this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
212 points (99.5% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5505 readers
713 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

For this particular event I think the extreme weather conditions are a greater contributor than forest mismanagement, which yes, has happened for over 100 years not just in California but throughout the entire US. But both are factors.

As far as the feds vs the state... much of the forested land in CA is federal land, so ultimately I do think they have to take responsibility. On the other hand, since proper forest management hasn't been standard practice in the US since the genocide against Native Americans, there's no clear delegation of responsibility here. I'm sure the state could get federal approval to take actions in forest service land, but they generally lack the budget.

In general, CAL FIRE and the USFS both know what needs to be done in order to manage our forests better, and they are already taking these actions on a small scale. People who levy this criticism often imagine that professional government foresters are just idiots who don't understand their own field, but this is far from the case. The reality is that there's just no way these agencies can do fire prevention activities on a large enough scale to solve the problem. Again, they would need much higher budgets to focus on these things, and might need to abandon the focus on fire-fighting activities since this is where the vast majority of money goes currently. They would also need the ability to do controlled burns without worrying excessively about the consequences like they do now.

Overall I don't think there is really a realistic path to better forest management in the US unless there are some major political and cultural changes. I think empowering individuals to do controlled burns without a need for major oversight from the state or feds would be one change. Bringing back large herbivores to control tree density might also help without a need to huge amounts of human labor but this is far more speculative.

[–] palarith@aussie.zone 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Even in Australia we had to have a couple of major bushfires before we got serious about management

Even now knobs still complain when backburning is to be done

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Do you feel the problem has been significantly addressed in Australia? Here there is a lot of talk about controlled burns but there is also a lot of public and bureaucratic resistance such that hardly any gets done compared to the scale of our landscapes.

One significant obstacle is rules around clean air. This is a difficult topic because for geographical and climatological reasons, California is very vulnerable to poor air quality, and pollution here kills thousands of people annually. So I'm not exactly enthused about loosening rules around air quality when the problem is already so dire, but on the other hand, much of that fire will happen one way or the other, so maybe it's better that it happens in a controlled manner.

Here's an article that goes over some of the hurdles here in California: https://www.newsweek.com/controlled-burns-california-forest-management-los-angeles-fires-2012492