High Sierra Topix

An interesting topic. I would gather that all the political rules go out the window when the inevitable wildfire starts, and all that dead fuel standing goes up in a massive burn. They seem to be OK with heavy equipment moving in after the fact. Idiots.

You'd think politicians would be smarter, but I guess that's a stretch.

NEPA specifically exempts emergencies.
When a fire starts and turns major, a resource advisor(s) is assigned to the Incident Management Team. The resource advisor keeps the IMT informed of all the natural or cultural resources that could be affected by the fire or suppression tactics. Don't want to send dozers through a native American burial site or a patch of endangered plants. Aerial retardant (the red stuff falling out of aircraft the media love to film) does nasty stuff to fish and aquatic life -- basically toxic. So efforts are made to avoid dropping it into creeks if not absolutely necessary. OTOH some hillsides can burn and be a benefit. Tactics are adjusted accordingly. So it is not anything goes/no rules apply when fighting fires. Efforts are made to minimize resource impacts. Also pressure to minimize firefighting costs. Of course, human life and public safety will never be subordinate to resource values. Sometimes fire managers have to make some pretty hard gut twisting decisions and sacrifice some of one value to protect another. Then some armchair activist will complain about it.

Nice description of the issues Dave!

Mike

It would be helpful if the politicians would at least acknowledge that global warming is real and that it has effects. It's beyond belief that so many are that naive. IMHO, most know it's true; they're simply willing to repeat the lie so endlessly that they convince people GW is a hoax.

Tom_H wrote:It would be helpful if the politicians would at least acknowledge that global warming is real and that it has effects. It's beyond belief that so many are that naive. IMHO, most know it's true; they're simply willing to repeat the lie so endlessly that they convince people GW is a hoax.

I am not sure the number of true deniers is very high. A small number of politicians like to grab the microphone and make noise, catering to their donor base, but they do not represent most. I believe the real policy differences are how to deal with it. Those so-called 'Accords' that are periodically hammered out are a joke. Everyone pats themselves on the back, proclaiming they now have a binding global agreement with teeth, and then everyone ignores it (how many have there been? 4? They all ended the same - nothing). I do not believe the voters of any country would tolerate the social, political, cultural, and economic upheaval that is required to even slow the rise in temperature. I know I would not. I am not certain there is a politically palatable and realistically possible solution.

No doubt, completely reversing it is nigh impossible. OTOH, it's also impossible to begin addressing a problem when one is in denial that the problem even exists. Acknowledging the problem can inform decisions like going with solar/wind/tidal/etc. rather than things like the oxymoronic term clean coal. It will take a long time to even begin slowing the process, but we have to start somewhere. Otherwise, our posterity will have no livable planet to inherit. There is more to protecting this wilderness we all say we love than keeping out oil rigs and ATVs.

No one is even pretending reversal is possible. Even stopping warming at its current level is not possible. The international focus is keeping the rise at 2 degrees C by the end of the century. I doubt that compromise goal is feasible.

Changing lightbulbs and shopping with cloth bags are symbolic more than substantive. The meaningful actions required are pretty drastic. Detached single family homes will cease to exist -- everyone will live in multifamily units. You will have to prove need to own an automobile, electricity will be rationed by steep escalating price structures. The cost of transportation will make imported items too expensive, so our year around availability of fruit and vegetables will cease. A rather dreary scenario. The voters will oust politicians before it gets to that point and the measures required to prevent 2 degrees C will fall by the wayside. This is why I maintain solutions are not possible.

Agenda 21?