Hacker News Reader

Comment by Analemma_ | Hacker News Reader

The air quality index in Seattle is 185 right now, which is unheard of; I could barely see the sun yesterday. Last year there was extreme air pollution due to wildfire smoke for the first time that I can remember, and I thought then maybe it was a anomalous event, but now that it's twice in two years it's probably time to think of this as the new normal.

And as much as I want to blame politicians as an easy target, it's still a democracy and they are ultimately just reflecting the views of the public. The Seattle Times is running stories on the wildfire smoke, and their comment section is depressingly filled to the brim with nonsense like "ACTUALLY this is because the environmentalists clear out underbrush and create more forest fires, CHECKMATE LIBRULZ". We're going to sink under the waves still screaming culture war nonsense with our last breaths.

View on HN

Most scientists agree that the uptick in serious fires in the west is primarily from decades of bad forrest management, not climate change.

Climate change obviously plays a role, but it's not the primary driver.

I think some activist groups and the media are purposefully muddying the water on this issue.

http://mjr.jour.umt.edu/how-journalists-fan-the-flames-of-wi...

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/08/western-washington-smo...

Syonyk aka Russell Graves has an interesting post summarizing the issue: https://syonyk.blogspot.com/2018/08/wildfires-in-western-uni...

(he's not an expert, so take it with a grain of salt)

I agree that from what most scientists are saying, that sounds like the availability of fuel; but could climate change be responsible for the unusually hot and dry conditions?

Climate change is responsible for the increase in temperatures which lead to an increase in lightening. Climate change is also responsible for the wet conditions in the spring creating additional fuel later in the summer.

Even if it's not the primary cause, this is a highly visible, concrete set of events that can be pointed at to increase awareness.

I don't condone dishonesty or propaganda, but using these events to help point out that a) climate change is really happening, b) it's not just a few extra hot days during the summer, seems perfectly okay.

> Climate change obviously plays a role...

FWIW, here in BC the 3 summers that we had fires coincided with the record beating heat.

The idea that it's the "environmentalists' fault" is backwards though. Wildfires were poorly understood earlier in the century and it made sense to suppress them all. Environmentalists were advocating since the 20's for allowing controlled natural fires. It wasn't until some bad fires in the 80's when proper policies were finally put into place.

The consequences of bad forest management from earlier decades will still play out for a while longer, but now that the correct policies are in place, it will cease to become an excuse, while the consequences of climate change are only going to worsen. Forests have been increasingly drier and hotter. Logging activity has cut down the most fire resistant trees and replaced it with flammable young ones. Trump suggests to increase logging and blame the liberals. When politicians blame forest management from a century ago, it is an argument in bad faith, as a way to ignore the myriad impacts of climate change. We should be constantly improving our forest management, yes, but it's something already being worked on, while there is so much resistance to policies to reduce climate change.

There is a large domestic disinformation machine in the US. The disinformation media has for decades used identity politics to get Americans to vote for policies that benefit the 0.01%. Nowhere is this clearer than with climate change.

In my experience, many of those in the disinformation bubble have no idea that climate change denial benefits oil and gas companies and is heavily funded by them.

If you’re interested in disinformation and how it affects climate change policy, the book and movie Merchants of Doubt is really great- it explains some of the strategies used.

>still a democracy and they are ultimately just reflecting the views of the public

Seems more like a reflection of the views of corporations than the public

The problem, as you pointed out, is that it has nothing to do with thinking and everything to do with hating.

You could give conservatives great environmental solutions for free, and they'd still reject them, because they know liberals would like it. They hate wind power, hate solar power, and it's got nothing to do with economics. Yet they like nuclear power. Why? Hippies don't like it.

And I don't think the politicians are close to blameless. They've cultivated this for 25 years. They're not just reflecting the will of the people, they're shaping it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com