[syshum]

I never claimed a political party was to blame, and It is not a CA only problem, the US Forest Service has had decades of bad management as well under both Republicans and Democrats

It is a GOVERNMENT problem, both parties are terrible.

>>We have the 2004 Alaska fire, the 2017 Montana wildfire or the fires in Idaho and Georgia in 2007 that were over 500,000 acres

Isnt that kinda of the point, the claim is that Climate change is the cause, but fires of this kind have been happening for decades

Fire happen in forests, and proper forest management will lessen their impact (it will not prevent them)

Forest fires have been happening since before humans existed on this plant, and they will continue to happen long after we have killed ourselves with our own stupidity

[kristopolous]

Of course they will. People die naturally without smoking cigarettes as well. Smoking however, has a real effect.

This is a matter of frequency, ferocity, and number of locations, that's why it's "instability"; the 60 degree change in Colorado over 8hrs for instance.

Or the multiple hurricanes at once phenomena recently almost like they're lined up in a queue. Or that crazy one in New York, or that disastrous one in Houston, rare extreme events are increasing in frequency due to climate disruption.

The statement "hurricanes happen" is about as valid as saying "people die" in order to dismiss the health concerns of cigarettes.

Nobody is claiming they don't. The claim, to use cigarettes, is that statistically speaking, a significant amount die when they usually wouldn't. Early deaths dramatically increase in frequency. Also pointing to the climate equivalent of the 100 year old smoker doesn't discredit things either. This is a statistical argument, not an absolute one.

If a better sports team has an upset defeat, they're still the better team because of their statistical performance.

The claim here isn't that these things didn't exist but that they're more numerous, more dramatic, and occur more often, globally, in every country. The numbers clearly back that story.

[syshum]

Even if I agree to the premise (which I do not.. ) it still does not address many many many of the concerns people have around these types of laws including the fact they are largely regressive in nature impacting poor people the most, they are more Climate Theatre than actual effective policy on changing any kind of Climate change, and the unintended effects could be worse either for humans or for the environment

There are many things I think can be done for Climate change, Banning gas powered cars is not one of them

[kristopolous]

Ah we finally agree.

Yes, this is meaningless unenforceable pablum to curry votes prior to an election.

A serious effort would be to do say, an enforceable statewide boycott of imports from nations that are still building fossil fuel plants the same way the abolitionists got rid of global slavery in the 1800s.

A seizing and decomission of all state fossil fuel power production and a disbursement of the war chests to the laid off workers the same way we got rid of global whaling could help too.

There's lots of precedence for this, but we'd need to do some command economy level actions to achieve it.

You'd also need a bunch of political leaders willing to kamikaze their careers to achieve it. I don't see it happening tbh.