It isn't mutually exclusive. Warming is a major cause of increased wildfires, and poor land use and overgrowth due to fire suppression make it worse.
You can see what happens right here in the downvotes I have got. Just because I shift blame for something away from global warming to another cause, people feel they most downvote me.
Global warming is to blame in their minds is equivalent to no other cause can be blamed.
I partly made that comment to see how much a rational and reasonable comment would get downvoted for that reason. I think the experiment proved something.
There is a profit to be made from selling EVs.
> "global warming increases wildfires, let's improve our forest management to manage the impact (while also fighting against climate change)"
Better forest management IS fighting climate change. Well managed land can be a carbon sink whereas fires release huge amounts of CO2 and are damaging in many other says. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27353-x bout just one region of the world
But doing this is costly and there is not much to be sold to do it.
There is always a lobby for doing something that that means someone can sell something. For things that do not increase sales, particularly things that involve not doing things (e.g. no cutting down forests) there is no equivalent lobby.
We've already blown right past the Paris accord, I'm sure we'll soon come up with a new accord that will set a target that we will also blow past.
In the meantime, invest in an air conditioner and an air purifier for your city home, and try not to own any summer dachas in heavily forested areas.
> "focus on global warming means no one will do anything about poor land management"
Gross generalization, a lot changed long and still lately, you are just saying: all lazy because of global warming excuses.. and then
> "Global warming is to blame in their minds is equivalent to no other cause can be blamed."
Any quote where someone official reasoned like that? Btw funny, seeing that actually you are the one here blaming "global warming" for something?
Shifting blame towards land management practices - not necessarily by you, but for example by that particular POTUS - is often an attempt to downplay global warming and the urgent need to do take steps to stave it off, rather than a good-faith attempt to reform land management practices. If people detect a whiff of that, that's what makes them downvote; given the present and future consequences of downplaying global warming and the urgent need to take steps to stave it off, and the push that's been behind that for the past, oh, fifty-to-seventy years or so, can you blame them? No one's against reforming land management to prevent forest fires.
I mean so what…. I don’t see how having a conversation about taking a practical steps to avoid a disaster should be suppressed just because the person initiating the conversation might have a different opinion on a related subject.
Yep, that attitude that makes perfect sense for society.
They might have different views from you, that you are certain are wrong, but they might be entirely sincere.