Empty reservoirs (not all of 'em) did not help. Reducing funds for the FD didn't help (no matter how "small" was the reduction) Clearly for the past few years, Cali has put their focus on somewhere else...Organized theft and other crimes, Homelessness, Fentanyl addiction, housing undocumented immigrants etc etc ...now matter how the democrats spin this...this could have been prevented...they simply didn't learn their lessons from Hawaii...
Could the Los Angeles wild fire have been prevented?
- Thread starter 261252
- Start date
Vet's brilliant method to protect home from wildfire
An Army vet put cheap oscillating lawn sprinklers on his roof, turned on the water hoses and fled the #PalisadesFire. When he returned, his house was still s...www.youtube.com
That is my thought : stopping the wildfire is not the issue , let it burn for a few days then it will return to nature and become stronger as only the stronger seeds survive. The issue is stopping the homes burning down
They burn down because roofs catch on fire so fire proof the roofs? How much would that cost?
Nothing as it would reduce the cost of fire insurance
Can someone tell why I am wrong? It cannot be that easy
This guy had a great idea. Only problem would be if the water supply fails. I saw a news report about a commercial system that does the same thing, I think it was somewhere in rural Ontario. The system includes a backup generator to power the water pump in case the power fails.
My point is it is a very obvious and simple idea so why wasnt that simple idea
of fire proofing roofs made manditory?
It is manditory in some towns that are inside of wildfire zones but not a potential fire nightmare
in a mega city like LA? WTF?
They were fighting and maneuvering for water rights 100 years ago. Some entrepreneurs knew if you could pump water from the rest of the State you could turn Los Angeles into a great place to live.
That's why I wrote on another post: Modern Southern California is essentially an extreme man-made adaptation. Many efforts now by California to limit man's impact on the forest floors, water, wildlife in the name of ecology are frivolous. 39 million people have already changed the landscape far beyond its natural state.
I think one of the ironies is that you have many people who move to California and support the environmental lobby. Simply by moving to California and living there in the desert clime they contribute to the environmental problem. I'm sure someone here would want to argue with that statement. It's just a common sense view that less people means less environmental impact.
Last edited:
I was wondering how soon a righty would bring up DEI....or the "Trump proofing" bullshit as an excuse. Despite the fact that the state has increased funding to the fire fighters. But, why let facts get in the way of conservative rage posting....
Here's the reality of the situation: California has done a lot to prevent fires. But, back in the day, when white men planned everything, they developed areas around LA that were VERY dry. Historically, the areas where the fire is raging doesn't get a lot of rain. And, California as a whole has been in or near drought conditions for several years. Combining the two things, plus the violent Santa Ana winds, and you get a recipe for disaster. It wouldn't matter if Reagan was still governor and they only had Cis gender white males as firefighters, this fire would have still been a catastrophy.
It's common for Federal aid to States to have strings attached. It would probably be healthy for California for the Feds to provide some more oversight. It's often very hard in a State with one-party domination to govern pragmatically. Sacramento politicians might loudly protest Federal conditions, but that doesn't mean the conditions wouldn't have popular support in California.
Now your post seems to be hitting on floods and flood insurance as some kind of Republican boondoggle. Our National Flood Insurance Program was established under Democratic President Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress in 1968. It's a messed up program that demonstrates what can happen when the government interjects into the marketplace.
Many Americans who live on coasts and flood plains have grossly inexpensive flood insurance relative to the risks. When a predictable flood disaster destroys their home, they can simply take their insurance payout, rebuild their home and renew their Federal flood insurance.There are many beachfront homes that have been entirely or partially rebuilt a couple times.
Now the Pacific Palisades will be different. Private insurers will likely not insure anyone who desires to rebuild in that area. You will likely see a different residential landscape there five years from now.
Last edited:
Yes, American men developed areas around L.A. that were very dry. They massively adapted the environment just like American men did in Phoenix and Las Vegas which have more favorable conditions for dealing with wildfires.
The whole drought thing is oversold and has been in recent decades as almost 20 million people have moved to California to be startled by the revelation that they now live in a desert with the availability of very limited water resources.
Southern California has always experienced cycles where several years of drought are followed by a few years of rain. Some of us know what comes next in the cycle. If you know mudslides, you're ahead of the curve. That is the Los Angeles climate cycle. Many years of little rain. Then a couple years of rain that dramatically increases the desert foliage. This foliage becomes potential kindling in the inevitable dry, arid conditions that return in the summer and fall. The scorched mountain slopes then become unstable dirt that turn into mudslides with the return of the rainy season. Rinse, repeat.
Could the fires in Lytton or Fort McMurray have been prevented?
Could the fires that burnt a massive amount of Australia been prevented?
Could the fires in the Amazon have ben prevented?
Could the fires in Greece last year been prevented?
The fires in Siberia?
Yes.
If we had listened to scientists and stopped pumping CO2 into the atmosphere decades ago we wouldn't have these extreme weather events at this rate and size.
Could the fires that burnt a massive amount of Australia been prevented?
Could the fires in the Amazon have ben prevented?
Could the fires in Greece last year been prevented?
The fires in Siberia?
Yes.
If we had listened to scientists and stopped pumping CO2 into the atmosphere decades ago we wouldn't have these extreme weather events at this rate and size.
Not FEMA aid. Not federal disaster aid. Those almost never come with strings attached (none that im aware of, outside of using them for disaster relief) . That's why this is unprecedented. And why reasonable Rs fear this move because they know this gives D s the excuse to do it to them next disaster.
Don't move the goalposts.
Its apparent we didn't do proper forest management either, likely a casualty of the COVID response. Instead of adapting to climate changes our elites somehow think we can spend a pissload of money to adjust the climate. Sheer absurdity.Canada’s record-breaking wildfires in 2023: A fiery wake-up call
In 2023, Canada is facing a formidable challenge: record-breaking wildfires. These fires are fueled by record high temperatures and widespread drought conditions across the country.natural-resources.canada.ca
I don’t know if you remember what happened in 2023 in Canada . Mostly the fires burned forests , houses , people’ s investments etc .
You talking about forest management is a bit laughable.
Things happen , people try to recover.
Which government response are you referring to being inadequate ?
Those idiots!
If only they had swept the floors of the forests like trump said there would have been no fires at all.
They're simply your goalposts. You're framing the argument based on what I believe is a narrow perspective.
More importantly, you're getting caught up in what is so far only a the rhetorical debate. I also think anyone who thinks Federal disaster aid doesn't come with any strings attached is naive. You're absolutely right that initial federal disaster aid comes without conditions. Later, more Federal aid is directed towards amelioration efforts. It might be called something else but it's disaster related whether it is a levee, a dam, a reservoir, a seawall, protective wetlands, etc. The Army Corps of Engineers might discuss these efforts with local government, but I assure they will act without local authority when they deem it necessary.
So back to the rhetoric, California will get Federal disaster aid without conditions. Later aid related to the fires will be conditioned on certain fire prevention practices being implemented.
Let's face it. When it comes to California, liberals get all protective and in my opinion hypocritical. People who generally dismiss State's Rights are suddenly protectors of Sacramento in its recalcitrance with the Federal government. (Note: I am not a State's Rights guy.)
Last edited:
How do you infallibly fireproof roofs in a "perfect storm firestorm"?
In fairness to Kherg, he's reacting to all the GOP horseshit that CA should forfeit all federal assistance because it had a lesbian running its FD and nonsense like that.
If we were living in a time of normal political discourse from the GOP, no one would be raising the issue.
Never heard of that. I thought our (liberal) leaders could have prevented
climate change itself not the damage it inflicted. Climate change damage
in the future could easily be blamed on Trump, Poilievre and in Europe all
the rightie leaders to be voted in.
Yes. It was my point. My only point. You slithered federal aid in general into the query and conflated the two. Or maybe you accidentally thought i was referring to aid in general. It was on disaster relief only. Those were my goal posts. Not federal aid in general. You're right Federal aid in general does come with various conditions. Federal disaster relief comes with the strings that it needs to be used for disaster relevant aid. Full stop. People are dying and hurting NOW and to say we'll only help you if you buy my politics is flat out evil.
No democrats ever suggest disaster relief needs strings. They only mention it after the Tommy Tubervilles and other Rs do interviews saying they need to put strings on disaster aid.
I don't vote for the people on the Left who say stupid things so I generally don't react much. It kind of frees my my mind and political energy. The caveat is I avoid most cable news including Fox News.
