After the last 10 years of continuous researching and training in this area myself I now tell my students (as a baby boomer myself) that the coming generations are just waiting for all us baby booming dinosaurs to die and get out of the way so that the next generations can finally have a fair go at repairing the damage that the previous recent generations have done and that they need to ignore our lassitude saw an impediment to their future for the sake of their own survival.
IN SO MANY WAYS. I say this all the time. Figures the only person really noticing is an academic who's paid to think about something.
I'm sure it is, but since the last several years, three or more months of the year with smoke when I don't remember so much from the past tickles my conspiracy cortex.
I know exactly how you feel. Smoke is my least favorite season. Kids are losing a month or more of summer, etc. It's pretty bad. It's not a conspiracy it's just the consequences of a lot of things. I'll elaborate more on some other quotes.
Government’s primary function is to provide for the local security of citizens’ homes, garbage pick-up, roads and street repair. Surely protection from annihilation from wildfires is part of this fundamental governmental purpose and obligation.
Why is such a tiny part (less than 1%) of the State of California’s annual budget of $200 billion spent on preparing for and defending against the completely known and predictable threat of wildfires?
Ron, it's a huge problem for sure. States typically have smaller parts in the funding. The majority is federal. The problem is at the federal level no one wants to pay anything, and only some people are from the areas affected. Once fire season is over, it's very easy to just forget. At the state level you have to convince people to pass resolutions for taxes that'll go towards fire fighting. And people not affected by it don't want to pay for it. In California it would probably be hard to convince Silicon Valley.
The fight isn't during the fires, it's that no one has the funding to work year round to prevent them, and create defensible areas that border burnable woods - or around homes. When a fire is coming through an area the fire crews will go to houses to try and do what they can to save them. But if they come to a house that has never tried to buffer the fuel area, they simply move to the next. They don't even attempt to help houses that clearly haven't started the process to make it defensible. They get sued for it often, but there's no reason to save something that can't be. What they need is year round funding to educate people and help them create defensible homes.
Right now there are crews running around for expensive house to expensive house trying to do something about it. They're privately contracted by the insurance companies that will have to pay for the home loses. The problem is that the estates they come to would need hundreds of people working for days to make a difference. If year round education and prevention was deployed they could manicure their property in safe ways, just using the usual people that tend them. As is right now the only option to save houses is to bulldoze a bunch of houses to stop the fire from spreading because houses are perfect fuel. You can probably see the issue with that scenario.
How did we get here? Well one of the number one things is the loss of wood industry in the US. The deal with that is we buy lots of cabinets and wood products from overseas. Wood we do process in the US comes from Canada by the numbers now. I can't recall if Canada is subsidizing or not, but they've flooded the market with cheap wood. Why does all of this matter? Because private dollars from Sawmills, loggers, etc, was spent to maintain the forests. Back before this was happening the feds didn't have to spend a lot of money. If you logged in most states where clear cutting is totally illegal, you were required to replant. They also cleared underbrush. Commercial dollars were spent maintaining forest, which was ultimately from consumers getting a product for what we can now view as "protection" - instead of paying taxes for nothing. It wasn't perfect but an interesting fact most people don't know is through the 90's where this was all happening the US also had more trees than at any point in history despite logging and building etc. Now we are just trying to get people who don't
really to allocate money, or increase their tax burden to make up for it.
I read through the new tariff bill. IMO the most foolish thing was not putting on on foreign wood and wood products. It would provide A LOT of jobs that provide a livelihood (not just a shit job), and protect us from wildfires if we went back to commercial dollars doing maintenance. We would however still need to increase our efforts. California has been a drought state for too long not to have some problems. I get a lot of information from my career brother in the Wildlife fire fighting field... none of them are surprised in the least that California is burning. In fact he said it was going to happen a few years ago.
The good news is a few million here and there has slowly been allocated to keep crews working longer. A few dollars in preventive measures GOES PRETTY DAMN FAR compared to begging FEMA every year for money to fight fires. Sadly it's too slow. Baby boomers are holding it up, but really it's a tug of war with money. The boomers just want to do everything like it's yesteryear, and they're in all the top positions.
What's truly sad is how bad the public often treats the fire fighters who are out risking their lives for not very much money - and abusing their bodies. They can be VERY UGLY, especially if they lose something. The problem is we're simply smaller than nature and can only do so much (especially on a budget). Our president I am sure won't cut funding but needed to make a statement, and all that talk about dumping water into the ocean is nonsense. I'm not a hater of him at all, he just spouted nonsense about the subject is all. It needs funding, not de-funding. There is plenty of water, but there isn't money or resources to dump enough on the fires - they can also be too hot to stop with fire, and as humans we don't have the means to dump concrete or rocks on it till it's fixed. The best approximation of his comment would show that he's confused about what rivers are (which I find hard to believe, he's not dumb).