California Fires - Politics of Blame & Trump water claims

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 536
  • Views: 17K
  • Politics 
I don't think all of my preconceived political notions are baseless. It's not a stretch to recognize the differences, politically, between Florida and California. To my knowledge, Florida has never put legal restrictions on insurance companies ability to manage rates as was the case with Prop 103 in CA.
Wait, what?

 
I don't think all of my preconceived political notions are baseless. It's not a stretch to recognize the differences, politically, between Florida and California. To my knowledge, Florida has never put legal restrictions on insurance companies ability to manage rates as was the case with Prop 103 in CA.
Insurance rate increases in Florida must be submitted to and approved by the state. There’s be no shortage of insurance companies who opted out of policies in FL.
 
Insurance rate increases in Florida must be submitted to and approved by the state. There’s be no shortage of insurance companies who opted out of policies in FL.
I'm going to take my own advice and ignore the guy who's critiquing California without extending the same standard to Florida. I'm generally opposed to ignoring people here, but that's such a ridiculous position I can't help but think it's necessary.
 
It appears this crisis was foreshadowed.

Decades of mismanagement led to choked forests — now it's time to clear them out, fire experts say
“Forest management is a lot like gardening. You have to keep the forest open and thin," said Mike Rogers, a former Angeles National Forest supervisor.

The Western United States is enduring yet another devastating fire year, with more than 4.1 million acres already scorched in California alone, at least 31 people dead and hundreds of others forced to flee their homes.

Wildland fires are increasingly following a now-familiar pattern: bigger, hotter and more destructive. A recent Los Angeles Times headline declaring 2020 to be “The worst fire season. Again” illustrated some of the frustration residents feel over the state’s fire strategy.

For decades, federal, state and local agencies have prioritized fire suppression over prevention, pouring billions of dollars into hiring and training firefighters, buying and maintaining firefighting equipment and educating the public on fire safety.

But as climate change continues to fuel dry conditions in the American West, many experts say it’s long past time to shift the focus back to managing healthy forests that can better withstand fire and add to a more sustainable future.

“Fires have always been part of our ecosystem,” said Mike Rogers, a former Angeles National Forest supervisor and board member of the National Association of Forest Service Retirees. “Forest management is a lot like gardening. You have to keep the forest open and thin.”

Federal forest management dates back to the 1870s, when Congress created an office within the U.S. Department of Agriculture tasked with assessing the quality and conditions of forests. In 1905, President Theodore Roosevelt oversaw the birth of the U.S. Forest Service, which manages 193 million acres of public land across the country.

In California, forest management also falls under the purview of the state’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire.

Since 2011, Cal Fire has spent more than $600 million on fire prevention efforts and removed or felled nearly 2 million dead trees. In 2018, California set the goal of treating — which can include slashing, burning, sawing or thinning trees — 500,000 acres of wildland per year, yet Cal Fire remains far from meeting that target.

“It’s an ongoing process,” said Cal Fire spokeswoman Christine McMorrow. “There is always going to be more work.”

Cal Fire is steadily receiving injections of money to do what it can to reduce wildfire risk, including better land management and training a new generation of foresters. In 2018, former Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill that will allocate $1 billion over five years to Cal Fire to be used on fire prevention measures. But experts warn that more money is needed.

 
Not sure who or what to be inflamed at so I will try having empathy for the ones who have died and/or lost their homes. Appears moving forward some major effort needs to be put forth to thwart future fires.
 
Not sure who or what to be inflamed at so I will try having empathy for the ones who have died and/or lost their homes. Appears moving forward some major effort needs to be put forth to thwart future fires.
Of course the next question is who pays for it. It’s easy to say it’s cheaper than paying for this damage after the fact.
 


Trump in 2020:

“You go to Austria,” he said, “you go to Finland, you go to many different countries, and they don’t have — I was talking to a head of a major country, and he said, ‘We’re a forest nation. We consider ourself a forest nation.’ This was in Europe. I said, ‘That’s a beautiful term.’

“He said, ‘We have trees that are far more explosive…” – he meant “explosive” in terms of fire – ‘but we have trees that are more explosive they have in California, and we don’t have any problem because we manage our forests.’”


… "You know, In Europe they have forest cities,” he told the hosts [of Fox & Friends]. “You look at, you look at countries, Austria, you look at so many countries, they live in the forest, they’re considered forest cities, so many of them.

“And they don't have fires like this, and they have more explosive trees. They have trees that will catch easier. But they maintain their fire, they have an expression, they ‘thin the fuel’, the fuel is what’s on the ground, the leaves, the trees that fall, they’re dry, they’re like a matchstick.”

… In 2018, when California faced another serious fire season, he claimed to have discussed “raking and cleaning” with the president of Finland, who later said he had no such recollection. …”

 
As long as the same general standard is applied to both California and Florida, I think these discussions can be very worthwhile. Both states are relatively wealthy. Both are coastal. Both are prone to natural disasters. Both are having major issues with developable land for the population that wants to live there, and both are really struggling with soaring property insurance premiums. Both are very much impacted by climate change. The only difference, as it relates to this issue, is that one is governed by conservatives and one is governed by liberals.

These are important discussions to have. The cost of responding to these disasters is enormous, and it's only going to increase. So let's have the discussions in as honest, transparent, and critical a way as we can. But if someone critiques California without critiquing Florida, or vice versa, they can just fuck right off from my perspective. These are issues that should not be political, and I'm happy to ignore anyone who wants to make them such.
Apples vs oranges. The two aren’t even close to being related. Each should be evaluated independently. Looking for whataboutism is already knowing it isn’t going to go well. And much of it is purely politics. From how the states handle insurance to how funding is allocated. Those are political decisions. Firefighters making 200k a year, people being fired for not taking Covid shots, what is prioritized, infrastructure maintenance. All political decisions that aren’t related to what another state does for a completely different kind of disaster.
 
Back
Top