Streamer posted: " It’s important to make a distinction that wildfires can largely be contained/controlled with preventative measures . . ."
You're out of your mind if you believe that. If such containment or control were even close to true, the natural resource agencies would have solved the problem years ago. The fuel supply for wildfires is immense and in most cases self replenishes. The collective resources of all the natural resource agencies in the country is nowhere close to enough to effect that scale of containment. I don't know what drugs you're using, but you are not even close to being grounded in reality. Additionally you apparently don't understand what a shill is either. A shill is one who defends or promotes a product or person beyond the merit of said product or person, kinda' like you supporting Trump, whose negative attributes outnumber any positive ones (if there are any) by an order of magnitude or more.
Wrong… literally about everything in your above statement. You have yourself so convinced of your own bullschit that you overlook the most basic of science that suggests the complete opposite of what you said. Have you not ever heard of controlled burns?
Controlled burns are lit for a number of reasons. By ridding a forest of dead leaves, tree limbs, and other debris, a prescribed burn can help prevent a destructive wildfire. Controlled burns have become more important as fire suppression efforts have grown over the last century. Historically, smaller fires occurred in forests at regular intervals. When these fires are suppressed, flammable materials accumulate, insect infestations increase, forests become more crowded with trees and underbrush, and invasive plant species move in. Controlled burns seek to accomplish the benefits that regular fires historically provided to an environment while also preventing the fires from burning out of control and threatening life and property.
The fuel supply for wildfires is controlled or mitigated with controlled burns. Making this a regular practice allows for new growth to occur that is less flammable. The Palisades and Eaton fires are close to developed areas and would benefit from scheduled and strategic control burns to limit impacts on a geographic area.
Agencies could have made a meaningful impact on the fires. We don’t know to what extent fully, but when a governor cuts $100 million in funding for fire protection, a large degree of culpability falls on the governor as the fires likely wouldn’t have reached this magnitude with proper funding and measures.
I provided evidence directly refuting and disqualifying your claims. It would appear that I am grounded in reality and that you are an unhinged shill who is more interested in adhering to the guidance of your TDS at the expense of science and what is true. With some hesitation, I voted for Trump in only 1 election and articulated the benefits of doing so while also highlighting his deficits. That’s a far cry from “shilling” for Trump. Nice try.
You're also wrong about Democrats being terrible at governing; rather both Republicans and Democrats are terrible at governing. It's just that Republicans are more terrible at it than Democrats. It's a lesser evil sort of thing. BTW, politicians are notoriously bad at this stuff because they don't understand economics, engineering, or how the natural world functions. For starters, and probably a lot more.
We agree that Democrats and Republicans are terrible at governing. With that said, the slightly better approach is to then have less people governing with reduced size of government. It isn’t necessarily a great solution, but it is the best solution. Republicans tend to prefer smaller size and scope of government, which makes them the lesser of the two evils.
Streamer
https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/controlled-burning/
Previous Topic
Index
