In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
The idea of blaming anyone for anything 2-3 days after the fires started seemed silly to me. People idly speculating in a politics forum about who to blame is one thing; using your huge social media presence and political platform to do so publicly is ****ing ridiculous. But this seems to be the place we're in now, where pretty much anything is acceptable from so-called leaders.
Most people don't idly speculate. If you go on Twitter or Reddit after pretty much any story breaks, everyone already has the answers and is an expert. Doesn't matter whether it's a Supreme Court decision, the details of a bill they never heard about until ten minutes earlier or an event like these fires.
this was the subject
my response was a general refutation of a vague and unclear statement
It's not vague and unclear and the leader of the party spreads quite a few of the conspiracies too. Try to find us a few rightwing pols or voters etc who are not blaming the left for the fires for example.
Pols should basically be on auto pilot once one of these disasters occurs. This would reflect adequate planning of contingencies, and go down the chain from the feds down to the local level. That's what effective governance is all about.
If they can't do that, it reflects dysfunction at some level.
It’s almost as if he doesn’t understand the meaning of “natural disaster” and our inability to control them.
I wonder what he thinks a 100 year flood means.
It’s almost as if he doesn’t understand the meaning of “natural disaster” and our inability to control them.
I wonder what he thinks a 100 year flood means.
I wonder if you understand the fact that some natural disasters can be prevented in terms of frequency and intensity more than others, and wildfires are much more preventable than floods which are much more preventable than earthquakes and hurricances (against which you basically can do 0 to decrease the probability of them happening , and the intensity of the problem).
Preventable not in the sense of mitigation of damage if they happen (that's possible for all natural disasters in some degree). Preventable in the sense that there are things you can do when they are not happening, that make it so that they happen less often and with more maneageable intensity.
Preventable not in the sense of mitigation of damage if they happen (that's possible for all natural disasters in some degree). Preventable in the sense that there are things you can do when they are not happening, that make it so that they happen less often and with more maneageable intensity.
Like making sure the ground is wet? Or maybe raking the forest with any army of millions?
Not removing too much underground water from areas with a lot of vegetation can help yes. Especially if you are removing it to grow freaking almonds and strawberry in dry places, not to serve urban living necessities.
Clearing dry vegetation nearby urban settings can help yes.
I also mentioned enforcing the law and forcing utility companies to clean vegetation nearby powerlines (that's *already the law* to be clear), instead of taking (legal) bribes from those companies to let them save money on that necessary procedure.
/
But i mean it's not like i am inventing anything, for example
Creating a defensible space around homes and other structures is one of the most effective strategies. This space, clear of vegetation and combustible materials, acts as a buffer zone that slows or even halts the advance of a wildfire, giving firefighters a chance to combat the flames directly.
A key component of the defensible space strategy is fuel management. This tactic includes reducing flammable vegetation, thinning tree canopies to prevent fires from leaping across treetops, and removing dead wood and debris. Reducing flammable materials can significantly mitigate the intensity and spread of wildfires.
One controversial but effective method of fuel management is controlled burns. These are fires that are intentionally set by fire professionals under strictly controlled conditions to consume flammable material and prevent future fires from escalating. While they carry risks, they can be an effective prevention tool when expertly executed.
Firebreaks and vegetation gaps can also disrupt a wildfire’s progress. These can be naturally occurring features like rivers or man-made features like roads or specially cleared strips of land.
Not removing too much underground water from areas with a lot of vegetation can help yes. Especially if you are removing it to grow freaking almonds and strawberry in dry places, not to serve urban living necessities.
[/B]
California provides a 1/3 of the nation's vegetables, like 1/2 the fruit and basically all of the nuts.
... some natural disasters can be prevented in terms of frequency and intensity more than others, and wildfires are much more preventable than floods...
Show us the straight line relationship between water diverted for agricultural growing not ending up in the LA water system.
Tell that to the Malibu home owners that lost their cliff houses a few years back.
Show us the straight line relationship between water diverted for agricultural growing not ending up in the LA water system.
Tell that to the Malibu home owners that lost their cliff houses a few years back.
I did previously ITT. Water serving strawberry production 60 miles north-west of LA comes (2nd biggest strawberry production area in CA) by 30-40% from thousands oaks municipal water system (15-20 miles north west of the palisades).
That dries the ground in the wild area nearby the locations of the wildfires, making it so that there is more vegetation ready to burn quickly and so on. That's especially true if it rained more than usual so more stuff grew (which is what happened as i reported even if you denied it), but then you divert the water elsewhere.
It's not vague and unclear and the leader of the party spreads quite a few of the conspiracies too. Try to find us a few rightwing pols or voters etc who are not blaming the left for the fires for example.
are you actually saying that there's no conservatives at all who don't blame the left for the fires?
do you actually believe that? if so, that's really sad if true
Are you referring to directed energy weapons?
I hope Trump acquires Greenland so he can build his DS prison camp there bc gitmo's over flowing and there are a lot of DS criminals to be rounded up yet.
But first we need to get to and through the inauguration (buckle up).
I did previously ITT. Water serving strawberry production 60 miles north-west of LA comes (2nd biggest strawberry production area in CA) by 30-40% from thousands oaks municipal water system (15-20 miles north west of the palisades).
That dries the ground in the wild area nearby the locations of the wildfires, making it so that there is more vegetation ready to burn quickly and so on. That's especially true if it rained more than usual so more stuff grew (which is what happened as i reported even
The discussion of water use and availability is much bigger than simply wildfire suppression.
With an investment of about $10-$15 billion Southern CA would have ample water supplies for its existing population in perpetuity. The Salton Sea, with its large size (160 mile perimeter), location near Sea of Cortez and hot desert climate, provides an ideal source for seawater desalination, which would pay for itself with production of desalination byproduct (sodium, potassium, magnesium, etc.)
After this idea was proposed by a consortium of concerned citizens, scientists, and investors, CA rigged a committee of hacks to "review" the matter. After over 2 years, the committee rejected the idea, citing exaggerated infrastructure costs along with providing a band-aid approach to the immediate problem at hand, that is toxic dust in the region getting worse each year. This state also ignored the devastation to wildlife that have been killed off by the poisoning of the Salton Sea, which would be fully remedied by the aqueduct/desalination plan.
Are you referring to directed energy weapons?
I hope Trump acquires Greenland so he can build his DS prison camp there bc gitmo's over flowing and there are a lot of DS criminals to be rounded up yet.
like who?
But first we need to get to and through the inauguration (buckle up).
It seems you have forgotten that the idiots causing havoc over elections are your idiots
.
I did previously ITT. Water serving strawberry production 60 miles north-west of LA comes (2nd biggest strawberry production area in CA) by 30-40% from thousands oaks municipal water system (15-20 miles north west of the palisades).
That dries the ground in the wild area nearby the locations of the wildfires, making it so that there is more vegetation ready to burn quickly and so on. That's especially true if it rained more than usual so more stuff grew (which is what happened as i reported even
I'm skeptical that sufficient groundwater is going to play much of a part. 50mph dry, hot wind blowing across brush that hasn't seen rain in 6 months is going to dry out whatever moisture those plants have from groundwater pretty quickly. So you're going to lose an economic output (strawberries or whatever) to try and replenish aquafiers and still have to invest in the types of ground maintenance you've mentioned in the threads. It's nice to replenish aquafiers but in regards to fire prevention I'm not sure it moves the needle.
It seems you missed this:
No I think it's abundantly clear that there were on the ground responsibilities at the local and state levels that made the wildfires as destructive as they were as abundantly explained before by me and others, and given democrats governed those areas since like forever they are responsible for that in full.
I do feel sad about some made up narratives blaming random stuff by rightwing media but democrats are objectively part of the reason so many homes got burnt down.
Cool story, bro. So, all good
And I noticed I also missed something:
Btw it's strange you didn't see the left blaming the events on climate change, all mainstream press in the anglosphere is out with editorials doing exactly that.
I suggested nothing of the sort; I certainly saw that. What I didn't see was: "claim the wildfires were entirely and exclusively caused by climate change and that meant everyone opposing massive reductions of CO2 emissions is individually responsible for that." But even if there were a lot of people saying that very thing, it changes my point not an iota - as I said, I'd take issue with anyone who said that as well.
