California Fire Thread

[NeoOasis]

California is not meant to sustain a population of 30 or more millions. We should not be surprised that there seems to be perpetual fire. It will only get worse.

It's not an issue of population exclusively. There are various factors at play here. Among them are decades of fire prevention that have lead to a build up of flammable undergrowth, population expansion into these areas all made worse by climate change, drought, and crappy wind conditions.

[Kowani]

California is not meant to sustain a population of 30 or more millions. We should not be surprised that there seems to be perpetual fire. It will only get worse.

It's not an issue of population exclusively. There are various factors at play here. Among them are decades of fire prevention that have lead to a build up of flammable undergrowth, population expansion into these areas all made worse by climate change, drought, and crappy wind conditions.

Add power lines to that list.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Hope things get better soon.

[Reploid Productions]

It's not an issue of population exclusively. There are various factors at play here. Among them are decades of fire prevention that have lead to a build up of flammable undergrowth, population expansion into these areas all made worse by climate change, drought, and crappy wind conditions.

Add power lines to that list.

And jackass arsonists. Pretty sure there's one running around given that LA/Ventura have had at least four fires in less than a week in the same general vicinity.

[New Kvenland]

Damn, we got all these fires and all the stuff they've put in the air didn't even give us a half decent sunset. This is bullshit

Sucks to see how damaging these fires have been, though. Was honestly freaked out when I saw one had destroyed a town in Norcal, was worried it was my cousins'. Also we really oughta do something about that whole "making prison slaves fight fires for us" thing

[NeoOasis]

Add power lines to that list.

And jackass arsonists. Pretty sure there's one running around given that LA/Ventura have had at least four fires in less than a week in the same general vicinity.

That's fucked yo. Also pretty sure this would probably turn into murder charges at this point. Last figure I saw was 41 dead due to fires this season.

[New Kvenland]

Add power lines to that list.

And jackass arsonists. Pretty sure there's one running around given that LA/Ventura have had at least four fires in less than a week in the same general vicinity.

We had one of those in San Diego, set a backyard on fire right on my street. Thank god he didn't start any serious fires

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

But it's costing them a continuous steady drip of money almost every year. Wouldn't relocation elsewhere eventually pay for itself? What are they doing in California that they couldn't do elsewhere?

Relocating and resettling almost 40 million people would be prohibitively expensive. In addition, the loss of California agriculture would have a massive impact (to the tune of roughly 13% of the nation's total agricultural value) on US food supplies. The destruction of an entire economy would create a domino effect dragging the rest of the nation's (and potentially chain-reacting clear up to the global level) economy down.

It would never "pay for itself," especially as "abandon California" does nothing about the exact same wildfire problems also occurring in: Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, etc. California does not have a monopoly on massive wildfires. You'll note that California is far from the only location represented.

So how come you scarcely hear about those other states' wildfires on the news?

And why couldn't that farming be done in states with more rain?

[New Kvenland]

Relocating and resettling almost 40 million people would be prohibitively expensive. In addition, the loss of California agriculture would have a massive impact (to the tune of roughly 13% of the nation's total agricultural value) on US food supplies. The destruction of an entire economy would create a domino effect dragging the rest of the nation's (and potentially chain-reacting clear up to the global level) economy down.

It would never "pay for itself," especially as "abandon California" does nothing about the exact same wildfire problems also occurring in: Oregon, Washington, Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, etc. California does not have a monopoly on massive wildfires. You'll note that California is far from the only location represented.

So how come you scarcely hear about those other states' wildfires on the news?

And why couldn't that farming be done in states with more rain?

"Wildfire threatens Los Angeles" is more interesting than "wildfire burns New Mexico wilderness," of course it'll be in the news more often

And those states with more rain also have way worse climates and way worse soil. The Central Valley needs a ton of irrigation, but its soil is rivaled by few anywhere in the world, and the climate is of course exactly what most non-tropical fruits and vegetables need. It would make no sense to not take advantage of it

[Reploid Productions]

"Wildfire threatens Los Angeles" is more interesting than "wildfire burns New Mexico wilderness," of course it'll be in the news more often

^-- Nailed it in one. Similarly, "Wildfire threatens $celebrity's_house in Malibu" is far more of an attention-grabbing headline than "wildfire threatens sparsely populated region in Oregon wilderness." Sadly, I fear the main reason the Camp fire has gotten so much media attention is simply because "Wildfire kills X number of people!" and "Wildfire destroys entire town" are extremely sensational, attention-grabbing headlines.

To paraphrase something Scolopendra once noted:
Every region on the planet has a budget of "Natural Suck", and each spends this budget differently. Some places, such as California, blow its entire budget of suck on big flashy events, leaving the rest of the time clear. Other places (his example was Scotland) spend a little of that budget every day, avoiding major disasters but resulting in generally crappy weather conditions most of the time. While fighting wildfires is not inexpensive, ANY disaster situation is not cheap. Cleaning up after tornado damage every year adds up, yet abandoning the states in 'tornado alley' isn't a proposal. Mopping up after hurricanes every year adds up, yet abandoning the Gulf Coast and eastern seaboard isn't a proposal. Severe blizzards can paralyze entire cities in the northern parts of the country, and plowing that snow multiple times a year adds up, but abandoning those regions isn't a proposal. Even areas of the country generally thought "safe" from disasters have their own flavor of potential disaster, often infrequent but vastly more severe when they do occur.

[Dogmeat]

Sometime between "Never" and "When the sun swallows the inner solar system."

But it's costing them a continuous steady drip of money almost every year. Wouldn't relocation elsewhere eventually pay for itself? What are they doing in California that they couldn't do elsewhere?

Right, but this is sort of the case everywhere. In some form anyway.

Minnesota doesn't have dramatic fires, but if you add up the cumulative costs of all the myriad damages and extra fuel requirements associated with winter in a given year, I bet that number would stagger the senses. To say nothing of tornadoes or flooding.

The difference is mainly that fires and earthquakes are dramatic.

[Costa Fierro]

So how come you scarcely hear about those other states' wildfires on the news?

Because they often don't impact heavily populated areas. No one really cares about a few thousand acres of pine forest in Oregon burning because it's not doing any harm, and is in fact, beneficial. A town of 20,000 being wiped off the map is significant, and people do care.

[Page]

Some of you seem to have this idea that it's an easy thing to just stop living and stop industry in any place with natural disasters, it doesn't work like that. You can't just relocate everyone in California who's in these wildfire vulnerable areas, we're talking about whole cities here, we're talking about significant pieces of the economy.

Reminds me of hurricane talk with people outside Florida, people ask
"So did your parents evacuate?"
"No."
"What?!?! Why?!?!"
"Because they aren't in a flood zone or a mobile home, so evacuation isn't necessary."
"Wouldn't it be safer to get out?"
"No, the roads to stay clear for people who do need to evacuate, if everyone in the state tried to leave then the highways would turn into a parking lot and millions of people would be stranded on the highway when the hurricane hit."
"Why do people even live in Florida if this happens every year?"
"You just deal with it. Hurricanes are a part of life."

Sometimes a natural disaster will be particularly destructive. And after, you rebuild. You can't just stop existing near nature. If it's not a wildfire, it's a tornado, if it's not a tornado it's an earthquake, if it's not an earthquake it's a hurricane.

[Costa Fierro]

Some of you seem to have this idea that it's an easy thing to just stop living and stop industry in any place with natural disasters, it doesn't work like that. You can't just relocate everyone in California who's in these wildfire vulnerable areas, we're talking about whole cities here, we're talking about significant pieces of the economy.

Reminds me of hurricane talk with people outside Florida, people ask
"So did your parents evacuate?"
"No."
"What?!?! Why?!?!"
"Because they aren't in a flood zone or a mobile home, so evacuation isn't necessary."
"Wouldn't it be safer to get out?"
"No, the roads to stay clear for people who do need to evacuate, if everyone in the state tried to leave then the highways would turn into a parking lot and millions of people would be stranded on the highway when the hurricane hit."
"Why do people even live in Florida if this happens every year?"
"You just deal with it. Hurricanes are a part of life."

Sometimes a natural disaster will be particularly destructive. And after, you rebuild. You can't just stop existing near nature. If it's not a wildfire, it's a tornado, if it's not a tornado it's an earthquake, if it's not an earthquake it's a hurricane.

It's even better when you live on an island and can't leave to escape earthquakes.

[Corrian]

Even in Washington, you just have flooding, fall winds, and the possibility of a major earthquake looming over all the time.

I mean before there is the assumption fall winds aren't likely to be that bad, there was this historically crazy windstorm that cut the power of 1.8 million people throughout Oregon and Washington (Mostly Washington)

I'm pretty sure no matter where you live, there is a possibility of some major natural disaster, so even if you moved that many people, it'd just put them all elsewhere to be hit by something else. Or that many people migrating would just create it where somewhere that was safe is suddenly in the danger zone for fires now because all the people have moved.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

But it's costing them a continuous steady drip of money almost every year. Wouldn't relocation elsewhere eventually pay for itself? What are they doing in California that they couldn't do elsewhere?

Right, but this is sort of the case everywhere. In some form anyway.

Minnesota doesn't have dramatic fires, but if you add up the cumulative costs of all the myriad damages and extra fuel requirements associated with winter in a given year, I bet that number would stagger the senses. To say nothing of tornadoes or flooding.

The difference is mainly that fires and earthquakes are dramatic.

What about New England, which gets fewer tornadoes and fewer wildfires?

[Ifreann]

Right, but this is sort of the case everywhere. In some form anyway.

Minnesota doesn't have dramatic fires, but if you add up the cumulative costs of all the myriad damages and extra fuel requirements associated with winter in a given year, I bet that number would stagger the senses. To say nothing of tornadoes or flooding.

The difference is mainly that fires and earthquakes are dramatic.

What about New England, which gets fewer tornadoes and fewer wildfires?

Lovecraftian horrors.

[Cannot think of a name]

Right, but this is sort of the case everywhere. In some form anyway.

Minnesota doesn't have dramatic fires, but if you add up the cumulative costs of all the myriad damages and extra fuel requirements associated with winter in a given year, I bet that number would stagger the senses. To say nothing of tornadoes or flooding.

The difference is mainly that fires and earthquakes are dramatic.

What about New England, which gets fewer tornadoes and fewer wildfires?

Are you really prepared to open enough In n Out Burgers to accommodate us all?

[Internationalist Bastard]

It is a rather bad situation
I remember the other day I went into a restaurant and a football game was on in Cali and they were talking about the air quality and how the players needed oxygen tanks at several points

[Cannot think of a name]

It is a rather bad situation
I remember the other day I went into a restaurant and a football game was on in Cali and they were talking about the air quality and how the players needed oxygen tanks at several points

Yeah, I think I was supposed to stay inside Saturday but there was a Simpsons Duff Beer pop up and-



goddammit that was the most LA fucking thing I've said since I moved here...

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

What about New England, which gets fewer tornadoes and fewer wildfires?

Are you really prepared to open enough In n Out Burgers to accommodate us all?

Burgers? If New England's as liberal as it's made out to be, wouldn't they be selling vegan food instead of beef?

For the record, I'm from Canada.

[Corrian]

Are you really prepared to open enough In n Out Burgers to accommodate us all?

Burgers? If New England's as liberal as it's made out to be, wouldn't they be selling vegan food instead of beef?

For the record, I'm from Canada.

...Entire areas don't just sell Vegan food because they're more Liberal.

Like even Seattle that is super Vegan friendly in a lot of areas doesn't just have an invasion of Vegan food instead of beef in the city with no meat alternatives.

[Corrian]

Right, but this is sort of the case everywhere. In some form anyway.

Minnesota doesn't have dramatic fires, but if you add up the cumulative costs of all the myriad damages and extra fuel requirements associated with winter in a given year, I bet that number would stagger the senses. To say nothing of tornadoes or flooding.

The difference is mainly that fires and earthquakes are dramatic.

What about New England, which gets fewer tornadoes and fewer wildfires?

Snowstorms. Below zero temperatures. Etc. They have a lot of issues with snow in winter.

[Partybus]

Are you really prepared to open enough In n Out Burgers to accommodate us all?

Burgers? If New England's as liberal as it's made out to be, wouldn't they be selling vegan food instead of beef?

For the record, I'm from Canada.

Yes, because everyone knows that liberals don't eat meat SMFH

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Burgers? If New England's as liberal as it's made out to be, wouldn't they be selling vegan food instead of beef?

For the record, I'm from Canada.

...Entire areas don't just sell Vegan food because they're more Liberal.

Like even Seattle that is super Vegan friendly in a lot of areas doesn't just have an invasion of Vegan food instead of beef in the city with no meat alternatives.

It was a slight exaggeration, but culturally speaking, you'd think districts that vote against climate change deniers would tend to be, albeit not inherently be, more willing to do something about climate change themselves too.

I'm centre-left and I eat less meat than most people I know.