PG&E files for bankruptcy protection

[Left Seater]

So since PG&E allegedly doesn’t keep their right of ways free of tress, which fall against the power lines in times of high wind, which creates sparks, which lead to 17 of 21 fires in 2017, they are going to file for bankruptcy protection.

Seems like a crap move for those who lost their homes or loved ones in one of these fires. It also seems PG&E has plenty of cash on hand. Why should they get protection for their negligence?

Further if this bankruptcy filing continues, it will allow PG&as to negotiate lower rates from their suppliers. Suppliers like solar farms that have PG&E as their sole customer. These solar farms aren’t hugely profitable as it is without subsidies, but what will happen when bankruptcy allows their purchaser to lower what they pay?

Further claiming these wildfires are a result of global warming is laughable. National Geographic, LA Times, NY Times, CNN and others all claimed the fires are a result of global warming. Takes a lot to make this claim when PG&E has admitted their equipment likely led to some of these fires.

Mikey, CA peeps, what are y’all hearing, and will your rates be forced up?

[Mikey]

The whole utility space in California is quite complicated.

I'll respond to this one first and the rest later when I have more time

Further claiming these wildfires are a result of global warming is laughable. National Geographic, LA Times, NY Times, CNN and others all claimed the fires are a result of global warming. Takes a lot to make this claim when PG&E has admitted their equipment likely led to some of these fires.

I didn't read any of those articles, but I have a hard time believing that anybody with half a brain would claim, or believe, that global warming "caused" any fires. Sounds to me like a typical right wing distillation of a complex issue into an either/or "us vs the libs" simplification that their low information, short attention span base can grasp.

Most people realize (I hope) that it takes some kind of ignition source to start a fire. A spark from some power equipment, a hot muffler in dry grass, a dumbass redneck setting a fire in the woods, a lightning strike, a utility power line blown down in high wind etc, etc.

None of these result from global warming, or climate change, or whatever you want to call it. Record heat and extended drought conditions, brought on by global warming, can certainly exacerbate the intensity and potential for destruction from these fires. Power lines have blown down before. This is not something new. They start fires. They never spread as rapidly or burned with the intensity that they have in the past several years. When you hear talk about the "new normal" this is what they're referring to. And raking the forest floor is not going to help.

This guy (from the LA Times) actually has a fairly balanced take. And this was written before the most recent fires in Paradise and Malibu

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol ... story.html

Keep in mind, also, when Trump gets on his soapbox about California managing its forests, that 57% of forest land in California is managed by the federal government, 39% is private land (a lot of it owned logging companies) and 2% is managed by the state government.

Some of the big fires in 2007 here in San Diego County were caused by SDG&E power lines. Now, when there's a hot, dry Santa Ana condition (high winds from the east and northeast) they've actually started preemptively shutting down circuits in what they consider high risk areas. It pisses off their customers, but they're more worried about liability and protecting their shareholders then serving the customers who actually pay their exorbitant rates.

[Kierland]

It’s not so much the heat and drought. It’s dry and hot a lot in CA. It’s the increased fuel loads due to higher CO2 levels combined with the Smokey the Bear effect.

[Mikey]

[Derron]

IIt’s the increased fuel loads due to higher CO2 levels

Link ??

if this is true there should be plenty of scientific evidence out there....

[Derron]

The fires make the news. The aftermath not so much. The insurance companies at some time were going to come after the utilities especially since they admitted that their poor line maintenance caused the fires. The utilities just pulled the plug first.

Most of the areas with huge losses like Paradise are not going to see a lot of rebuilding. The insurance company's will pay out after they home owners fight them for a year or two, they will be paid out for the insured values. Now whether the insured values will pay off a mortgage, and leave the home owners in any kind of cash position to rebuild with a new mortgage remains to be seen.

The contractor building my house in Central Oregon is building two right now for people who lost their homes in the Carr Fire last year. The losses on the Paradise fire will be spread around the insurance business. Commercial rates have been going up 20 % to 25% a year for the last 4 years. I fully expect to see another 20% raise on a commercial property I am a trustee on this year.

BOHICA.

[Kierland]

IIt’s the increased fuel loads due to higher CO2 levels

Link ??

if this is true there should be plenty of scientific evidence out there....

6CO2+6H2O=C6H12O6+6O2

[Mikey]

It’s not so much the heat and drought. It’s dry and hot a lot in CA. It’s the increased fuel loads due to higher CO2 levels combined with the Smokey the Bear effect.

I seriously doubt that increased CO2 has any appreciable effect. As the linked article points out, the negative effects of drought and heat stress probably more than offset any increase from the higher CO2.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... t-plants1/

Most of this information comes from scientists, though, so we need to be really skeptical because as we know they're all grant whores.

One world famous climate authority, Lamar Smith, does seem to agree with you. So there's that.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/07/24/ ... n-dioxide/

https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentar ... ds-science

[Dinsdale]

I seriously doubt that increased CO2 has any appreciable effect. As the linked article points out...

It points out that trees experienced a 23% increase in growth rate when exposed to higher CO2 concentrations. I'd say that's "appreciable."

Go tell anyone that has ever grown weed indoors and cranked the CO2 to 1200PPM that it doesn't have "any appreciable effect." And when they get done laughing at you, then you can try to tell them again, so they can laugh some more. The effect is dramatic, and is noticeable overnight.

Every time you make Midget sound intelligent, the Baby Jesus weeps.

[Mikey]

I seriously doubt that increased CO2 has any appreciable effect. As the linked article points out...

It points out that trees experienced a 23% increase in growth rate when exposed to higher CO2 concentrations. I'd say that's "appreciable."

Go tell anyone that has ever grown weed indoors and cranked the CO2 to 1200PPM that it doesn't have "any appreciable effect." And when they get done laughing at you, then you can try to tell them again, so they can laugh some more. The effect is dramatic, and is noticeable overnight.

Every time you make Midget sound intelligent, the Baby Jesus weeps.

You might want to try actually reading the article.

In a controlled experiment, doubling the CO2 concentration (not just "higher") resulted in a 23% increase in growth rate. That's a lot more than "higher" and hasn't even been approached recently in nature (about 33% since 1970).

Also, try going into the grow house where you cranked up the CO2, but now turn off the water, turn on a fan, and raise the temperature by 20 degrees and see what the effect is.
They're undoubtedly cranking up the nitrogen in the growing medium as well, otherwise the plants would probably starve.

But don't worry about it. You're also in good company with (former)Rep Smith. After all, he was the chairman of the House Science Committee until a couple of weeks ago.





With Lamar now gone, maybe you can hitch your wagon another Congressional tower of scientific knowledge, Louie Gohmert.

https://www.motherjones.com/environment ... e-speaker/

[Derron]

Also, try going into the grow house where you cranked up the CO2, but now turn off the water, turn on a fan, and raise the temperature by 20 degrees and see what the effect is.
They're undoubtedly cranking up the nitrogen in the growing medium as well, otherwise the plants would probably starve.

That would be a no on cranking up the N in the medium. The growing mediums are relatively sterile wood products. Methods vary as much as there are growers. You will be supplying a consistent source of N along with P and K, and a good suite of micro nutrients as well. Soil analysis will not get you much with wood based medium. How you supply the NPK and micro nutrients can vary, but most are liquid fed.

I did a lot of near infrared spectro graph analysis of golf courses and vineyards where we took tissue samples, dried the material and ran it through the spectrograph. It gave me an exact reading on what the nutrient ratios were in the plants, and when we had that, we formulated a liquid fertilizer to bring it to the optimal levels the growers wanted. I may have heard about some guys who ran some weed plants through it and were doing the same thing and had some outstanding yields after using some of the data I may have provided.

[Kierland]

Plant growth, much like animal growth, is all about limiting factors, of which there are many. This is known as Liebig’s Law of Minimum. They include: Water, Sun, NPK, Micros, Calcium, Genetics, among others. CO2 is one of the limiting factors. It used to be 200 something and it’s now over 400. Most plants in nature are, in their native environment, limited by CO2. Water and N are also on the top of the list. At the present CO2 levels, given that CA has had a lot of H2O in recent years, CO2 is making plants grow more. 23% when CO2 is the limiting factor, as cited in this thread.

[Mikey]

I’m not a botanist or a farmer or anything like that but it seems logical that if you crank up the CO2 by 300% or 400% to turbocharge the growth rate, you’d also need to increase other nutrients (however you do it) or all that CO2 won’t have so much of an effect. This isn’t going to happen in nature, so the weed farm isn’t really a good analogy to what’s happening in the forest.

I could be wrong. I’m just a dumb engineer and don’t deal with anything that’s alive.

[Dinsdale]

Your numbers seem like complete bullshit to me. We are talking about parts per million. Where is the link to the study data that supports them?

Queerland's post was pretty money.

I will say that growing weed (which I'll now admit to, since it's legal now... wasn't at the time), which, granted, is a much more controlled environment, doubling the atmospheric CO2 (which currently sits just above 400, and has been holding pretty steady at that level fr several years, despite what certain people would have you believe) creates around double the growth rate. 1200PPM seems to be the point of diminishing returns. I know someone who has a grow room with a fancy electronic generator that keeps the level at 1200PPM -- burns some propane to produce it.

Extra CO2 creates explosive growth in most plants, but as mentioned, there are other limiting factors. But CO2 is a big limiter. Indeed, plants are feeding off parts-per-million... scrounging scraps from the atmosphere, if you will. Doesn't take much of an increase to have a profound effect on their photosynthesis.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

...since it's legal now...

U&L <-------> Ontario

[Left Seater]

I didn't read any of those articles, but I have a hard time believing that anybody with half a brain would claim, or believe, that global warming "caused" any fires. Sounds to me like a typical right wing distillation of a complex issue into an either/or "us vs the libs" simplification that their low information, short attention span base can grasp.

First off claiming only the right has low information, short attention span base makes you look desperate. Take Screwy as a perfect example of the same on the lib side. 2). Look at the events of this week with the fake news story about Trump directing people to lie, or HS kids vs a Native American.

As for the actual topic at hand here is but one quote from the NYTimes:

The report says the continued release of greenhouse gases from cars, factories and other sources will make fires more frequent, including very large fires that burn more than 12,400 acres. And wildfire risk in the United States won’t just be a Western problem.

The takeaway these articles want you to have is climate change equals more fires and worse fires. While droughts can no doubt worsen the effects of a fire, they don’t cause them or more of them. Never mind droughts have come and gone for ever as well, droughts do worsen/not cause fires.

Eager to hear your take on this bankruptcy when you have the time.

[Mikey]

At the present CO2 levels, given that CA has had a lot of H2O in recent years, CO2 is making plants grow more. 23% when CO2 is the limiting factor, as cited in this thread.

When CA gets a lot of rain it’s not CO2 that’s making the plants grow more.
That’s pretty fucking obvious.

[Dinsdale]

At the present CO2 levels, given that CA has had a lot of H2O in recent years, CO2 is making plants grow more. 23% when CO2 is the limiting factor, as cited in this thread.

When CA gets a lot of rain it’s not CO2 that’s making the plants grow more.
That’s pretty fucking obvious.

:facepalm:

Grab some pine, Meat.

When you're getting clowned by the class clown, it's time to move on.

[Mikey]

Are you seriously claiming that in the wet/dry cycles in California, it's fluctuations in CO2 that determine plant growth?
All that correlation with rain totals is really just due to CO2?

Did you ever notice that when you water plants they grow, and when you don't water them they don't grow?
And that's due to CO2?


Seriously?

Whatever you say, Louie.

[Dinsdale]

Native flora in much of California is drought-resitant. When they first get ample water, they have a growth spurt, and begin storing water. All other factors being equal, the higher the CO2, the faster the growth rate.

I'm sorry it took you clowning yourself to learn this very basic bit of biology.

[Mikey]

Native flora in much of California is drought-resitant. When they first get ample water, they have a growth spurt, and begin storing water. All other factors being equal, the higher the CO2, the faster the growth rate.

I'm sorry it took you clowning yourself to learn this very basic bit of biology.

Nice job K'ing YOA. Talk about clowning...

You continue to flout your ignorance on a subject that you obviously know little about, or are too stupid to see your own lack of basic logic.

All other factors being equal, the higher the CO2, the faster the growth rate.

All other factors being equal, ample water = higher growth, less water = less growth. While the CO2 does have an effect, the water is much more of a limiting factor. The CO2 is fairly constant, as you yourself said, or increasing gradually. The fluctuations all come from the wet/dry cycles.

You probably know more about growing weed indoors than I do. I probably know a little more about native California flora than you do. I live here and have been growing native plants in my yard for years. Yes, much of the native flora is drought resistant. It's not drought proof. A year winter of ample water will cause a growth spurt. A couple of dry winters, which have become more and more common recently, the growth diminishes, they dry out, and become more flammable. All that growth from the one wet winter is now fuel. Anyway, lot of what burned in the Camp fire and many of the other recent wild fires was not native flora, but non-native grasses and shrubs, which are not drought resistant. You knew that too...right?

[Mikey]

I find it interesting that scientists have been wrong about so many things in the past, but in the last few years - they are suddenly 100% accurate about everything. Weird.

And btw, our CO2 level right now are faaaaaarrrr below the average of what it’s been over the last 4.6 billion years. Then again, the climate has only existed for the last 150 years according to those funny warmists...

You really do enjoy embarrassing yourself, don't you?

[Mikey]

I'm not trying to prove anything. You've already proven you're a fucking idiot.

[atmdad]

Eager to hear your take on this bankruptcy when you have the time.

In a nutshell, PG&E has on the order of $7-8 billion in insurance coverage. While still dealing with the 2010 San Bruno gas line explosion, there was last years fire in Santa Rosa, and the recent Paradise fire, current estimates of claim liabilities are at $30 billion and growing. As it stands now, PG&E stock is less than junk bond status and there is no way they can obtain any loans. They are preemptively filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to effectively stiff-arm any near future claims payouts. This also allows them to get post-filing loans to cover operating costs for maintenance of their high hazard assets, i.e. hydro electric facilities, nuclear power plant, and transmission systems. Heads are rolling at PG&E, but they are "too big too fail", there will be a bailout either through ratepayers, CA government, or the FED. Most likely a combination of them all.

Personally, I am sitting on about $80K in invoices for a couple of projects that I am managing. I am holding off submitting them until sometime in February after they file, which is expected to be early next week.

Not being in PG&E country I don't see my rates being directly effected, but the three big monopolies, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E, are working together to payoff the PUC and Sucramento to fuck over all ratepayers from El Centro to Crescent City

[Dinsdale]

I'm not trying to prove anything. You've already proven you're a fucking idiot.

You've proven that you don't understand basic biology. And then you doubled down and started lecturing on it. Classic.

[Mikey]

I'm not trying to prove anything. You've already proven you're a fucking idiot.

You've proven that you don't understand basic biology. And then you doubled down and started lecturing on it. Classic.

This, coming from somebody who insists that annual fluctuations in rainfall have less of an effect on outdoor plant growth than CO2 is beyond ironic. It's...par for the course coming from you.

Nice job, Louie.

[Mikey]

I find it interesting that scientists have been wrong about so many things in the past, but in the last few years - they are suddenly 100% accurate about everything. Weird.

And btw, our CO2 level right now are faaaaaarrrr below the average of what it’s been over the last 4.6 billion years. Then again, the climate has only existed for the last 150 years according to those funny warmists...

So, explain to me what relevance the ambient CO2 concentration from before any life existed on earth has to today's world?

Two more questions.

How do you know what the ambient CO2 concentrations were 4.6 billion years ago. Or even a million?

How do you even know what they are today?

[Kierland]

Personally I’m not saying water has less to do with plant growth. What I am saying is when you have a lot of water, like these last two years, that the doubling of the CO2 of the last 100 years make the plants grow more because it is now the limiting factor.

[Mikey]

The thing is, we didn't have "a lot of water" that past two years. It obviously depends on what part of the state you're in but generally we had one winter of more than average precipitation in 2016-2017 but it's been below average otherwise since 2011. This year has been just a little below "normal" so but the recent rains obviously didn't contribute anything to the fuel load last year.

Here's an annual summary for Los Angeles. Since 2011, besides one year, there's been an annual deficit of 5 to almost 10 inches (last year) from an annual average of about 15 inches. Last year was about 2/3 below the annual average.

http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13a.php

Sacramento has also been below average every year except 2016/2017.

[smackaholic]

It’s not so much the heat and drought. It’s dry and hot a lot in CA. It’s the increased fuel loads due to higher CO2 levels combined with the Smokey the Bear effect.

I seriously doubt that increased CO2 has any appreciable effect. As the linked article points out, the negative effects of drought and heat stress probably more than offset any increase from the higher CO2.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... t-plants1/

Most of this information comes from scientists, though, so we need to be really skeptical because as we know they're all grant whores.

One world famous climate authority, Lamar Smith, does seem to agree with you. So there's that.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2017/07/24/ ... n-dioxide/

https://blog.ucsusa.org/guest-commentar ... ds-science

Toolio actually does bring up a point that lefties typically ignore. The man caused "polluting" of the atmosphere with CO2 means that shit grows better. It also means that shit can grow better on less water. These are all good things. One bad effect is that it increases the fuel load in areas prone to fires.

So, what do we do about it?

We could manage this increased fuel load better and enjoy the benefit of increased twinkie production ('sup 'spray?).

Or we can bend over backwards to try to starve the atmosphere of the shit it needs to grow stuff.

I think the first strategy makes more sense, even if it means it will be 7 degrees outside today rather than the current 6 degrees.

[smackaholic]

Personally I’m not saying water has less to do with plant growth. What I am saying is when you have a lot of water, like these last two years, that the doubling of the CO2 of the last 100 years make the plants grow more because it is now the limiting factor.

OK. Who the fukk stole queerland's password? He's made sense a few times now in this thread.

[Mikey]

Eager to hear your take on this bankruptcy when you have the time.

In a nutshell, PG&E has on the order of $7-8 billion in insurance coverage. While still dealing with the 2010 San Bruno gas line explosion, there was last years fire in Santa Rosa, and the recent Paradise fire, current estimates of claim liabilities are at $30 billion and growing. As it stands now, PG&E stock is less than junk bond status and there is no way they can obtain any loans. They are preemptively filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection to effectively stiff-arm any near future claims payouts. This also allows them to get post-filing loans to cover operating costs for maintenance of their high hazard assets, i.e. hydro electric facilities, nuclear power plant, and transmission systems. Heads are rolling at PG&E, but they are "too big too fail", there will be a bailout either through ratepayers, CA government, or the FED. Most likely a combination of them all.

Personally, I am sitting on about $80K in invoices for a couple of projects that I am managing. I am holding off submitting them until sometime in February after they file, which is expected to be early next week.

Not being in PG&E country I don't see my rates being directly effected, but the three big monopolies, PG&E, SCE, and SDG&E, are working together to payoff the PUC and Sucramento to fuck over all ratepayers from El Centro to Crescent City

^^^^^^^
An excellent take here.

Some background on the California utility space.

It's actually a patchwork of regulated IOUs (Investor Owned Utilities - PG&E, SCE and SDG&E) and much more loosely regulated POUs (Publicly Owned Utilities).

The three big IOUs are pretty dominant, but there are dozens of POUs, the largest being LADWP, which serves all of the city of Los Angeles and SMUD (Sacramento).




There's a pretty good summary of the differences here:

https://www.energy.ca.gov/pou_reporting ... u_iou.html


The main difference, in this context, though, is that the IOUs are investor-owned, regulated monopolies. Their main corporate goal is to protect their stockholders' money and pay a dividend. As regulated monopolies any rate increases have to go through Public Utilities Commission, but they're pretty much guaranteed a profit on their investment.

The IOUs have a long history of screwing the ratepayers in order to protect their shareholders. SCE had to shut down the San Onofre nuclear plant because of a faulty boiler at a cost of $billions. This was totally the fault of the company and their contractors, and yet they have fought tooth and nail to saddle their ratepayers with this cost. Same thing happened with SDG&E's liability from damages caused by wildfires.

I'm not saying the that the POUs are better run. Some probably are, some probably aren't. But at least they're accountable to their ratepayers through the municipal governments of the territories that they serve. The IOUs really have no incentive to upgrade their infrastructure, unless forced to by the regulators, because it costs money and there's no payback. The payback for complacency, unfortunately, is starting to happen now.

[Mikey]

I find it interesting that scientists have been wrong about so many things in the past, but in the last few years - they are suddenly 100% accurate about everything. Weird.

And btw, our CO2 level right now are faaaaaarrrr below the average of what it’s been over the last 4.6 billion years. Then again, the climate has only existed for the last 150 years according to those funny warmists...

So, explain to me what relevance the ambient CO2 concentration from before any life existed on earth has to today's world?

Two more questions.

How do you know what the ambient CO2 concentrations were 4.6 billion years ago. Or even a million?

How do you even know what they are today?

And there it is again. You can spin it any way you want, but sadly, you and those like you only wish to use 1/30,000,000th of available information for your theory. It’s the finest example of cherry picking ever.

The mic has been dropped...

And there it is again. You keep posting that chart. I'm not saying that it's wrong, but I also keep asking the same question. What relevance does the CO2 concentration 4 billion years ago have to what's happening today? You do understand the term relevance, don't you? You've never answered that question but keep posting the chart like it's somehow obvious. OK, assume that I'm really dense. Explain it to me.

You also didn't answer my question of how you know the data in the chart is accurate. You yourself posted this:

I find it interesting that scientists have been wrong about so many things in the past, but in the last few years - they are suddenly 100% accurate about everything. Weird.

Talk about cherry picking. Tell me why you trust this chart but nothing else the grant-whore scientists say.

[smackaholic]

I'm not trying to prove anything. You've already proven you're a fucking idiot.

You've proven that you don't understand basic biology. And then you doubled down and started lecturing on it. Classic.

This, coming from somebody who insists that annual fluctuations in rainfall have less of an effect on outdoor plant growth than CO2 is beyond ironic. It's...par for the course coming from you.

Nice job, Louie.

He, and Toolio, DID NOT say that.

No one denies that water is a limiting factor. Of course it is. What they are saying is that CO2 is as well. And it is a significant one. Add in the fact, and yes, according to botanists, it is a fact, that increased CO2 lowers a plants need for water. It has to do with the part of the plant which handles CO2 absorption. If there is less CO2 available, it has to work harder and this costs water.

As Dins pointed out, when you are being made to look dumb by Toolio, it might be a sign that you should tap out.

[Mikey]

He, and Toolio, DID NOT say that.

Of course he and Toolio didn't say that. It was MVO...

And Dins most definitely DID say that.

You're correct that CO2 has an effect, but the limiting factor in native wild-land flora in California is definitely NOT CO2. When you go from a winter of normal rainfall to several years of severe drought, to a winter of heavy rain, and back to severe rain deficit, the limiting factor is overwhelmingly the availability of water. The annual fluctuation is not abnormal - it's been like that forever. It's why, as Dins mentioned, most native species in California are fairly drought resistant (though not drought proof). In times of drought they may even die back to the ground and then sprout back up when there's ample water. They still become fuel when they get dried out. The severity of the fluctuations and length of the drought periods have been increasing, though. They're finding that some of the plants die back and never come back. This makes the areas where this happens more susceptible to invasive flora, like non-native grasses that are even more fire-prone.


The CO2, in fact, changes very little from year to year.

[smackaholic]

Pardon me for getting the nics of trolls mixed up.

What Dins, and some other shit troll said was that CO2 is a limiting factor. This means that assuming the plant has all the water it wants, growth is still limited by CO2.

There was some youtube lecture I was watching recently, by some old British dude that said the earf was on its way to CO2 starvation. We were at around 180 PPM and at around 150 the whole photosynthesis deal comes to a screeching halt. And no photosynthesis means no twinkies. And then you'll really get to see what 'spray meltage looks like. He said that calculations estimated that we were within a few million years of this happening.

So, it would seem that once again, the evil white man and his infernal internal combustion engine, along with various other forms of combustion, have pulled us back from the brink.

Of course, other factors such as volcano activity could have provided the CO2 money shot to keep things rolling, so who the fukk knows.

[Derron]

[

So, what do we do about it?

We could manage this increased fuel load better and enjoy the benefit of increased twinkie production ('sup 'spray?).

Mother Nature has had a way of managing the increased fuel loads over time. It is called fire. When naturally started fires burned over areas it was " manageable" in the fact there simply was not enough happening to cause problems. Enter man into the equation and the fire starts expound dramatically, and become "unmanageable" . You do realize that there are millions of acres that would fall under this "management of fuel loads" idea right ??

Management of natural fuel loads has been problematic for years. To remove or reduce fuel loads it wold cost billions more that the current strategy of suppression. Without any kind of economic benefit to be derived from the "management" to reduce fuel loads, governments will continue to let it burn. Simple matter of dollars spent. Cheaper to suppress than manage.

[smackaholic]

[

So, what do we do about it?

We could manage this increased fuel load better and enjoy the benefit of increased twinkie production ('sup 'spray?).

Mother Nature has had a way of managing the increased fuel loads over time. It is called fire. When naturally started fires burned over areas it was " manageable" in the fact there simply was not enough happening to cause problems. Enter man into the equation and the fire starts expound dramatically, and become "unmanageable" . You do realize that there are millions of acres that would fall under this "management of fuel loads" idea right ??

Management of natural fuel loads has been problematic for years. To remove or reduce fuel loads it wold cost billions more that the current strategy of suppression. Without any kind of economic benefit to be derived from the "management" to reduce fuel loads, governments will continue to let it burn. Simple matter of dollars spent. Cheaper to suppress than manage.

Everything you say is right. We can not manage vast areas. We can manage limited areas that are in immediate proximity of areas we live. One thing we need to realize is that building that lovely cabin in the woods of an area that is prone to burning the fukk down is risky. It can be done, but you must either taken some rather expensive measures to provide a barrier around your house as well as build a house that is resistant to going up in smoke. Building a pine log home among the pine trees is nice, but don't cry when it goes poof.

I think the best strategy in these areas is to group homes together and provide barriers along with fire suppression systems. You could have a subdivision with a decent sized pond and a pump system. Ponds, be they natural or ceeement are expensive but they provide enjoyment as well.

[Kierland]

They also don’t use the history from before you were born you fat stupid melting racist POS.

[Kierland]

That was your February reply, I hope it was worth it.