Mother Jones. Who woulda thunk it?
Wow this from Mother Jones
I think a key part of the problem is that the Left does really want this problem solved. They may see megafires as a solution. For them, the problem is that evil humans live in natural places and spoil the wonder of Mother Gaia. The megafires may drive humans out of the wilderness and into big city high-rises where they can be controlled more easily. De-populating much of the earth is a Leftist goal.
The Sacramento Bee published an article about kalifornia being bullied by the enviroNazis (they didn't word it exactly like that, but that's the gist) and said that the Nazis would rather see 1,000 acres destroyed from natural causes (fire from lightening) than to see even 1 acre "destroyed" by man clearing out secondary growth/tinder.
And every fire season ("Yes, Myrtle, kalifornia has a 'fire' season."), kalifornians get to reap what the Nazis sow.
Throughout the history of earth forest fires have burned and extinguish themselves naturally... Until the 20th century when smokey the bear came along and men needing work who had none during the dirty 30s needed a job... One genius way to employ them was hiring them as forest fire fighters... Altering that natural function will always lead to some kind of consequence. Naturally occurring fires cleanse the forest of dead and rotting wood... Without them, that dead and rotting wood dries up and actually creates more fires over time.
Horse$hit is MJ’s stock in trade.
This is an interesting and pretty intelligent article if you remove the consideration of Carbon Emissions and Global Warming. Still, it appeals to the Global Warming Radicals to take responsible action. So maybe the argument is cleverly designed to get support to actually go back to managing the forests through logging and thinning the growth and debris.
Their argument seems to be, overall, that not investing carbon emissions and money in logging and controlled burns causes MORE carbon emissions and global warming than doing nothing in the forests.
Flawed as the Carbon Emissions component of the argument might be, it does argue for the same solutions that more rational conservative and intelligent citizens would. Logging and lumber companies would manage the forests for free as they can profit from it by selling the lumber they remove.
This is a bunch of crap.
UNLESS the story was written at the time of the National Fire Plan (2000), or as a prelude to everything that has been done SINCE THEN. Burned Area Rehabilitation and Restoration, Community Assistance, Suppress Wildfires (according to Pre-Plans), and Reduce Risk through coordinated Reduction of accumulated Hazardous Fuels (which is the result of 100 years of mis-management)
Thirty-three uses of the word ‘carbon’.
But at community college, she learned that Native Americans used fire for thousands of years...”
It’s helpful that it was the Gentle Sons of the Forest and not the stupid evil Honky who started this or it would have no hope of being prescribed. ..
I stopped here.
For more than a century, people have been snuffing out fire across the West. As a result, forests, grasslands and shrub lands like those in the Bouverie reserve are overgrown. That means that, when fire escapes suppression, it’s more destructive. It kills more trees, torches more homes and sends far more carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. >>>>>>>>>
Why do they not mention that billions f federal dollars in federal money over the last hundrfed years have been mismanaged by California, who did not spend that money on forest management that would take the place of forest firs and brush fires...its called brush clearing. The federal national forests do that on an annual basis in a continuous operation by season.
Whence California? They missed the boat, like most liberals and leftists do when it comes to spending wisely.
See:
California failed to sufficiently manage its forests
11/15/18 06:30 PM EST
This Mother Jones article is just another lefty hit piece designed to keep blame from resting where it should.Propaganda which will lead to a continuing failure to address the problem. California will continue to burn annually until proper forest management is done.
They don't seem to get that the trees absorb the "greenhouse gas," CO2. That's good for the trees, and mitigates their feared gas. So now they are finding that the trees are full of stored carbon (from the CO2), but don't get the connection. They do now though seem to realize that a big forest fire releases more carbon into the atmosphere than is acceptable.
Perhaps California should be charged billions for Carbon Credits to offset the needless mega fires their envirowhacko policies have enabled.
This article makes it sound like radical new approaches are necessary. Not True! Go visit the Grand Canyon National Park and view their program on land management and fire control. They understand the steps necessary and carry them out efficiently. In California the land management regulations could best be titled as “Feed the Fire”.
Thank G@d they mentioned carbon and climate change.