David Wallace-Wells on Western fires.
snip
...
Last year marked an additional shift. As nearly every fire ecologist would tell you — making the case for forest management that includes “controlled” burns to “thin” an overabundant supply of “fuel” — the number of acres burned isn’t itself a measure of the human brutality of a fire. The Camp Fire burned 150,000 acres, destroyed 18,000 structures, and killed 85, for instance; last year’s August Complex burned more than a million acres, destroyed 90 structures, and only killed one person. But while the forests are ripe for burning in large part because a century of misguided, aggressive fire-suppression policies allowed an enormous amount of fuel to build up — requiring now perhaps 20 million acres to burn to restore a fire equilibrium in the state — the number of acres does still clearly tell the story of the climate’s trajectory, which governs the life of California’s forests and promises at least a doubling of acreage burned by 2050. Probably something more like a sixfold increase. (In fact, there are estimates extending well above that.) And while, in theory, better state policy — housing, forest management, controlled burns — could make even large fires less destructive, the fires aren’t just larger, they are also more intense, producing their own lightning storms, their own fire tornadoes. Wildfires used to burn at a maximum of 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit, Cal Fire’s Angie Lottes told me they now burn at 2,100 degrees — hot enough to turn the silica in the soil into glass and burning all through the root system of forests along the way.
...
on the childless
A lot of adults don't want children and are happy with that.
a tip of the hat to Sukie
09:22 in Current Affairs, General Commentary | Permalink | Comments (0)