Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

Point one, most of the forests involved are federal not state.So...

First 59 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
raiderup

26,911 Posts.

80

15/09/20

19:52

Post #: 47364658
Share

Originally posted by tbirdsrgo: ↑

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/09/14/politics/donald-trump-california-fires/index.html

"When Trump arrived in California on Monday and was asked on the tarmac what role climate change was playing the fires, he said he believed it was "more of a management situation." He said his views were informed by speaking with the heads of "forest nations" in Europe, Austria and Finland: "They're in forests and they don't have problems like this.""

Let us start with an assumption. Let us assume that we cleared all the land of trees and forests. Would we have catastrophic wildfires?

The answer would have to be "no".

The next question would be "why"? Clearly the answer would have to be "a lack of fuel"!

So could Trump be right in his view that it is the mismanagement of our forests that is creating such fires?

It appears that conservationists have had the ascendancy for so long that we have created massive amounts of fuel. So perhaps the starting point is a change in the mindset about managing our forests?

We need to also consider another issue. Let us assume that we manage to "decarbonise" the world but the catastrophic wildfires continue. What then? Might the penny finally drop or do we think of another excuse for the wildfires and come up with even more "modelling" to support said excuse(s)?

Expand

Point one, most of the forests involved are federal not state.
So its on the bitch trumps watch.
Second, 99.9 percent sure the feds only allocate money to fight fires, not prevent them.
So again on the bitch trumps watch.

You people amaze me.

Raider
3 Upvote

Reply