Hacker News Reader

Comment by paradox460 | Hacker News Reader

Should we extend this logic to charging California climate tax every summer, when their inevitable wildfire pollutes the air for two states over?

View on HN

There are wildfires that happen in Oregon as well, why shouldn't there be a special cooperation between the western states to divvy up burden? But that should be a cooperation between just those states and not a federal matter.

Also, federal assistance programs largely transfers wealth from "blue" states to "red" states. Proposing less federal assistance or some kind of "fairer" tax program isn't going to persuade in the direction you think. It's just going to mean more money for blue states to handle their own internal matters.

Honestly yes, particularly if the source is human, e.g. arson or PG&E. There is also a negligence factor in Sacramento avoiding controlled burns because they sold building permits up against every forest.

RE housing, I think it makes sense to price in some of the real risk factors tied to location. I have a friend whos is a wildfire behavior analyst and occasionally is paid to speak with mountain communities.

They are under strict orders not to say the blunt truth as they put it "you have one exit and in the middle of an unstoppable fuel load. in case of fire,you are all fucked and will die".

Instead they have to say something along the lines of that they should do everything within their economic power to reduce their fire risk.

On the part of pollution from wildfires, I'm much more ambivalent. A smoke filled West Coast was the norm in fall prior to California fire suppression.

> smoke filled West Coast was the norm in fall prior to California fire suppression

Genuinely curious for the evidence on this, if you have it.

Sure. There is a large body of literature looking at fire occurrence intervals prior to suppression. It is based of tree rings as well as other data sources.

It has been estimated that 5 to 12 million acres burned in California per year prior to 1850 [1], [2]. As a comparison, California’s 2000–2020 average burned acreage is 0.79 million acres per year [2]. 2020 was the largest wildfire year in California's recorded history, with nearly 4.5 million acres burned, which is on the low end for the historical average.

Last time I went down this rabbit hole I found several archival records and letters from settlers and surveyors describing California smoke and haze from the 1800's, but unfortunately I cant produce them for you. They described how the Sierra Nevada would be blanketed with smoke in the fall, and that it would linger in the central valley as a dim haze. If by chance you come across these, please let me know.

There is also ample biological evidence in the fire adapted ecology of California, where many plants require fire to reproduce and spread. This comports with the burn studies that estimates the burn interval for most California biomes to be between 3 and 20 years, with 3 years being typical for grasslands and steppes, 10 being typical for redwood forests, and 20 being more common for the pines forests.

Of course there is more to wildfire and smoke than simple acreage, and the quantity of fuel and hardwoods currently being burnt is greater as a result of our 150 year hiatus from wildfire. That said, the pre-1850 average was literally an order of magnitude greater than post 2000, which goes a long way in bridging this difference.

Here is a paper on Wildfire acreage:

[1] https://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/Fi...

[2] https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/SB901_...

here is some information historic fire intervals:

https://fireecology.springeropen.com/articles/10.4996/fireec...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228116866_Historic_...

Unironically yes

But even if everybody moved out of California, there would still be wildfires that blow smoke two states over.

For the fully natural wildfires, yes of course. It definitely happens.

But there are plenty of things that can be done to reduce the number of wildfires. Remember the fires caused by old and poorly maintained PG&E lines?

We don't even have to go that far back.

The Airport Fire that just burned in Orange and Riverside counties was started by some county public works employees pushing boulders around with a bulldozer (to build a barricade preventing motorcyclists from going into the canyons and starting a wildfire) on a red flag day, literally at the peak of the heat hottest day of the entire year.

This sort of shit should see whoever sent them out there fired for gross misconduct and potentially charged. I certainly wouldn't keep my job if I fucked up that badly.

As a resident of Idaho and former resident of Utah who has spent years having to suffer from the smoke, I have a similar tendency to take this suggestion seriously. Not as a punishment, but as an incentive to improve things. California has neglected things like electrical grid repairs (PG&E anyone?) and controlled burns for many, many years, and now others who had nothing to do with it are paying for it with our health. I know people who are sensitive to the smoke and are essentially trapped in their houses during those times, and have to spend hundreds of dollars on air cleaners.

So, it's an interesting idea to change the choice from: either "don't spend the money" or "spend the money on prevention and fixing our shit"

To: from "the money is spent either way, might as well fix our shit."

If there's also one state that has demonstrated a willingness to use economics to encourage "correct" choices/behavior in consumers, it's California, so they should be real sympathetic to this idea :-)

I don't know if I'd support such a proposal or not. That would require some serious analysis and consideration of the details, but I don't think we should just dismiss the whole idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com