Springfield XD Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,093 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've read several articles in the past two years that essentially say we are now dealing with unintended consequences related to forest fires:
  • Mother Nature historically had forest fires.
  • We have become good at fire suppression.
  • "Fuel" builds up in the forests due to fire suppression, and a lack of ability/$ to clear out the fuel.
  • People are building in remote or sparse places and we want to protect them.

This article is humorous since it mentions "cue the outrage mob".
Rantz: Progressives attack scientist for telling truth about smoky Washington

Those with a home in a remote or sparse location might ask themselves "hmmm, is there a buildup of fuel near me?...". The unintended consequences are not going to get better in the years ahead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,869 Posts
Healthy forests have regular logging activity in them, old trees are logged so young trees can grow in, dead undergrowth is removed, etc.

Or, we leave the forests alone and periodically nature takes care of them the way nature always has, fire.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZanderMan

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,830 Posts
Perhaps we have flipped over too much in the name of environmental diversity. Tree huggers. Fish kissers. Too many stupid and counterproductive rules and regulations regarding forest management. This includes wildfire suppression.

Why do almost nothing at almost zero cost when instead you can spend a ton of money managing everything and actually making things worse. Pretty much it. Wildfire suppression has become big big business in the Pacific Northwest.

Until meaningful change is done small lightning started wild fires will continue to be "managed" (let get bigger and bigger before suppression begins) at great expense. The national forest and wilderness rules will boggle your mind. Yep.

SW OR USA. ex FF.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,830 Posts
Sarcasm.

Good question. That question being many billions and billions of BTUs immediately dumped into a closed world ecosystem may do something or perhaps little at all?

With absolutely documented true and accurate overwhelming data indicating people are causing the increased CO2 levels and the increased CO2 levels are increasing temps.

Yeah. Sure.

The CO2 released by the forests burning immediately, (over a couple of months) gets absorbed by all the greenery. Connifer forests tend to grow more quickly nowadays.

Why? Nobody knows furs sures. Might be the increased CO2?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,839 Posts
I've read several articles in the past two years that essentially say we are now dealing with unintended consequences related to forest fires:
  • Mother Nature historically had forest fires.
  • We have become good at fire suppression.
  • "Fuel" builds up in the forests due to fire suppression, and a lack of ability/$ to clear out the fuel.
  • People are building in remote or sparse places and we want to protect them.

This article is humorous since it mentions "cue the outrage mob".
Rantz: Progressives attack scientist for telling truth about smoky Washington

Those with a home in a remote or sparse location might ask themselves "hmmm, is there a buildup of fuel near me?...". The unintended consequences are not going to get better in the years ahead.
I read that story fully expecting a global warming, anti-Trump rant. Didn't happen.

The other day one of the local news stations sought out a climate change grant-junky to ask their thoughts about the possible causes of the current fires in the PNW. Yeah, that really happened.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
10,384 Posts
I find Global Warming people silly, wanting to always blame our small country, while China, India, and Mexico are spewing out pollution like it is no big deal.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top