Hacker News Reader

Comment by cubictoaster | Hacker News Reader

I don't get why we talk about forest management as if it's the main culprit for what's going on right now.

Don't y'all remember between 2012 and 2017 the west coast went through a MASSIVE DROUGHT? Are Californians really this forgetful?

The constant dry heat waves killing off large swaths of our forests is the thing that is now providing the tinder for our massive fires. Other states like Washington, Oregon, and Idaho are experiencing the same thing. It's not just California.

I've been here a long time and I don't ever remember experiencing smoke smothering our cities for weeks on end until these past few years.

Calling out forest management like it's some sort of magic bullet is kind of like telling individuals to stop using straws to clean up ocean waste.

Sure, it might help a little but it doesn't really solve the root cause systemic issue: Climate Change.

View on HN

It is estimated that 3 mil acres burned in 2020 so far. But before the Golden Rush that number is estimated to be 4.5 mil of acres per year. We need better forest management which means more controlled burns.

Climate change is not the root cause here, it is an amplifier. Which means we need to plan for the effects of climate change too. And the only hope to slow climate change is a global effort, or at the very least on a country level. California closes nuclear power plants earlier than expected and then LA county buys 18% of its electricity from Utah generated on coal plants.

I don't get it. While I wasn't alive in the period immediately following the gold rush, I've been here over 40 years and I don't ever remember fires blanketing our entire state in smoke for extended periods of time until recently.

Did we just get lucky somehow between the Gold Rush and 2018?

I agree w/ you on global effort for climate change. Hopefully we can get started on a National level soon.

Yes. There have been periods of decades where the East Coast was basically uninhabitable. There is a reason why civilization was just barely in the megalithic in America when Columbus arrived.

>> I've been here over 40 years and I don't ever remember fires blanketing our entire state in smoke for extended periods of time until recently.

This stuff was not uncommon over the hundreds of years of this country's history. As other commenters have mentioned, it's lasted for decades in the American East, West, and particularly Midwest.

Climate change is an issue, but saying this stuff never happens and (presumably human-led) climate change is the sole reason is not really likely to be true.

Can you point me to your source for the last time 3.1M acres of land burned in California in the span of a month?

no we didn’t get lucky. We started fighting fires which used to occur naturally. That leads to accumulation of unhealthy forest growth which eventually burns in a big way (now).

And of course other effects like PG&E not maintaining their grid => unnecessary fires; more people live in forests => more deadly/damaging fires; etc.

As usual, looking at data and scientific consensus will help, I just hope we start doing so sooner, rather than later

Didn't you say we started fighting fires right after the gold rush?

You'd expect maybe after 30 or 40 years in 1900, we would have seen the massive statewide fires like we have now.

But I find it hard to believe we have to wait all the way until 2017 to see the results of "fighting fires"

The droughts happen in multi year intervals, and the reservoir system hasnt been expanded since the 60s. The primary issue is fuel buildup and invasive species. Global warming is just icing on the cake.

Global warming is just icing on the cake.

Or, ahem, gasoline on the fire.

Global warming is the cake. We have a small window of opportunity to decide if it's a cake made of shit or if it's a mildly overcooked chocolate cake.

We’re already zooming past the 1° limits. 2°C feels like the best outcome. 3-4°C seems realistic given that 52 US Senators are adamantly opposed to any climate action.

This isn’t meant to dissuade anyone from voting on Nov 3. On the contrary, I firmly believe that the future of our civilization rests on the outcome.

We need a clear headed, science-heeding majority of legislators in congress come January, plus a president willing to sign their legislation into law.

We are out of time. Shit cake or chocolate, this is it.

Personally I don't think the outcome of the election on November is going to matter one way or the other, because I don't trust politics to consistently deliver clear headed, science based policy.

It's not just this election we need concern our selves with, but all those after it too.

This is too cynical.

One party denies climate change, the other acknowledges it at least.

One result opens the door, the other closes it.

The election will absolutely decide our fate.

But I agree with you regarding continuing to push after the election. If by some chance we can get the door open, it'll take continued social pressure & outreach to truly make progress.

More like one party denies it, the other says the world is doomed by 2016

Why even bother getting up in the morning if you’ve so completely embraced nihilism?

Something to integrate into your thought; the unregulated water table that allows agriculture to tap deeper and deeper and deplete the aquifers to keep CA the '5th largest economy' in the world.

How much does that contribute to the general aridness of the area?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com