Quote of the Day: Not Everything Is About Global Warming
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto 
on 08. 7.08
Joel Achenbach of the Washington Post points out that not everything can be blamed on global warming, that lousy farming practices, overpopulation and bad policies contribute. Morever, "Weather alarmism" gives ammunition to global-warming deniers. He notes:
"Last week, we saw reports of more wildfires in California. Sure as night follows day, people will lay some of the blame on climate change. But there's also the minor matter of people building homes in wildfire-susceptible forests, overgrown with vegetation due to decades of fire suppression. That's like pitching a tent on the railroad tracks.
The message that needs to be communicated to these people is: "Your problem is not global warming. Your problem is that you're nuts." ::Washington Post
Joe Romm at Climate Progress suggests that climate change does increase the fires, writing last year:
Global warming makes wildfires more likely and more destructive — as many scientific studies have concluded. Why? Global warming leads to more intense droughts, hotter weather, earlier snowmelt (hence less humid late summers and early autumns), and more tree infestations (like the pine beetle). ::Climate Progress
While I have read a lot more Romm than Achenbach and have come to respect his opinion, there is no question that people have been building where they shouldn't, and that there are many factors that combine to create the disasters that seem to have become so common. As Andrew Leonard said last year about the subject in Jeremy's post: "Nuance is a bitch."
More on Wildfires and Global Warming :
Global Warming or Not: The Debate Over California's Wildfires ...
What Turns Fires into Disasters? Politics and Planning
A Picture is Worth... Northern California's Wildfires
California Homes Dusted With Corrosive Ash and Heavy Metals From ...
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Avoid Evaporating Gas: Park in the Shade and Buy Gas When it's Cool
- Take it from a Beatle: Cut Your Carbon Footprint by Making Mondays Meat-Free
- Support Obama's Ocean Policy with a Friendly Letter
- Treat Poison Ivy with Vodka!
- Green Alternatives to Traditional Insulation
- Green Glossary: Meltwater
Um, maybe those places weren't quite the fire hazard 20 or 30 years ago when a lot of those places were first built than they are today? The same could be said of the gulf coast, but hurricanes weren't nearly as frequent or destructive 30 years ago as they are today, either.
Nuance is only a bitch if you insist on communicating in sound bites and headlines.
Almost all the ideas and doctrines we routinely pigeonhole come from people whose real ideas are about as nuanced as our own. Some people really are crazy and think the world is as simple as their sound bites say, but I hope for all our sakes that they are in the minority.
I wouldn't fault people (i.e. members of the public) for building in areas prone to fires, flooding, hurricanes etc. because they don't have the knowledge to know this is a problem. They rely on the municipal governments who grant development/building permits for construction. If the municipality grants these permits, then the individual assumes it is safe to build and that the municipality has done their due dilligence to ensure there are no engineering, environmental, safety etc issues to worry about. By granting these permits municipalities are really betraying the public's trust, and choosing to favor profit over decisions that protect their tax payers. It is disgraceful that municipalities do not take these factors in to account, and they should be held accountable to some degreee when they are grossly neglegent.
Blaming global warming is like blaming "bleeding" as the cause of death from a gun shot wound.
Dreyer, you may want to google Hurricane Hazel before commenting on the history of Hurricanes.
What is the number one cause of global warming if it isn't overpopulation?
Quote of the day? I thought I read this editorial last week.
Anyway, Achenbach makes a good point.
The fact is that global warming is probably influencing the spread of wildfires. Probably. But you can't blame someone for ignoring that conclusion if it comes from anecdote and supposition.
When I the knee-jerk arguments all blame the same bogeyman, people have stopped listening by the time real science supports the same (or not) conclusion.
Fires occur at the interface of the forest and the urban areas because of a number of factors that have nothing to do with Climate Change (The USFS and the USGS have a number of papers on this toppic.). However,with the specter of Climate Change upon us, fires in 'wild' areas next to urban and human habitation will become more frequent and more destructive.
If you travel along the roads (two way and small roads) into the mountains and hillsides of California's National Forests, you can think that what you are viewing outside your window is the 'natural' growth'. But, your tires and the tires and shoes of all those people who passed through there before you, including the ones that built the road, brought seeds and fungus from other areas. Most of the seeds are weedy grasses, thistles, and mustards that die at the first hot blast of summer. Anything can set them ablaze from a stupid cigarette, match or tailpipe spark.
If you could fly slowly above the natural areas, you could see a difference in the color and collections of plants that surround roads as opposed to the faces of the mountains and hillsides without roads. The weeds overcrowd and compete with native plants for nutrients and water (and also do not offer native animals shelter or food) and, when the fires strike, the weeds burn hotter killing the native plants. Native California plants have roots that survive cooler fires and many of the seeds are germinated by fire and flood but, not fires so hot as to kill roots and underground animals.
Climate Change is a horrible monster looming on our horizon but then, so is building houses in the forest. C.C. will just increase the frequency of fires which will decrease the vegetation around urban areas making them hotter and drier.
Round and round
Yea, I don't know how people live in California. It is nice living in PA and never dealing with wildfires, mudslides and earthquakes. Maybe once a year there is a storm/possible tornado that puts a tree through a roof. Also, living above sea-level as opposed to much of N.O. is nice.
Somebody has probably suggested this, but maybe putting out fires causes more. If a large area was left to burn it probably wouldn't see another major fire for decades.
And hurricanes are not much more frequent and powerful now than in the past. They only seem that way because every disturbance 1000 miles offshore makes the news, and more stuff gets destroyed when they do hit land.
Why don't we just stop burning fossil fuel?
Clayton said;
"I wouldn't fault people (i.e. members of the public) for building in areas prone to fires, flooding, hurricanes etc. because they don't have the knowledge to know this is a problem. They rely on the municipal governments who grant development/building permits for construction..."
While true, my personal belief is that this is the major problem with our society and it's relationship with the environment today. PEOPLE no longer deem it necessary to have a direct understanding of the environments in which they live. They dont see it as their responsibility to understand the intricacies of their relationship with the natural order of things around them. So this responsibility gets relegated to the governing powers, who (usually) put this issue on the backburner, deemed less important than property taxes and such.
I disagree with the above comment that we shouldnt blame the people. People should understand not only their impact on the environment, but also the underlying principals of a particular environment and build where the conditions are condusive to civilization. In order to get our environmental crisis under control, WE the PEOPLE must stop relegating this duty to the government, and shoulder our own responsibilities.
@Clayton: That's a bit of a slippery slope. You can't put the burden on the Municipality alone -- especially in the age of the internet where you can easily find the areas that are prone to flooding and wildfires. It may very well be a law that municipalities have to provide this information to developers. Perhaps the developers choose to leave this information out in order to get better value for the homes they are building. Either way, it's basically "buyer beware" like in most places in our consumer culture.
@Anonymous
I think you'd be surprised by how fast brush can grow especially with all of the nutrients from the previously burnt brush. I don't know offhand so I won't give any numbers, but decades is definitely high.