Trump threatens to pull federal funding for California wildfires over 'gross mismanagement'

[jackstar7]

Or it could be that most of California is a semi arid environment that's prone to drought .
Forest management is part of the problem. It's perfectly natural for forests to burn every now and then, but we work hard at preventing that. Dead wood and brush accumulate, and when it eventually does burn it creates a much larger fire. I clearly remember reading about this back in the mid 80's. The prediction made at that time was that the entire pacific northwest was going to go up in flames because we weren't allowing any of it to burn off naturally.
Based on what's happening in California, there is some validity to the argument. Huge uncontrollable fires were predicted, huge uncontrollable fires have happened. I suppose it's possible that no one involved in forest management has read the same paper I did, or they didn't believe it, but my hunch is the money earmarked for forest management went elsewhere.

You left out the role of PG&E and other private power providers who don't do proper upkeep on their lines, which are often a source of these fires.

 

[IronWing]

This isn't wrong but no politician in any place wants to tell their residents, who's votes they need, that their location isn't viable anymore.

Especially if the solution is to say move to the Central Valley floor.

An issue with building houses in the forest is that the first firefighters on the scene have to spend their efforts on structure protection instead of fire containment, leading to larger fires. This is probably a bigger factor in the increase in the number and size of large fires than global warming.

 

[UberNeuman]

ah, it doesn't take much for the deplorable to come out of a Trump supporter.

lol.

 

[Jhhnn]

An issue with building houses in the forest is that the first firefighters on the scene have to spend their efforts on structure protection instead of fire containment, leading to larger fires. This is probably a bigger factor in the increase in the number and size of large fires than global warming.

That's not really true at all. In situations like this fire, the emphasis is on getting people to safety. They knew Paradise was toast almost from the beginning.

 

[cfenton]

How many acres have to burn to to be considered a failure? How many homes have to burn down? How many people have to die? Is a hundred thousand acres enough? Would five thousand homes make the grade? I think it's less than thirty people killed, and some of them were probably Trump supporters, so lets call it twenty. Is that enough?
How far back do we want to look? Do we include the Oakland hills fire? It was a little one after all, only two or three thousand homes burned down.

I'm actually surprised that anyone is arguing this point. I assume it's because Trump kicked it off, and you have to be against anything Trump says. I get that, but the man says everything, sooner or later hes has to get something right, it's statistically inevitable.

It's only a failure if there is a better option that is economically viable. Maybe there is, I don't know, and neither does Trump. However, instead of threatening to pull funding, he should be offering to help find a better solution. Pointing out a problem is easy and not worth much, but providing a solution is very valuable.

 

[Greenman]

It's only a failure if there is a better option that is economically viable. Maybe there is, I don't know, and neither does Trump. However, instead of threatening to pull funding, he should be offering to help find a better solution. Pointing out a problem is easy and not worth much, but providing a solution is very valuable.

Pretty much any option is economically viable when compared to burning down whole city's and killing people. I suppose there is some benefit to having the insurance company's pay for the damage rather than using tax dollars to prevent it. We still have to deal with the pollution from the fires though. I live two hundred miles away and can't see the sun through the smoke. In typical California fashion, we'll probably get torrential rain and mud slides next.

 

[Vic]

Pretty much any option is economically viable when compared to burning down whole city's and killing people. I suppose there is some benefit to having the insurance company's pay for the damage rather than using tax dollars to prevent it. We still have to deal with the pollution from the fires though. I live two hundred miles away and can't see the sun through the smoke. In typical California fashion, we'll probably get torrential rain and mud slides next.

You have no clue whatsoever of any solution as to how to prevent these fires, but yet you judge anyway. Awesome.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, these wildfires in the West are every bit as natural as tornados in the Midwest and hurricanes in the South. They are part of the natural ecological system in a Mediterranean-style climate.
So the only solutions to prevent them entirely are to move everyone out of ecery potential fire zones, or to cut down all the trees and not replant. Neither of which is economically viable at all.

 

[Greenman]

You have no clue whatsoever of any solution as to how to prevent these fires, but yet you judge anyway. Awesome.

As was mentioned earlier in this thread, these wildfires in the West are every bit as natural as tornados in the Midwest and hurricanes in the South. They are part of the natural ecological system in a Mediterranean-style climate.
So the only solutions to prevent them entirely are to move everyone out of ecery potential fire zones, or to cut down all the trees and not replant. Neither of which is economically viable at all.

That's incorrect. Forest fires are a natural event, but we put them out as soon as possible and don't manage the fuel load. That's the error. Fuel loads increase dramatically, and when a fire does occur it's a great deal more difficult to put out. Years of that along with high winds and we end up with a firestorm. This is forest management 101.
About twenty miles from me there is a state park that's heavily wooded, I drive through it three or for times a week. Last year they spent months clearing brush and dead wood, along with creating fire breaks. When that area burns, the fire fighters will have a much better chance of controlling the blaze.

Again, it seems to me that your defending a position because it opposes Trump, rather than looking at the actual information. Take Trump out of the discussion, he says plenty of stupid things to be angry about, and in this case one of the stupid thing he said has a grain of truth to it. We need to manage our forests better to reduce the number of devastating wild fires. That isn't a political position, it isn't supporting Trump, it's very basic planing and disaster mitigation.

 

[Muse]

It's only a failure if there is a better option that is economically viable. Maybe there is, I don't know, and neither does Trump. However, instead of threatening to pull funding, he should be offering to help find a better solution. Pointing out a problem is easy and not worth much, but providing a solution is very valuable.

That is not his m.o. He's a contentious son of a bitch and he won't let you forget it. Maybe not every time he opens his mouth, but his contentious tweets are a daily staple of his base. This is another example. He never fails to infuriate me... never!

The Swingin' Utters: Yes I Hope He Dies

 

[Vic]

That's incorrect. Forest fires are a natural event, but we put them out as soon as possible and don't manage the fuel load. That's the error. Fuel loads increase dramatically, and when a fire does occur it's a great deal more difficult to put out. Years of that along with high winds and we end up with a firestorm. This is forest management 101.
About twenty miles from me there is a state park that's heavily wooded, I drive through it three or for times a week. Last year they spent months clearing brush and dead wood, along with creating fire breaks. When that area burns, the fire fighters will have a much better chance of controlling the blaze.

Again, it seems to me that your defending a position because it opposes Trump, rather than looking at the actual information. Take Trump out of the discussion, he says plenty of stupid things to be angry about, and in this case one of the stupid thing he said has a grain of truth to it. We need to manage our forests better to reduce the number of devastating wild fires. That isn't a political position, it isn't supporting Trump, it's very basic planing and disaster mitigation.

More like, by accusing California of not doing "wildfire 101" when they are, and you even acknowledge that you saw them doing it, you are depending a position because it defends Trump.
Seriously WTF.

 

[JSt0rm]

The problem is no rain. Fires are a normal part of the eco system here in the summer but by fall we are supposed to have rain. In the fall time we have big wind storms but we are also supposed to have rain by now. So big winds and dry brush is a bad recipe. Global warming is the cause of this issue.

 

[JSt0rm]

More like, by accusing California of not doing "wildfire 101" when they are, and you even acknowledge that you saw them doing it, you are depending a position because it defends Trump.
Seriously WTF.

They just want to dump on california. Half of them hate liberals so much they are probably cheering this death as a result of us not voting the right way and god being mad at us.

 

[IronWing]

More like, by accusing California of not doing "wildfire 101" when they are, and you even acknowledge that you saw them doing it, you are depending a position because it defends Trump.
Seriously WTF.

California literally wrote the book on Wildfire 101. Unfortunately, California also wrote the book Zoning and Building Codes for Dummies, allowing the construction of tree houses right up against wilderness areas and the construction of houses on chaparral covered ridges. At least they banned wood shingles (shakes) in most places and a few places are even implementing Defensible Space practices.

 

[Moonbeam]

More like, by accusing California of not doing "wildfire 101" when they are, and you even acknowledge that you saw them doing it, you are depending a position because it defends Trump.
Seriously WTF.

I don't think he is defending Trump so much as that he is morally disturbed by what he considers a knee jerk contempt of every move he makes, as if we are all infected by Trump Derangement Syndrome. He sees us as bigots and folk driven by violent passions, in my opinion. This is just the usual terror that socially obedient people feel when their social climate is upset by descent. It's always liberals who are never happy to live with the traditional oppression conservatives were broken in spirit to accept. He feels the kind of stress bad boys feel when they come for you. Don't rock the boat. This is explained nicely, I think, in the story about a person given a tour of hell and visited a room filled with people moaning, "DON'T MAKE A WAVE!!!!". In trying to explain to himself what that was all about, he discovered the room was filled with people standing is sewage up to their chins. The more deeply repressed our feelings are based generally on how painful they would be to re experience, the greater fear of having them provoked by outside stimulus. He has, in my opinion, the wrong unconsciously accepted notion of what being good really means. It is not conforming to stasis.

This is why conservatives think in black and white because they can't deal emotionally with the uncertainties presented by multiple shades of gray. Ecosystem management is profoundly complex and tolerating the ins and outs of that is a liberal strength.

 

[zinfamous]

I wish Trump would actually visit these type of disasters.

Like, when they are happening.

Just helicopter into the middle of it, please.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

@JSt0rm

Off topic but don’t be stupid around those fires please.
When you are constantly exposed to dangers like this judgement gets used to them and people can take dumb risks.

 

[Jaskalas]

What is within the power of California to control is continued urban sprawl into the forest and chaparral. When people choose to build their homes in fire prone areas, let those houses burn. Saving people from their own stupidity is cheaper through zoning than through fire fighting.

These people have flights of fancy that we can just increase our population non-stop. Just build build build.

So we build in places that burn, especially in California as they've already built out everywhere else.

 

[K1052]

These people have flights of fancy that we can just increase our population non-stop. Just build build build.

So we build in places that burn, especially in California as they've already built out everywhere else.

This is totally wrong.

Urban and Suburban California has decided to limit density and not limit sprawl. CA is not built out by any means.

 

[Muse]

These people have flights of fancy that we can just increase our population non-stop. Just build build build.

So we build in places that burn, especially in California as they've already built out everywhere else.

The thing about CA being susceptible to these wildfire catastrophes is that it has an arid climate, and that's been getting worse and worse seemingly willy nilly. This event the last 5 days is the worst wildfire disaster in CA history in terms of lives lost and structures burned (what other metrics are there? Acreage? That barely counts.). Where I am in the SF Bay Area there has been virtually no rain for I think 7 months now. All these people in the east can just tut tut, you CA people should take care of business and control the vegetation. Easy to say when you get rainfall all during the summer months. Their forests won't burn because they don't dry out like in CA.

To underscore how things are changing (can you say climate change?, STFU phony POTUS!) this worst event ever happened more than a week into November, which just never happens. It eclipsed the previous worst such event which was just last year. What's on the horizon?

 

[Jaskalas]

This is totally wrong.

Urban and Suburban California has decided to limit density and not limit sprawl. CA is not built out by any means.

Tear down homes and build high rise apartment buildings to increase density and limit sprawl?

 

[fskimospy]

More like, by accusing California of not doing "wildfire 101" when they are, and you even acknowledge that you saw them doing it, you are depending a position because it defends Trump.
Seriously WTF.

Also forest management can’t be an issue here because...well...these fires weren’t taking place in a fucking forest.

 

[brycejones]

These people have flights of fancy that we can just increase our population non-stop. Just build build build.

So we build in places that burn, especially in California as they've already built out everywhere else.

FFS, not this shit again. We have have among the lowest population density of any developed country.

 

[Jaskalas]

FFS, not this shit again. We have have among the lowest population density of any developed country.

Not the country, California. And not the mountains that burn or the deserts that blow sand.
From beach to foothill, Los Angeles has the most densely populated Metro in the United States.
With nearly 7,000 people per square mile.

Other locations in California take up the second, third and fourth national rankings.

You can easily travel 100 miles from the beach and never leave paved land. And that is EXACTLY what I meant. If you want to build something in SoCal, you're going to either build further up the mountains and watch it burn, or you'll be tearing down existing lots that probably have homes on them.

 

[brycejones]

Not the country, California. And not the mountains that burn or the deserts that blow sand.
From beach to foothill, Los Angeles has the most densely populated Metro in the United States.
With nearly 7,000 people per square mile.

Other locations in California take up the second, third and fourth national rankings.

You can easily travel 100 miles from the beach and never leave paved land. And that is EXACTLY what I meant. If you want to build something in SoCal, you're going to either build further up the mountains and watch it burn, or you'll be tearing down existing lots that probably have homes on them.

Sure, we'll just ignore the multiple times you've brought up being opposed to immigration because of population growth.

 

[K1052]

Tear down homes and build high rise apartment buildings to increase density and limit sprawl?

What is the deal with people insisting that density = high rises? There are a ton of dense places that don't rise above even a 4th floor.

In the US it's even easier since we're starting from such low density basically anywhere that isn't NYC.

Going from one unit per lot to four looks like this:

It's not exactly Dubai.