Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by themark 1336 days ago
and a shit job of managing wildfires.
2 comments

The only real tool for managing wildfires is controlled burns. The problem is, California isn't burning often enough [1].

The question is, if these areas were managed properly, with controlled burns, what would the greenhouse gas emissions be? I imagine proper management wasn't included in the emissions goals.

Related, we have some endangered pyrophytic [2] plants near where I live. I imagine they'll be extinct, within my lifetime.

1. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-10-07/newsom-s...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte

edit: perhaps you had this in mind with "managing wildfires".

> what would the greenhouse gas emissions be?

Zero or minus, because you’re still burning a carbon capture tool.

It’s not a joke, it’s important. In Australia they forbade controlled burnings for 10 years. Result: A 10-year burn. CO2 emissions: Still 0 over 10 years, but lots of homesteads burnt.

I mean, we're fighting wildfires about as good as anyone could.

What CA doesn't do well is manage forests.

The vast majority of burns are on federal land. CA does not manage national forests.
Last I knew (as I lived right by areas that were constantly burning) Cal Fire had the contacts to maintain the majority of the federal land in northern California.