Posted on 01/11/2025 2:23:00 AM PST by EBH
The debate surrounding climate change has taken on increasingly urgent tones over the past few decades. The rising frequency of extreme weather events, from devastating wildfires to catastrophic floods and hurricanes, has provided ample fodder for the passionate advocates who tirelessly warn of the impending dangers.
These individuals frequently advocate for drastic shifts in policy, economic systems, and behaviors to mitigate the impact of climate change. Their warnings, which have permeated global discourse, are both compelling and dire.
However, a key question arises when one juxtaposes these dire predictions with certain policy decisions made by the very same individuals and groups advocating for climate action. If climate change is truly the existential threat that it is portrayed to be, why are we seeing cuts to critical preparedness measures—specifically those that directly address the growing risks of wildfires? How can those who frequently caution against the catastrophic impacts of a warming planet justify slashing the budget lines meant to protect communities from the very disasters they claim are becoming more frequent and severe?
In simple terms, there is a glaring contradiction. If climate change is indeed fueling a rise in the frequency and intensity of wildfires, as many experts assert, then fire prevention and mitigation should be among the highest priorities in our policy agenda. And yet, we are witnessing cuts to vital fire protection funding at local, state, and federal levels. If the advocates for climate action are correct in their assessment of the warming world, it stands to reason that funding for fire prevention measures—such as forest management, firebreak construction, and emergency response—should be increased, not reduced.
This contradiction cannot be ignored, and it raises a critical question of competence and accountability. How can we trust the same individuals who insist on drastic action to combat climate change to also make prudent, effective decisions regarding disaster preparedness? If climate change is as threatening as many claim, cutting fire protection budgets seems not only contradictory but irresponsible.
The argument that resources are finite and must be allocated carefully is valid, but it rings hollow when one considers that the very policy advocates warning about climate change are also the ones making the decisions that undermine fire preparedness. When climate change ideologues lecture the public on the need to brace for more extreme weather events, they must confront their own failures to invest in the systems that would mitigate these dangers.
There is no excuse for this inconsistency. It is not enough to call for global efforts to address climate change while simultaneously neglecting the practical needs of communities already on the front lines of its impacts. If we are to take the warnings of climate change advocates seriously, they must demonstrate leadership by ensuring that budgets reflect the scale of the challenges ahead. That means funding fire protection efforts, not cutting them.
Ultimately, consistency is key. If we are truly in the midst of a climate crisis, as so many have argued, then addressing the specific hazards that result from it—such as wildfires—should be a non-negotiable priority. The continued failure to align policy with this basic reality erodes public trust and undermines the credibility of climate change advocates, leaving us to wonder: If they cannot plan for the consequences of climate change now, how can we trust them to act in the future?
If the dems solve the problem, there is no reason to continue to hire them.
The stinking water management woman is raking in $750,000 a year 3x what the POTUS is paid OMG!!!
It is meant to challenge the thinking of liberal leftists.
why the budget cuts
why the empty reservoirs
lots of why questions need to be answered in their own little world of Climate Change. Everything coming out right now about this failed response to the LA wildfires points right back to total mismanagement on a normal level, not consider their own precious Climate Change agenda in that process and ask...why did they do the exact opposite of what needed to be done? And frankly, at an even more urgent level than what a Normalcy Norman would do.
That is a scope of failure that is unconscionable under their own agenda.
“The rising frequency of extreme weather events, from devastating wildfires to catastrophic floods and hurricanes...”
No need to dive in more into this horse manure.
Amazing.
Once the last word is said …… the environmentally-ill will be responsible therefore all will be denied.
Great article! This creates an excellent response to lefties arguing that, as expected, “climate change” is leading to extreme weather events.
It also raises the specter of self-fulfilling prophesies. They say climate change causes wildfires, but then they cut the fire prevention budget, and then point to the ensuing extreme fires as “proof” they are correct about climate change.
Democrats are irresponsible on a grand scale, at all levels of government.
Let us remember, the natives who lived in this area moved from the mountains to the beaches 3, 4, or even 500 years ago. Climate change? I think not.
Great points!
Good thinking, well written.
are both compelling and dire.
No. No they are not.
You assume that their “climat change” hokum is real and then you point out the hypocrisy in their funding goals and objectives.
We have spent trillions in adressing this phantom and it needs to just stop.
All funding and efforts directed towards climate change should be frozen world wide, and then redirected to a new challenge, one of a more immediate practical necessity.
This new challenge is to come up with a method of describing, in concise terms and with great precision, focusing on cause and effect, empirical data and timelines of events, just how stupid the democrats and their globalist puppetmasters are.
—that of describing in as concise terms as possible just how stupid the democrats, communists and all globalists
Fire Preparedness:An EV in every garage, before the Palisades Fire.
these criminals feel more comfortable
losing all water,
handing out gasoline and get-out-of-jail cards to terrorists,
stopping all fire insurance,
and enjoying the fire atrocity from a foreign country.
The climate change activists are just like the zero covidians. They have no plans, just orders as to what they think should be done. When their orders backfire, they run to hills to regroup.
There is NO climate crisis. Hurricane’s haven’t gotten more powerful or more frequent. Total BS.
Is it getting warmer? Seems to be but like anything it’s cyclic. Antarctic has a far larger ice shelf than 10 years ago.https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2021/04/14/nasa-study-excess-of-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-over-mass-losses-during-1992-to-2008-eliminated-by-increasing-dynamic-losses-to-2016/
There’s no increase in remote wildfires either but man made wildfires are increasing...arsonist and dumb ass people are the main problem. Then there’s power lines and other engineering disasters causing problems.
So no climate crisis jus idiots causing problems.
We cannot change climate!
Climate changes itself, and getting warmer or having more lifegiving CO2 in the atmosphere are not bad things!
But we can prepare and adjust for the change!
Scientific forest management and fire preparedness are significant part of this process.
I was trying to write it from their own narrative, their point of view, not ours. We can’t seem to hold them accountable to our common sense solutions. So what would happen if we turned the tables on them and started holding them accountable to their own narratives. These LA wildfires are a good example for a way to do that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.