Political Crossfire Forums

last 5 years of fires; they are in similar places

most recent numbers for the camp fire are catastrophic, with 63 dead and 650 missing

i know it's a big ask of those people but perhaps we should think about a Firelands National Park and forcibly remove everyone from a lot of the sierra nevadas. we have to accept the reality of increased temperatures from climate change and the natural increasing drought in california (california historically, as in before statehood, was mostly in drought) that could be exaggerated because of climate change (i know here in minnesota we are far wetter than we used to be, and that's climate change) and we should better manage these things. added with beetles destroying stressed trees (from climate change) to the winds facilitated by the mountains and we've got the recipe for disaster that is unmatched anywhere in the US. just like we shouldn't be rebuilding areas wiped out by floods constantly, we shouldn't be rebuilding areas wiped out by fire constantly.

It's been pretty bad here with all the smoke - had to buy an inhaler because asthma from my teenage years flared back up. That said...

If that's the case how much of the cost will be born by the Feds? The state? Where do these people go? Which communities are willing to take them? How will that impact certain regions by industry/employment/etc.

This is a very large ask and one sure to be rejected by conservatives outright (on what grounds would you do this? Eminent domain?). Obviously adaptation is the name of the game going forwards (fire, floods, droughts, etc all over the country) but I favor a solution driven more by the market. Fire insurance should cost more in regions more prone to fires - the increase in cost of that should deter future investment in communities that are high risk if it's allowed to. I feel that's an easier ask of the government and one that allows for a more gradual correction/relocation effort. The problem is more the state's inclination to defer to homeowners interests over that of everybody else (see high cost of living via reduced housing supply due to NIMBY everywhere in order to sustain equity growth in housing). I'm a homeowner now and I like that my insurance isn't too bad but I also don't live in a fire prone area and I don't have earthquake insurance....lol.

Until FEMA, the Feds, and State stop granting emergency declarations and providing financial relief for entire cities due to some form of natural disaster people will continue to do what they're comfortable with. See: New Orleans and Houston

So I don't know man - your idea seems odd to me since it is coming from you of all people. Are you getting even softer on us libs?

youre right that a market solution would work, if it was truly a market solution. the problem is it is highly subsidized. insurance protects the value of the home, sure, but if it was all wilderness it would be about containment not really trying to save people's lives and homes, which the state pays for, not the insurance. special taxes on fire prone areas to pay for fire service itself could be used, leaving a bunch of super rich folk to have the entire place to themselves... might as well let the people still enjoy the lands when its not on fire. but perhaps you're right to make it increasingly expensive, until we can just kick the rich assholes out and turn their mansions into visitor centers

i love national parks and i like making californians upset for their own good. it's far more dangerous than floods as in a flood you can wait it out in the middle of it but with a fire you have to flee, and we are all paying for people to live in areas we know is going to burn with disaster relief. i'm looking out for my pocket book. i don't want to subsidize these people

houston could conceivably have infrastructure to prevent such things, with improvements to drainage and whatnot. california doesn't have the water supplies to create the infrastructure needed to save areas like that (which would basically be wetting down multiple square miles)

also houston area has 2.3 million people. paradise ca has 26k. if they needed 100 billion to rebuild both of those yeah, i would say absolutely not for paradise

Yea, this is my issue with Cali. Floods and hurricanes are NBD. You know ahead of time, you can build levees and drains, and unless you can't swim, you are not in danger in 99% of such storms.

Earthquakes and fires. f**k no. Make a mistake and don't evacuate - lmao good luck swimming out of the blaze. ON the 40th floor pushing paper for no-apparent reason - good luck when the 9.2 splits your building in two. And that's not even the worst - wait until you see your tax bill!!

Next comes the mud slides.

1. The following are excerpts from an article by Dave Gilson, a senior editor at Mother Jones, posted on November 10, 2018 under the headline "As California Burns, Trump Threatens to Cut Federal Funding" and subheading "The president is tweeting nonsense about wildfires — again".

(Begin excerpts)
Taking a moment from the fires burning in his own backyard, President Donald Trump went on Twitter this morning to opine on the devastating fires currently burning in California — and to threaten to cut off federal funding if his wishes aren’t followed:

"There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!"...

Trump is correct that these fires have been massive, deadly, and costly. Otherwise he’s blowing smoke. His claim that poor forest management is responsible for killer wildfires is a favorite talking point among anti-environmentalists such as Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke. It’s an argument for more logging, which isn’t the same thing as smart forest management, as climate scientist Peter Gleick explained to Mother Jones when Trump fired off similar tweets in August: “We do know we need to do a better job at managing forests. But I don’t think that is what he’s commenting on.”

In the midst of another spate of fires this summer, Trump tweeted that they’d been made worse by all the water “foolishly being diverted into the Pacific Ocean.” As Gleick noted at the time, “That’s completely absurd!…There’s no shortage of water to fight these fires.”

So far, the president has not mentioned another major factor behind California’s wildfires: climate change. Climate change is making fires worse, and it is expected to make them more frequent. Even Trump’s own Forest Service acknowledges this (without using the dread phrase “climate change”). And like several earlier California fires, the Camp Fire may have been sparked by a power line.

And as for Trump’s vague threat to cut “Fed payments,” his administration is already ahead of him. Earlier this year, it proposed slashing federal funding for studying and preventing wildfires. (End excerpts)

Source: https://www.motherjones.com/environment ... wildlfire/

2. The meaning of the phrase "Fiddling while Rome burns" is "to occupy oneself with unimportant matters and neglect priorities during a crisis". Here I coin a modern version of the idiom: "Tweeting while California burns."

Source: https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/fid ... burns.html

The following are excerpts from Stephanie Haney's 25 November 2018 news report headlined "'Average' high school graduate roasts Donald Trump on the difference between weather and climate as the president tweets implying that record cold temperatures on a single day disprove global warming".

(Begin excerpts)
An 18-year-old from India who graduated high school with self-described 'average marks' went viral with a tweet schooling President Donald Trump on the difference between weather and climate.

Trump, 72, tweeted on Wednesday about record cold temperatures striking the US on a single day, followed by a phrase implying that such an occurrence disproves global warming.

Astha Sarmah from the city of Jorhat in the state of Assam responded throwing so much shade at the US Commander in Chief, that her tweet was liked almost 15,000 times and retweeted more than 3,000 times.

Experts also weighed in, with one climate scientist calling the president 'a dangerous clown' for his remarks.

Trump's tweet, which was liked nearly 110,000 times and retweeted close to 28,000 times, read:

'Brutal and Extended Cold Blast could shatter ALL RECORDS - Whatever happened to Global Warming?'

When Sarmah read that, she fired back, writing:

'I am 54 years younger than you. I just finished high school with average marks. But even I can tell you that WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE. If you want help understanding that, I can lend you my encyclopedia from when I was in 2nd grade. It has pictures and everything.'

Sarmah was pointing out to the president that the temperature on a single day cannot be compared to global warming, which is defined by Dictionary.com as, 'an increase in the Earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect.'

Climate, itself, is defined as, 'the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years.'

NASA has helped break the interplay between these concepts down on an even more basic level.

'In most places, weather can change from minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day, and season-to-season. Climate, however, is the average of weather over time and space,' the website for the federal agency reads.

'An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.'

Global warming, therefore, is just one indicator of climate change, which is defined by Dictionary.com as, 'a long-term change in the Earth's climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature.'...

Former Vice President Al Gore also lashed out at the Trump administration accusing the president of seeking to 'bury' the report on climate change by releasing it on Black Friday.

Gore has become an outspoken advocate of the need to take steps to prevent global warming. Gore became a prominent spokesman on the climate debate with the 2006 documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth.'

'Unbelievably deadly and tragic wildfires rage in the west, hurricanes batter our coasts — and the Trump administration chooses the Friday after Thanksgiving to try and bury this critical US assessment of the climate crisis,' Gore said in a statement on Friday.

'The President may try to hide the truth, but his own scientists and experts have made it as stark and clear as possible.'...

Sarmah isn't wrong about global warming existing, but she is wrong about one thing. It's not her opinion. Global warming is an observable, scientific phenomenon.

Michael Mann, a scientist at Pennsylvania State University, told HuffPost:

'This demonstrates once again that Donald Trump is not an individual to be taken seriously on any topic, let alone matters as serious as climate change. He is a clown, a dangerous clown.' (End excerpts)

Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ather.html