California Wildfires

[Greenman]

The sheer volume of material we are talking about here is enormous. Unless he’s going to allow tens of thousands of people in on H2Bs to do this work it’s not going to get done and stay done. Not to mention appropriating the funds to do it on Fed lands.

That first sentence pretty much defines the problem. Lack of maintenance has exacerbated the issue to the point of being absurdly expensive to correct.
My hunch is that some mitigation efforts in the form of enhanced and or restrictive building codes will be put in place. That costs local government nothing while allowing them to provide a "viable" solution to the problem. No one will actually know if it works until the next fire, and that's long enough to establish that it was someone else's mistake.

 

[Greenman]

A really bad idea but maybe pour seawater on the areas in the vicinity of the residential areas? The salinity should thwart growth of unwanted plant life?

The scorched earth method has proven to be a less than viable solution.

 

[K1052]

That first sentence pretty much defines the problem. Lack of maintenance has exacerbated the issue to the point of being absurdly expensive to correct.
My hunch is that some mitigation efforts in the form of enhanced and or restrictive building codes will be put in place. That costs local government nothing while allowing them to provide a "viable" solution to the problem. No one will actually know if it works until the next fire, and that's long enough to establish that it was someone else's mistake.

In the case of the LA fires you would have needed an enormous removal program and tons of controlled burns to get a handle on what built up from last year's big wet season. Easily need to do hundreds of thousands of acres mostly in canyons and on hills which is a real bitch. People are drastically underestimating the size of the task. Not to mention that before these fires the rich people in the hills would absolutely pitch a fit and sue agencies to stop something of this size.

As for building codes yeah I think a stucco house with a roof that doesn't burn and a tight envelope is likely going to do better than a lot of structures on average in a wildfire. There are some surviving homes from these fires that would seem to support that can work.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

You are saying they are denialists? I'm personally nothing like that. I'm a literal foot soldier in the battle to save the planet for humanity. I'm wondering, however, if we're gonna be up to the tasks.

My carbon footprint is pretty much only bested by the homeless, I'm afraid.

Edit: No, I think you are saying that it is shocking to you how many are commenting about GWC denialism. Why does this bother you? What else do you expect? Is that not the biggest part of the problem besides C (and methane) itself?

Ugh I hate that phrase; it was coined by BP to try to get us to stop blaming oil companies for global warming. Global warming is not a matter of personal responsibility short of the fucks who can afford private jets.

 

[igor_kavinski]

OK, so we have acres and acres of fuel to burn. Why isn't someone getting a license to haul it away in trucks and use it for actual fuel to burn and stay warm in winter?

 

[VRAMdemon]

In the case of the LA fires you would have needed an enormous removal program and tons of controlled burns to get a handle on what built up from last year's big wet season. Easily need to do hundreds of thousands of acres mostly in canyons and on hills which is a real bitch. People are drastically underestimating the size of the task. Not to mention that before these fires the rich people in the hills would absolutely pitch a fit and sue agencies to stop something of this size.

As for building codes yeah I think a stucco house with a roof that doesn't burn and a tight envelope is likely going to do better than a lot of structures on average in a wildfire. There are some surviving homes from these fires that would seem to support that can work.

Every natural disaster we think seems to fall under the mass delusion that the government can protect you from the insanely powerful forces of nature. Hard truth: Handled perfectly, these fires were still going to be devastating. 100MPH winds and drought conditions. The winds exceeded the planes operational safety threshold of 50 knots. Thinking a few hydrants are going to save them from wildfires of this type and in these conditions is like thinking an umbrella will save you in a hurricane. The firefighters had the water they need, they just didn't have pressure. Try opening up all of your hydrants in your town and see what happens. Name one city or town in this country that can handle simultaneously large wildfires within the city limits when winds are 60 - 100 mph and the embers are flying horizontally, water isn't going to help. The water can only help quench fires after the wind subsides.

Welcome to real life: Sometimes things are just fucking bad.

Trump could just offer to help when he takes over. All he's offered are just petty childlike attacks. It's (not) interesting that the thought does not appear to have occurred to him. Do Republican governors stop tornadoes or hurricanes, if not, why not? Conservative logic is to blame it on the lesbians and DEI. Division is Donald's lifeblood. Pitting Americans against each other even during disasters. Every time a natural disaster occurs Trump will simply blame Democrats. He’ll continue to divide us against ourselves in times of emergency. It’s who he is. Welcome to the new normal. Always blame the victims for disasters/tragedies - MAGA

Reality Show Con Artist 11/18/18:

“I heard from the president of Finland, tremendously smart man! He told me that over there, they rake there leaves very often and that prevents most of the forest fires over there. I think if we did that in the great state of California, the forest fires would decrease a tremendous amount.” (A discussion the Finnish President denied having)

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/11/18/trump-raking-wildfires-california-finland-1002526

 

[uallas5]

Latest MAGA disinformation bullshit

No, California is not stopping Oregon fire trucks for emissions testing, officials say

After Oregon sent 300 firefighters and 75 engines to help fight the LA fires this week, rumors began circulating that equipment and crews had been stopped for emissions testing.

www.kptv.com

 

[Greenman]

In the case of the LA fires you would have needed an enormous removal program and tons of controlled burns to get a handle on what built up from last year's big wet season. Easily need to do hundreds of thousands of acres mostly in canyons and on hills which is a real bitch. People are drastically underestimating the size of the task. Not to mention that before these fires the rich people in the hills would absolutely pitch a fit and sue agencies to stop something of this size.

As for building codes yeah I think a stucco house with a roof that doesn't burn and a tight envelope is likely going to do better than a lot of structures on average in a wildfire. There are some surviving homes from these fires that would seem to support that can work.

The issue will be windows. A fire backed by 60 to 100 mph winds will blow right through any standard window. That will often lead to so much damage it becomes a tear down.
I've done a couple of fire jobs over the years, absolutely miserable work. Just getting rid of the smell can be a nightmare.

 

[Brovane]

In the case of the LA fires you would have needed an enormous removal program and tons of controlled burns to get a handle on what built up from last year's big wet season. Easily need to do hundreds of thousands of acres mostly in canyons and on hills which is a real bitch. People are drastically underestimating the size of the task. Not to mention that before these fires the rich people in the hills would absolutely pitch a fit and sue agencies to stop something of this size.

As for building codes yeah I think a stucco house with a roof that doesn't burn and a tight envelope is likely going to do better than a lot of structures on average in a wildfire. There are some surviving homes from these fires that would seem to support that can work.

The reason that the problem is so enormous is because we have had decades of mis-management in CA at all levels of the government including Federal of wild land areas. However the bill of not doing anything is going to be even more enormous. From my position as a resident of Southern CA, we have a couple of choices in CA. Either get serious about clearing out brush and/or using controlled burns to clear brush out or continue to suffer these types of events. As a resident I am going to do everything possible to harden my home and property against wild-fires.

 

[brycejones]

Trump wants to know why the fires aren't already out. I suggest we drop him off in front of the blaze with a bucket of water so he can solve the problem.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

That first sentence pretty much defines the problem. Lack of maintenance has exacerbated the issue to the point of being absurdly expensive to correct.

You're still missing the point. This isn't some area that's become dangerous due to a lack of proper maintenance by some local govt. Firestorms are natural here, the ecology depends on it. Humans didn't live in the area before the 1800s when white people decided it was a great idea because no natives lived there.

You don't change that without changing the ecology of the area. If CA is okay with that, then go nuts, turn it into a parking lot.

 

[K1052]

The reason that the problem is so enormous is because we have had decades of mis-management in CA at all levels of the government including Federal of wild land areas. However the bill of not doing anything is going to be even more enormous. From my position as a resident of Southern CA, we have a couple of choices in CA. Either get serious about clearing out brush and/or using controlled burns to clear brush out or continue to suffer these types of events. As a resident I am going to do everything possible to harden my home and property against wild-fires.

I mean in this case yes I think that if people want to live inside a chaparral biome they should be required to have a hardened property. My point was that telling people something could happen so we want to do all this mitigation and it's gonna cost you money is really difficult. Especially if said people are wealthy and just decide their opinion is better and can hire lawyers. I am 100% certain that if they tried to do major clearings and burns above Pacific Palisades it would be lawsuits galore from the wealthy who think the laws of physics do not apply to them personally.

 

[GoPackGo]

NIMBY is real and a key element of the FAFO Strategy.

 

[Brovane]

I mean in this case yes I think that if people want to live inside a chaparral biome they should be required to have a hardened property. My point was that telling people something could happen so we want to do all this mitigation and it's gonna cost you money is really difficult. Especially if said people are wealthy and just decide their opinion is better and can hire lawyers. I am 100% certain that if they tried to do major clearings and burns above Pacific Palisades it would be lawsuits galore from the wealthy who think the laws of physics do not apply to them personally.

I think some wealthy people are getting a harsh reality check that the laws of physics also apply to them.

 

[Muse]

That’s just DEI wokism speaking. The left doesn’t want you to know that grinding it up and inhaling it protects people from so called COIVD and Bird Flu.

I know lots of people who breathed in asbestos and didn’t catch COVID AT ALL.

Well, some of them have long covid, said to be in about 20% of the populace now, symptomatic or not. no-s/ aka no sh*t

 

[Muse]

Ugh I hate that phrase; it was coined by BP to try to get us to stop blaming oil companies for global warming. Global warming is not a matter of personal responsibility short of the fucks who can afford private jets.

OK, so I shouldn't care how many miles/year I drive or plane flights I take? Or showers I take or BTUs natural gas I use warming my water and house other than the $$$ it costs me?

 

[esquared]

That’s just DEI wokism speaking. The left doesn’t want you to know that grinding it up and inhaling it protects people from so called COIVD and Bird Flu.

I know lots of people who breathed in asbestos and didn’t catch COVID AT ALL.

Time to start mixing asbestos into the stucco

Check the batteries on your sarcasm meter for both of these posts.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

OK, so I shouldn't care how many miles/year I drive or plane flights I take? Or showers I take or BTUs natural gas I use warming my water and house other than the $$$ it costs me?

You can care, just understand that it isn't going to help anything other than your guilt.

 

[Jaskalas]

OK, so we have acres and acres of fuel to burn. Why isn't someone getting a license to haul it away in trucks and use it for actual fuel to burn and stay warm in winter?

Yeah, let's just grab that Biomass burner from a scifi game and place one down right next to the house.....

True answer is that, while it might be possible to establish that sort of setup for burning random plants as fuel... it would be cost prohibitive. Little return on investment. Unless someone wants to heavily subsidize it. Then I wonder how the costs would compare. It's probably so worthless as a fuel that no one can afford to collect and burn it all. Electricity is CHEAP. This process would not be.

 

[Shmee]

Hello everyone, I just wanted to say, that though I am in California, I am in the more northern part, in a suburb near San Jose. So I am fine. To anyone in the area though, stay safe!

 

[Greenman]

You're still missing the point. This isn't some area that's become dangerous due to a lack of proper maintenance by some local govt. Firestorms are natural here, the ecology depends on it. Humans didn't live in the area before the 1800s when white people decided it was a great idea because no natives lived there.

You don't change that without changing the ecology of the area. If CA is okay with that, then go nuts, turn it into a parking lot.

Not missing the point at all. I lived in California most of my life, I rebuilt a few burned homes there, I did a bunch of work in the Oakland hills after that area went up in smoke.
It's pretty simple really. If an area can't be cleared by machine or controlled burn then it's not buildable. If the infrastructure is such that it can't maintain a water supply to fight the fires then there needs to be a moratorium on new construction. It looks to me like the insurance company's are effectively going to do that by not writing insurance in those areas. That will mean only people that can pay cash for the property and assume the fire risk will be living in those areas.
If it was me I'd take the insurance settlement, sell the lot, and move to greener pastures.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

OK, so I shouldn't care how many miles/year I drive or plane flights I take? Or showers I take or BTUs natural gas I use warming my water and house other than the $$$ it costs me?

I just hate that phrase, it's pure propaganda started by BP to dodge responsibility for them literally burning our world down.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Not missing the point at all. I lived in California most of my life, I rebuilt a few burned homes there, I did a bunch of work in the Oakland hills after that area went up in smoke.
It's pretty simple really. If an area can't be cleared by machine or controlled burn then it's not buildable. If the infrastructure is such that it can't maintain a water supply to fight the fires then there needs to be a moratorium on new construction. It looks to me like the insurance company's are effectively going to do that by not writing insurance in those areas. That will mean only people that can pay cash for the property and assume the fire risk will be living in those areas.
If it was me I'd take the insurance settlement, sell the lot, and move to greener pastures.

My guy, you're looking for modern solutions for an ancient problem: don't build there, don't sanction building there, pay people to move, gtfo. This shouldn't be an individual action, this should be full on socialist, communist, whateverist. Evacuate the areas, let nature take them back, and put a big ol' 'no building allowed' sign outside.

 

[Greenman]

My guy, you're looking for modern solutions for an ancient problem: don't build there, don't sanction building there, pay people to move, gtfo. This shouldn't be an individual action, this should be full on socialist, communist, whateverist. Evacuate the areas, let nature take them back, and put a big ol' 'no building allowed' sign outside.

Fine with me, it's not going to happen though. The property is to valuable. Even if no one can get fire insurance and therefore a loan, people with money will buy the property and build there. It's California, it's how they roll.

 

[Brovane]

Not missing the point at all. I lived in California most of my life, I rebuilt a few burned homes there, I did a bunch of work in the Oakland hills after that area went up in smoke.
It's pretty simple really. If an area can't be cleared by machine or controlled burn then it's not buildable. If the infrastructure is such that it can't maintain a water supply to fight the fires then there needs to be a moratorium on new construction. It looks to me like the insurance company's are effectively going to do that by not writing insurance in those areas. That will mean only people that can pay cash for the property and assume the fire risk will be living in those areas.
If it was me I'd take the insurance settlement, sell the lot, and move to greener pastures.

How is that defined "water supply to fight the fires "? Does that mean the city water supply for a area needs to be sized that every fire hydrant in that area can be in use simultaneously for 72-hours?