

[j.o.y.ride]

In fact the largest fire ever in CA history is now burning in National Forest land. On top of all the other National Forest fires

So please, go on and tell me from flyover states that the issue is "left not logging" when it's been trump's land for 4 years and plenty of fright wing presidents before. Sure you can find a meme to support it.

Everyone here should be concerned because ones burning close to Rubicon Trail right now. Also National Forest.

 

[DirkG]

So please, go on and tell me from flyover states that the issue is "left not logging" when it's been trump's land for 4 years and plenty of fright wing presidents before. Sure you can find a meme to support it.

Joyride, I understand your aggregate viewpoint, but I'm struggling on how California's wildfires are a result from Trump's policy. As you know, CA has held separate CAFE standards and has the strictest corporate environmental protocols in the country. So I'm assuming you mean his policies' effect on the US as a whole.

However, during Obama's administration, 2009 - 2017, the United States experienced the most acres burned via wildfires in its history (2015 and 2017). See the graph below.

So then the argument could be: Obama inherited the dry landscape created by the President Bush years (2001 - 2009). If that's the case, then the obvious follow-up is that Trump inherited the Obama landscape.

source: Facts + Statistics

 

[j.o.y.ride]

Joyride, I understand your aggregate viewpoint, but I'm struggling on how California's wildfires are a result from Trump's policy. As you know, CA has held separate CAFE standards and has the strictest corporate environmental protocols in the country. So I'm assuming you mean his policies' effect on the US as a whole.

However, during Obama's administration, 2009 - 2017, the United States experienced the most acres burned via wildfires in its history (2015 and 2017). See the graph below.

So then the argument could be: Obama inherited the dry landscape created by the President Bush years (2001 - 2009). If that's the case, then the obvious follow-up is that Trump inherited the Obama landscape.

source: Facts + Statistics

The grump angle is just to prove a point that the forests these fires are largely burning in have been his for 4 years now. If he's going to claim mismanagement, what has he done? Even to clear out the dead trees?

They all inherited their predecessors landscape. The difference is Obama tried to do something about climate change which is the penultimate cause here. It could have been more, but grump went and derailed it all.

So to see grump derail any climate progress, roll back emissions standards, not engage in a world discussion... And then proclaim the issue is the left? Well then that's it, discussion over, because grump has done enough to derail any progress and done nothing to cure this lack of logging he thinks would solve it (it wouldn't).

While other presidents could have done more to save the forests, none have done more to ensure their destruction than grump.

Sponsored