Monday, September 14, 2020

Biden Calls Trump a "Climate Arsonist"

Big bonus for whoever on Biden's staff came up with that label!

...later in the briefing, the president was directly challenged to accept the reality of climate change by California's secretary for natural resources, Wade Crawfoot.

"If we ignore that science and sort of put our head in the sand and think it's all about vegetation management, we're not going to succeed together protecting Californians," Crawfoot told the president.

"It'll start getting cooler, you just watch," Trump replied.

"I wish science agreed with you," Crawfoot said.

"I don't think science knows, actually," Trump shot back.

What a stooge.

Some White House reporter, please please please ask Trump to explain why it will start getting cooler.

While you're at it, ask him to explain the theory of manmade global warming in one minute or less. Please.

11 comments:

J. D. said...

Don't worry about man made climate change it will just dissappear. Where have we heard that before?
Then if it doesn't dissappear we can just spray disinfect or hydroxychloroquine into the atmosphere to counteract rising greenhouse gas levels. Who needs science when we've got Trump's incredibly large brain on the case.

Layzej said...

It would be interesting to know what he says privately about climate change. He clearly knew about the threat of COVID, all the while playing it down:

Privately: "You just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed. And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flus."

Publicly: “The 15 (case count in the U.S.) within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero. ... This is a flu. This is like a flu.”

And he's still discouraging mask use, which is the best way to keep the economy open and keep people safe.

David in Cal said...

"California wildfires used to be much bigger. This past decade, California has seen an average burnt area of 775,000 acres. Before 1800, however, California typically saw between 4.4 and 11.9 million acres burn every year.

"...Even this year’s record-breaking 2.3 million burnt acres is about half the lower end of a typical year in earlier times.

"And the main reason we are now seeing more and bigger fires is because our century of fire suppression has left what researchers call a “fire deficit” — all the fuel that should have burnt but didn’t. It is now waiting to burn even hotter and fiercer...

"Newsom is right that climate plays a part. It does create a more favorable fire environment by ­increasing hot and dry conditions. But experts estimate this plays a minor role. The much more important factor is the way we manage forest lands and develop our landscape."

https://nypost.com/2020/09/14/sorry-solar-panels-wont-stop-californias-fires/

David Appell said...

David, if we logged all the forests there'd be no fires. Perhaps that's the answer, huh?

David Appell said...

The much more important factor is the way we manage forest lands and develop our landscape."

Seriously, I don't know what people/conservatives mean by this, or what they think should be done, or an example of where it has been done correctly according to their standards.

Do you, David?

David Appell said...

The NY Post wrote:
To understand why, it helps to know that California wildfires used to be much bigger. This past decade, California has seen an average burnt area of 775,000 acres. Before 1800, however, California typically saw between 4.4 and 11.9 million acres burn every year.

Really, this is just a raw dumb stupid thing to write as if it's at all relevant.

Sure, there were big fires when nobody lived there and there was no one to put them out.

What does that have to do with today?? David? You quoted it....

David Appell said...

Really, David, I'd like to know: what do conservatives say should be done with forests, to prevent situations like the fires that are going on in WA/OR/CA right now? Specifically? If you say "thin forests," please specify exactly what that means. How? How much?

Thanks.

David in Cal said...

David - you ask some good questions.

Many conservatives, including the President, deny man-made global warming. They're wrong. However, they are correct that for CA and OR to cut CO2 emissions won't help fight wild fires. Cutting emissions is a good thing to do, but the impact on the climate is much too slow to help in the next few years IMHO.

As to what we should do, I have no expertise. I found this comment:

"Experts, environmentalists and loggers largely agree that thinning trees and brush through prescribed burns and careful logging will help prevent forests that cover vast tracts of the American West from threatening cities with fire."

My guesses about just how to do this are worthless.

Cheers

Layzej said...

Costs of fire suppression/prevention in California are rising exponentially.

1980s: $25 million
1990s: $61 million
2000s: $236 million
2010s: $401 million

I imagine there is work to be done in the short term to allocate the funds more optimally between prevention and suppression, but I expect costs will continue to rise until the root cause is addressed.

David in Cal said...

This article from MIT Technology Review recommends forest thinning and controlled burns.

A 2018 report by the Little Hoover Commission, an independent state oversight agency, recommended cleaning out 1.1 million acres a year. That would still take two decades, and require a lot of workers and money. Prescribed burns on forest and park lands can cost more than $200 per acre, while thinning can easily top $1,000, depending on the terrain. So the total costs could range from hundreds of millions of dollars to well above a billion per year.

Still, that’s a fraction of the costs incurred by out-of-control wildfires. To take just one example, the devastating Wine Country Fires in October 2017 did more than $9 billion worth of damage in a single month. Battling wildfires on US Forest Service land runs more $800 an acre.

And without thinning and burning, the wildfires are only going to get worse.


https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/09/17/1008473/wildfires-california-prescribed-burns-climate-change-forests/

Cheers

Layzej said...

Yoon ​et al​. (2015) predicted the occurrence of extreme fire risk would exceed natural variability in California by 2020.

https://sciencebrief.org/briefs/wildfires