|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Climate change |
||
|
anomalocaris 25-Jan-21, 16:49 |
The loudest I think the U.S. is doing good compared to some countries. Pollution is more immediate problem to me. That being said what are you doing personally? |
||
|
Me? Buy and consume locally Raise ~25% of our own food Buy second hand almost everything Trying to educate others We don’t eat much meat On the flip side, we’re Americans so inherently consume and pollute more. In non pandemic times, we probably traveled a little too much. |
||
|
anomalocaris 25-Jan-21, 17:55 |
Jeff I buy a lot of second hand. I eat a lot of meat. Well not a lot but my fair share. The driving is not obtainable for some. Depending where you live. My biggest gripe is the people that live in gross excess and lecture others. Mainly celebs. |
||
|
Stinky But I’ll bet the vast majority of those who strive to live with a small footprint you’ll never hear about. You hear about the celebs because well... they’re celebrities. You’re probably not gonna find Tom Hanks or Ted living in a tiny home raising radishes. I recognize how privileged I am to be able to live as I do. As you say, most can’t. Or don’t know how. Or choose not to. Then again, it’s pretty easy to live sustainabiy if you’re not always wanting more. |
||
|
pawntificator 25-Jan-21, 19:52 |
|
||
|
Pawn |
||
|
Arson My understanding is that 85-90% of wildfires are human caused, the majority of which are accidental. Thumper, you probably know something about this. Regardless of cause, wildfires are definitely burning hotter and faster due to climate change. Hotter, windier and drier weather = hotter faster bigger fires. Not to mention dead forests burn fast and forests are being killed off from invasive insects and .... more climate change. I wonder who keeps setting those hurricanes? |
||
|
z These fires (in California) have several causes obviously but there were exacerbated by a forest policy of simply leaving the forests grow and die, but to never clean them our, never clear them. The dead material simply covered everything. California has had a long running drought exacerbated by not conserving water in out damns and not maintaining the damns. This last year saw an exponential increase in morons who intentionally started fires as some sort of protest against government. They were out whenever the conditions indicated a red flag potential for fires. WHY? Who knows. Many of the fires were caused by illegal alien migrant camps where a campfire spark was pushed by the wind. So we have government incompetence (again), lunatic citizens, and illegal aliens starting fires and conditions exacerbated by drought, warmer, windier, and drier than normal seasons. |
||
|
Softy Curious about this: “policy of simply leaving the forests grow and die, but to never clean them our, never clear them. The dead material simply covered everything.” So what to do? Hire immigrants to clean millions of acres of forest? What does it mean to ‘clean a forest?’ I mean practically... how? You’d be talking about millions of man hours, no? Where did you get this idea? |
||
|
|
||
|
dmaestro 25-Jan-21, 23:25 |
|
||
|
pawntificator 25-Jan-21, 23:39 |
In truth, I have loved many trees and hugged them. But you can't rely on feelings when developing environmental policy and forest mismanagement is a real problem. You need to let it burn every few years to keep things on an even keel. I realize using maritime metaphors might be a little silly in this instance, but these hippies are not dealing well with reality. |
||
|
Mixed metaphors |
||
|
Forest management But ‘cleaning forests’ is meaningless What we need are sustainable forestry practices. Not tree hugging (whatever that really means) and certainly not hiring people to ‘clean the forests’ of debris. That is the idea of someone who’s spent no time in the forest. |
||
|
Z Natural fires benefit the forest in many ways but we suppress them because some people (city tree huggers) think it keeps the forest 'pristine'. That suppression of a natural process actually throws the system out of balance. You should know this as well as I so why try to argue? |
||
|
Thumper I don't really agree that letting wildfires occur is the same as 'cleaning the forest.' If that's what's meant, why not say so? If that's what he meant, then I misinterpreted it. Allowing some fires to burn is an important part of forest and fire management. But there are many other factors as well. Logging and erosion control practices. Our forests have been clearcut and/or developed or replaced by monoculture Doug fir tree farms (not yours . With some notable exceptions, all the natural original forest is gone. What remains is not healthy. It is prone to all kinds of problems for a multitude of reasons which you are well aware of. Allowing wildfires to burn is essential, but we also, as you are an expert in (thank you very much), need to save lives and property. We need to change our forestry practices drastically and find a way to build healthy forests, not lumber manufactories. Otherwise they'll burn, or die, and then burn. Unhealthy ecosystems can't sustain the changes climate change is bringing. That's why I have a problem with 'California needs to clean it's forests.' What is needed is a new paradigm of forestry management. (Have you read the book, The Overstory, by chance?) There's also the question, of course, of where the billions of dollars are for forestry management on this scale. |
||
|
Thumper I work for a living and I don't simply tend the garden and then spend the rest of the day looking for posts to criticize. I squeeze in a few minutes and print out some quick thoughts which may or may not be clearly stated and/or understood. I object to the juvenile attitude that we have once again let into this club that has (seemingly) no other purpose than to demean and insult people. |
||
|
Softie The reason you're my First Officer is because I trust your judgement and even handed approach. Let's see where this goes. |
||
|
Softy My apologies. You could address me directly if you like. |
||
|
anomalocaris 26-Jan-21, 12:26 |
|
||
|
Z That is how you 'clean the forest' and I did say so. Cleaning the forest isn't like picking up trash on the side of the road. Fire is the prescribed and natural tool to clean it. It removes undergrowth and ladder fuels as well as destructive insects. Natural fires scorch trees without killing them... making them tougher and more resistant. Results of a fire also adds needed nutrients to the soil for healthy future growth. I agree that having a mono-crop to harvest isn't 'natural' but necessary for a sustainable 'crop', much like a wheat farmer. Even so, the same forest cleaning rules apply. Is this where you come in and demand that I site my sources in an attempt to prove it to you? |
||
|
Z Thumper has said and given more explanation than I was able in my hurried up post, but that's more or less what was in my mind. I just didn't have the words or proper thoughts at the moment so it's really my fault for not being more clear. |
||
|
Thumper I guess I saw the passive 'allowing fires to burn' as different than the active 'cleaning the forest.' Still a huge task well presently allocated resources. So we agree. Forests need to be managed, at least to a large degree by allowing controlled fires. Can we also agree that we should strive to diversify our forests and find a way to avoid clearcutting and never ever cut old growth? |
||
|
Anom But with the hotter fires in todays hotter drier uncleaned forests, the fires are too hot and often destroy the trees and seeds. |
