Members banned from this thread: Cypress, evince, domer76, archives, Nomad, ThatOwlWoman, Jade Dragon and reagansghost


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50

Thread: Trump was right about “raking” Finnish forests

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default Trump was right about “raking” Finnish forests

    This article is written by a Finn, but of course it goes without saying that a bunch of Septic arseholes think they know far more than him!!

    Heavy machinery “rakes” Finland’s forest floors after tree cutting, greatly reducing fire risks

    Mikko Paunio

    President Donald Trump was recently ridiculed for telling California Governor Jerry Brown that the Golden State should do as my country does. Trump critics laughed at what some called his “bizarre” claim that foresters in Finland “rake” areas that have been thinned or clear-cut, to remove leaves and other debris that could otherwise start conflagrations like the recent tragic fires in California.

    The Washington Post spread similar misinformation. The Los Angeles Times carried an article by Finnish “green” journalist Anu Partanen. “Finland to President Trump: We don’t rake the forest floor, but we do other things you should emulate,” the headline read. Late night talk show hosts had more fun at the President’s expense.

    Ironically, all this happened at just about the time that Finland’s own forest specialists declared that Mr. Trump was correct about what he told Governor Brown. The foresters disseminated that information widely to the Finnish media and public.

    Mikko Paunio of Helsinki, Finland is a science and policy adviser of the American Council on Science and Health. He has served with numerous national and international climate adaptation working groups.
    forest-rake-1.jpg

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/...nnish-forests/

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Bigdog (12-13-2018)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Prairieville
    Posts
    27,356
    Thanks
    2,896
    Thanked 10,626 Times in 7,127 Posts
    Groans
    331
    Groaned 2,985 Times in 2,707 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    LOL

  4. The Following User Groans At katzgar For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (12-14-2018)

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to katzgar For This Post:

    Bourdeaux Nights (12-13-2018), BRUTALITOPS (12-14-2018)

  6. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Have you considered just sticking to the 'Brexit' thing?

  7. The Following User Groans At Jack For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (12-13-2018)

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jack For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (12-13-2018), kudzu (12-13-2018)

  9. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Have you considered just sticking to the 'Brexit' thing?
    No!!

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to cancel2 2022 For This Post:

    Jack (12-13-2018)

  11. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    No!!
    Why the people of Finland are trolling Trump by raking the ...

    You gotta rake it till you make it. After President Donald Trump suggested Finland has few wildfires because the nation spends a lot of time “raking and cleaning” forest floors, many were ...


    https://www.vox.com/world/2018/11/19...p-raking-woods


    But confused or not, Finns took to social media — vacuum at hand — to prove their dedication to their newfound civic duty.

    Under the hashtag #haravointi (“raking”), some Finns spent this weekend grabbing their gardening tools — with the more creative types picking up their vacuums and Roomba devices — and visiting the woods to document their public service.

    Just this afternoon I was busy meeting my raking quota,” one tweet reads.

    “Taking pride in a good day’s work maintaining the forest,” says another.

    The Finns might not have been serious, but the US president seemed to be. During his visit to Northern California Saturday, Trump told reporters that America should follow the lead of Scandinavian nations like Finland, which “spend a lot of time” on forest preservation.

    “I was with the President of Finland and he said, ... ‘we are a forest nation’ — he called it a forest nation,” Trump said. “And they spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they don’t have any problem. And when it is, it’s a very small problem. So I know everybody’s looking at that to that end.”

    Trump briefly met with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto on November 11, when they were both in Paris for Armistice Day events. After Trump made his remarks in California, Niinisto told Finnish media that he briefly chatted with the president about forest management — but needless to say, raking did not come up.

    “We take care of our forests” is all Niinisto recalled telling Trump.

    continued
    He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine

  12. The Following User Groans At kudzu For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (12-13-2018)

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to kudzu For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (12-13-2018)

  14. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    44,903
    Thanks
    9,713
    Thanked 7,400 Times in 5,849 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 6,396 Times in 6,143 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    This article is written by a Finn, but of course it goes without saying that a bunch of Septic arseholes think they know far more than him!!

    You're a wee, moronic, attention-seeking shite.
    " First they came for the journalists...
    We don't know what happened after that . "

    Maria Ressa.

  15. The Following User Groans At moon For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (12-14-2018)

  16. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to moon For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (12-13-2018), Rune (12-13-2018)

  17. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    Why the people of Finland are trolling Trump by raking the ...

    You gotta rake it till you make it. After President Donald Trump suggested Finland has few wildfires because the nation spends a lot of time “raking and cleaning” forest floors, many were ...


    https://www.vox.com/world/2018/11/19...p-raking-woods


    But confused or not, Finns took to social media — vacuum at hand — to prove their dedication to their newfound civic duty.

    Under the hashtag #haravointi (“raking”), some Finns spent this weekend grabbing their gardening tools — with the more creative types picking up their vacuums and Roomba devices — and visiting the woods to document their public service.

    Just this afternoon I was busy meeting my raking quota,” one tweet reads.

    “Taking pride in a good day’s work maintaining the forest,” says another.

    The Finns might not have been serious, but the US president seemed to be. During his visit to Northern California Saturday, Trump told reporters that America should follow the lead of Scandinavian nations like Finland, which “spend a lot of time” on forest preservation.

    “I was with the President of Finland and he said, ... ‘we are a forest nation’ — he called it a forest nation,” Trump said. “And they spend a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they don’t have any problem. And when it is, it’s a very small problem. So I know everybody’s looking at that to that end.”

    Trump briefly met with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto on November 11, when they were both in Paris for Armistice Day events. After Trump made his remarks in California, Niinisto told Finnish media that he briefly chatted with the president about forest management — but needless to say, raking did not come up.

    “We take care of our forests” is all Niinisto recalled telling Trump.

    continued
    Can't refute the facts, so just post some bullshit instead.

  18. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    You're a wee, moronic, attention-seeking shite.
    Save your sweet nothings for Margarita.

  19. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by katzgar View Post
    LOL
    Oh well, at least Jaded Lizard's sock thanked you. They say curiosity killed the cat, here's hoping!!

  20. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    44,903
    Thanks
    9,713
    Thanked 7,400 Times in 5,849 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 6,396 Times in 6,143 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Save your sweet nothings for Margarita.
    Do tell who she is.
    " First they came for the journalists...
    We don't know what happened after that . "

    Maria Ressa.

  21. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moon View Post
    Do tell who she is.
    Trying to be cute again, cockroach?

  22. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    44,903
    Thanks
    9,713
    Thanked 7,400 Times in 5,849 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 6,396 Times in 6,143 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Moron. I have no idea who you're talking about. Don't tell me either. It's doubtless some stupid maggot comparison.
    " First they came for the journalists...
    We don't know what happened after that . "

    Maria Ressa.

  23. The Following User Groans At moon For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (12-14-2018)

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to moon For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (12-13-2018)

  25. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Can't refute the facts, so just post some bullshit instead.
    California fires: Trump’s tweets about forest management are ...

    Fueling the Fire Trump thinks logging will stop the burning in California. It won’t. By Stephen J. Pyne. Nov 10 ... Besides, the current California fires are not even in forests.

    https://slate.com/technology/2018/11...anagement.html


    On Saturday morning, Donald Trump tweeted about the wildfires currently burning in both Northern and Southern California:

    There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 10, 2018
    It’s not very clear what he’s talking about, but we can hazard a guess. His administration, through its secretaries of agriculture and the interior, seems to equate “forest management” with logging. If that is what Trump is saying—that California has fires because it hasn’t removed enough trees—the tweet is written either in ignorance or misdirection. Logging is more often a cause of fires than a cure.

    Besides, the current California fires are not even in forests.

    So is there anything to the argument that differently managing the land would affect fire? That’s complicated.

    Begin with fire. While we imagine (and model) landscape fire behavior as a physical event, unlike floods and hurricanes, it is a creation of the living world. Tornadoes and tsunamis can occur without a particle of life present; fire cannot. It literally feeds on biomass, behaving more like a plague of locusts than an ice storm. We can’t control the surface ocean that powers hurricanes or the shifting crustal plates that cause earthquakes. We can, within limits, modify the energy source of fire.

    Recently in Future Tense
    Taylor Swift’s Security Used Facial Recognition Technology to Monitor Concert Crowds for Stalkers. Is That Allowed?
    Future Tense Newsletter: Please Stop Hurling Electric Scooters Into Bodies of Water
    The New Roger Ailes Documentary Shows Just How Much Employers Can Spy On Their Workers
    Scooter Companies and Regulators Are at Each Other’s Throats. Here’s How to Change That.
    Controlling fuel is fundamental to any strategy of fire management. It’s what wildland firefighters do when they build fire lines—a sort of waterless moat around a fire—by removing a strip of vegetation. Depending on the flames, a fire line might be the width of a shovel or as wide as a football field. If the fire is spreading by embers riding winds like the Santa Ana, the fire might burn until it reaches the Pacific Ocean. Big wildland fires are contained by burning out swathes of fuel in advance of the oncoming flames. That’s one of many differences between wildland and urban fire. (We no longer dynamite or torch city blocks to deprive fire of fuel, as used to happen as late as 1906 when San Francisco burned.)


    Likewise, fire management at a landscape scale aims to control the character of fire by altering the conditions under which it burns, which in practical terms means addressing the fuels it feeds on. We can’t level mountains, banish winds, or stop all ignitions. But we can modify the vegetation by how we live on the land. We can add fuels, we can reduce fuels, we can rearrange fuels.

    We’ve done all that, sometimes deliberately, often without much attention to how fire will read the result. Every region, every subregion, has its own story of fire reorganized by its history of land use. California’s fires are as monumental as its mountains and winds, and tweaking the vegetation can work only on the margins, though it’s on those margins where people live.

    Controlling combustibles is a major reason we halted the routine conflagration of cities that afflicted America’s cities up to a century ago. Until then, towns burned as often as the surrounding countryside since both were made of the same materials and experienced the same drought and winds. In principle, a similar logic might apply to our rural and wild landscapes if we could agree on what we wanted and how to achieve it. Proper tinkering, many observers think, might allow us to promote the good fires we want and prevent the bad fires we don’t.

    We’re seeing the kinds of urban conflagrations Americans thought they had banished in the early 20th century. It’s like watching measles or polio return.
    For members of the Trump administration, this reasoning leads to “forest management,” which they seem to equate with chain saws. They argue that big-tree logging can be a benign (and profitable) surrogate for fire. But while all fuel is biomass, not all biomass is available as fuel. What fire wants is particles with a lot of surface relative to mass; it wants what a campfire or hearth fire wants. If you wish a fire to flash and roar, put in pine needles, dry grass, and kindling. Add a freshly cut green log and the fire will go out.

    Which is to say, logging and burning do different things. Logging physically removes biomass; fire chemically changes it. Logging takes the big stuff and leaves the little; fire burns the little stuff and leaves the big. After a crown fire—a fire that flashes through a forest canopy—what remains are the tree trunks that logging would have hauled off. Removing them earlier would have lathered the land with post-cut debris called slash—exactly the kind of volatile fuel that fire favors. Slash disposal, in turn, typically means burning it, which has its own hazards for escape fires and which fills the sky with noxious smoke. Up until recent decades, the great conflagrations of American history have, with almost preternatural cunning, trailed logging and land-clearing. This is a country that is good at startups, not so great at cleaning up after itself. But that doesn’t mean some kinds of active management can’t work.

    Where fires are crashing into towns, the real fuel is the built environment. Aerial photos of savaged suburbs tend to show incinerated structures and still-standing trees. The vegetation is adapted to fire; the houses aren’t. Once multiple structures begin to burn, the local fire services are overwhelmed and the fire spreads from building to building. This is the kind of urban conflagration Americans thought they had banished in the early 20th century. It’s like watching measles or polio return. Clearly, the critical reforms must target our houses and towns and revaccinate them against today’s fire threats. The National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise program shows how to harden houses and create defensible space without nuking the scene into asphalt or dirt.

    Too often, whether we’re talking about politics or fire management, the discussion ends up in absolutes. We leave the land to nature, we strip it, or we convert it to built landscapes. We have either the wild or the wrecked. In fact, there are lots of options available, and they will work best as cocktails. There is a place for prescribed burning, for prescribed grazing, for prescribed thinning (a kind of woody weeding), for prescribed chipping and masticating by machines, for greenbelting—crafting swathes of low-fuel land use like recreational parks or even golf courses—and, in select sites, for prescribed logging. Most treatments should concentrate where people and high-value assets are at risk—exurbs, suburbs, municipal watersheds. Elsewhere, in wildlands, some kind of managed fire will likely prove the most usable means, and in the West, hybrid practices—half suppression, half prescribed burn—are becoming common.

    Too often the extremes command attention: the threat of bad fires to cities, the need to restore good fire in wilderness. It’s the intermediate buffer lands that offer an alternative. Here are occasions for active management, not to serve crude commodity production but to enhance ecological goods and services. The Nature Conservancy has pioneered many models of how to engage such landscapes and the societies around them with all the tools of modern society in ways that both create jobs and promote landscape integrity and resilience. This does not, however, seem to be what the Trump administration has in mind.

    California is a special case. It’s a place that nature built to burn, often explosively. If people vanished, fires would still thrive, and they would here and there rush down the foothills like avalanches and storm to the sea. But people have worsened the scene. They have introduced flammable grasses, overgrazed in the mountains and felled forests in ways that overturned the prior system of ecological checks and balances, suppressed good fires as well as bad, and erected towns in what might be regarded as the fire equivalent of flood plains. And then Earth’s keystone species for fire decided to burn fossil biomass, which has cascaded effects throughout the planet and unhinged the climate. We used to think fire history was a subset of climate history; now climate history is becoming a subset of fire history.

    We have to tweak our presence in ways that won’t worsen the firescape, that nudge both city and countryside toward greater resilience, that fire can understand—because it isn’t listening to our rants and reading our tweets. Most of all, it doesn’t, really doesn’t, care about our pain.



    Donald Trump Environment Wildfires
    He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine

  26. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    19,925
    Thanks
    9,718
    Thanked 8,879 Times in 6,106 Posts
    Groans
    105
    Groaned 594 Times in 580 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    Can't refute the facts, so just post some bullshit instead.
    California fires: Trump’s tweets about forest management are ...

    Fueling the Fire Trump thinks logging will stop the burning in California. It won’t. By Stephen J. Pyne. Nov 10 ... Besides, the current California fires are not even in forests.

    https://slate.com/technology/2018/11...anagement.html


    On Saturday morning, Donald Trump tweeted about the wildfires currently burning in both Northern and Southern California:

    There is no reason for these massive, deadly and costly forest fires in California except that forest management is so poor. Billions of dollars are given each year, with so many lives lost, all because of gross mismanagement of the forests. Remedy now, or no more Fed payments!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 10, 2018
    It’s not very clear what he’s talking about, but we can hazard a guess. His administration, through its secretaries of agriculture and the interior, seems to equate “forest management” with logging. If that is what Trump is saying—that California has fires because it hasn’t removed enough trees—the tweet is written either in ignorance or misdirection. Logging is more often a cause of fires than a cure.

    Besides, the current California fires are not even in forests.

    So is there anything to the argument that differently managing the land would affect fire? That’s complicated.

    Begin with fire. While we imagine (and model) landscape fire behavior as a physical event, unlike floods and hurricanes, it is a creation of the living world. Tornadoes and tsunamis can occur without a particle of life present; fire cannot. It literally feeds on biomass, behaving more like a plague of locusts than an ice storm. We can’t control the surface ocean that powers hurricanes or the shifting crustal plates that cause earthquakes. We can, within limits, modify the energy source of fire.

    Recently in Future Tense
    Taylor Swift’s Security Used Facial Recognition Technology to Monitor Concert Crowds for Stalkers. Is That Allowed?
    Future Tense Newsletter: Please Stop Hurling Electric Scooters Into Bodies of Water
    The New Roger Ailes Documentary Shows Just How Much Employers Can Spy On Their Workers
    Scooter Companies and Regulators Are at Each Other’s Throats. Here’s How to Change That.
    Controlling fuel is fundamental to any strategy of fire management. It’s what wildland firefighters do when they build fire lines—a sort of waterless moat around a fire—by removing a strip of vegetation. Depending on the flames, a fire line might be the width of a shovel or as wide as a football field. If the fire is spreading by embers riding winds like the Santa Ana, the fire might burn until it reaches the Pacific Ocean. Big wildland fires are contained by burning out swathes of fuel in advance of the oncoming flames. That’s one of many differences between wildland and urban fire. (We no longer dynamite or torch city blocks to deprive fire of fuel, as used to happen as late as 1906 when San Francisco burned.)


    Likewise, fire management at a landscape scale aims to control the character of fire by altering the conditions under which it burns, which in practical terms means addressing the fuels it feeds on. We can’t level mountains, banish winds, or stop all ignitions. But we can modify the vegetation by how we live on the land. We can add fuels, we can reduce fuels, we can rearrange fuels.

    We’ve done all that, sometimes deliberately, often without much attention to how fire will read the result. Every region, every subregion, has its own story of fire reorganized by its history of land use. California’s fires are as monumental as its mountains and winds, and tweaking the vegetation can work only on the margins, though it’s on those margins where people live.

    Controlling combustibles is a major reason we halted the routine conflagration of cities that afflicted America’s cities up to a century ago. Until then, towns burned as often as the surrounding countryside since both were made of the same materials and experienced the same drought and winds. In principle, a similar logic might apply to our rural and wild landscapes if we could agree on what we wanted and how to achieve it. Proper tinkering, many observers think, might allow us to promote the good fires we want and prevent the bad fires we don’t.

    We’re seeing the kinds of urban conflagrations Americans thought they had banished in the early 20th century. It’s like watching measles or polio return.
    For members of the Trump administration, this reasoning leads to “forest management,” which they seem to equate with chain saws. They argue that big-tree logging can be a benign (and profitable) surrogate for fire. But while all fuel is biomass, not all biomass is available as fuel. What fire wants is particles with a lot of surface relative to mass; it wants what a campfire or hearth fire wants. If you wish a fire to flash and roar, put in pine needles, dry grass, and kindling. Add a freshly cut green log and the fire will go out.

    Which is to say, logging and burning do different things. Logging physically removes biomass; fire chemically changes it. Logging takes the big stuff and leaves the little; fire burns the little stuff and leaves the big. After a crown fire—a fire that flashes through a forest canopy—what remains are the tree trunks that logging would have hauled off. Removing them earlier would have lathered the land with post-cut debris called slash—exactly the kind of volatile fuel that fire favors. Slash disposal, in turn, typically means burning it, which has its own hazards for escape fires and which fills the sky with noxious smoke. Up until recent decades, the great conflagrations of American history have, with almost preternatural cunning, trailed logging and land-clearing. This is a country that is good at startups, not so great at cleaning up after itself. But that doesn’t mean some kinds of active management can’t work.

    Where fires are crashing into towns, the real fuel is the built environment. Aerial photos of savaged suburbs tend to show incinerated structures and still-standing trees. The vegetation is adapted to fire; the houses aren’t. Once multiple structures begin to burn, the local fire services are overwhelmed and the fire spreads from building to building. This is the kind of urban conflagration Americans thought they had banished in the early 20th century. It’s like watching measles or polio return. Clearly, the critical reforms must target our houses and towns and revaccinate them against today’s fire threats. The National Fire Protection Association’s Firewise program shows how to harden houses and create defensible space without nuking the scene into asphalt or dirt.

    Too often, whether we’re talking about politics or fire management, the discussion ends up in absolutes. We leave the land to nature, we strip it, or we convert it to built landscapes. We have either the wild or the wrecked. In fact, there are lots of options available, and they will work best as cocktails. There is a place for prescribed burning, for prescribed grazing, for prescribed thinning (a kind of woody weeding), for prescribed chipping and masticating by machines, for greenbelting—crafting swathes of low-fuel land use like recreational parks or even golf courses—and, in select sites, for prescribed logging. Most treatments should concentrate where people and high-value assets are at risk—exurbs, suburbs, municipal watersheds. Elsewhere, in wildlands, some kind of managed fire will likely prove the most usable means, and in the West, hybrid practices—half suppression, half prescribed burn—are becoming common.

    Too often the extremes command attention: the threat of bad fires to cities, the need to restore good fire in wilderness. It’s the intermediate buffer lands that offer an alternative. Here are occasions for active management, not to serve crude commodity production but to enhance ecological goods and services. The Nature Conservancy has pioneered many models of how to engage such landscapes and the societies around them with all the tools of modern society in ways that both create jobs and promote landscape integrity and resilience. This does not, however, seem to be what the Trump administration has in mind.

    California is a special case. It’s a place that nature built to burn, often explosively. If people vanished, fires would still thrive, and they would here and there rush down the foothills like avalanches and storm to the sea. But people have worsened the scene. They have introduced flammable grasses, overgrazed in the mountains and felled forests in ways that overturned the prior system of ecological checks and balances, suppressed good fires as well as bad, and erected towns in what might be regarded as the fire equivalent of flood plains. And then Earth’s keystone species for fire decided to burn fossil biomass, which has cascaded effects throughout the planet and unhinged the climate. We used to think fire history was a subset of climate history; now climate history is becoming a subset of fire history.

    We have to tweak our presence in ways that won’t worsen the firescape, that nudge both city and countryside toward greater resilience, that fire can understand—because it isn’t listening to our rants and reading our tweets. Most of all, it doesn’t, really doesn’t, care about our pain.



    Donald Trump Environment Wildfires
    He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine

  27. The Following User Groans At kudzu For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (12-14-2018)

  28. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Prairieville
    Posts
    27,356
    Thanks
    2,896
    Thanked 10,626 Times in 7,127 Posts
    Groans
    331
    Groaned 2,985 Times in 2,707 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Havana Moon View Post
    This article is written by a Finn, but of course it goes without saying that a bunch of Septic arseholes think they know far more than him!!



    forest-rake-1.jpg

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/...nnish-forests/

    It is common practice in the US and Finland to doze the branches left over from clear cutting and burn it. This is what your article talks about. You are a moron.

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to katzgar For This Post:

    Guno צְבִי (12-13-2018)

Similar Threads

  1. How Fins Take Care of Their Forests
    By katzgar in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-23-2018, 11:41 AM
  2. Hobby horses: Finnish girls are even more crazy than Septics
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-17-2018, 04:31 PM
  3. Pro Environment Liberals Destroying Our Forests
    By hvilleherb in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-26-2018, 10:08 PM
  4. HOWTO: Make a Finnish style log camp stove
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Off Topic Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 11-06-2012, 07:59 AM
  5. Bush still raking in cash for GOP
    By uscitizen in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-26-2008, 08:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •