Wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem. Some ecosystems would collapse without them. But stopping wildfires doesn't cut into profits, it can even be made profitable!
this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
28 points (96.7% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
5055 readers
513 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They're talking about having frequent prescribed burns, as was the practice before European arrival, instead of lower frequency hgih-intensity fires.
That's nothing new. We've been doing that since the 80s.
Not at anything like the needed scale
Well that's because the plan is stupid and ineffective. Far more carbon could be sequestered by growing kudzu and then dumping it down mines.
Ah yes I'm sure capitalism can solve this issue.
Irrespective of the economic system, it's still necessary to actually do the things they're trying
I agree. But the problem comes when the investors want to start to see a return. Just look at the state of the tech industry now. Consider the failure of second sight and how it's left people with brain implants that no longer function.
I agree the tech looks promising and we are going to need a lot of adaptation solutions but right now theyre being funded in order to take advantage of the serious cost to society and with the need for returns those costs will only spiral upward. This will be especially obvious when we consider that it is the poorest communities who are most affected by climate disasters. The richest people will get adaptation. The poorest will get refugee status.
By relying so heavily on private solutions governments abdicate responsibility and communities get left to pick up the pieces.
how about, the fuck not ? ..
What they're doing is showing how to make it cost-effective to go back to something like the pre-colonization fire regime of frequent low-intensity fires. This makes it possible for western North America forests to return to having fewer but older trees which sequester more carbon than growing lots of small trees fast and then having them all burn in an intense fire
sounds cool, but the solution to global warming is socialism with mild capitalist traits. tech bro solutions always include extra steps and are profit driven.
If you look at who is involved, its a bunch of forestry and fire ecology types with a few tech people supporting them
i give u credit: i didn't read the article, just assumptions