Guess California doesn't need to send tax money to the red states.
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)
Politics
10204 readers
1 users here now
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it's a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
- Where possible, post the original source of information.
- If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
- Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
- Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
- Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
- Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Well they certainly don't deserve it.
So what's Alabama doing about hurricanes and tornados?
Similar to controlled burns for preventing wildfires, they're releasing a lot of hot air.
“I don’t mind sending them some money, but unless they show that they’re gonna change their ways and get back to building dams and stormwater, doing the maintenance with the brush and the trees – everything that everybody else does in the country, and they refuse to do it – they don’t deserve anything, to be honest with you, unless they show us they’re gonna make some changes,” he said.
Sen. Tubby Tantrum is a damned moron, but I actually somewhat agree with him on this one. Seems like every year I hear about ever more destructive wild fires in California. Some of that I can attribute to climate change, sure, but there is almost certainly more than that causing them at this point. Does California not do controlled burns any more?
Yes, California does do controlled burns. This senator is being disingenuous as are any other talking heads claiming they don't.
The state has increased the budget for and amount of controlled burns (as well as creation of firebreaks which both enable controlled burns and reduce spread of wildfires) in recent years, including after the federal government under trump reduced maintenance of federal lands. Voters have supported this through propositions as well including one last election.
Controlled burns also require a lot of care and resources or they can turn into wildfires, so there's only so many the state can do at a time. The past few years have actually allowed for more than previously.
LA had unseasonably low precipitation and high winds that contributed to the rapid spread of the current fires.
Should California do more controlled burns? Probably, but the state is very much doing what it can.
But, it's easier to point fingers at the very people taking preventative measures than help your countrymen in a time of need.
including after the federal government under trump reduced maintenance of federal lands.
In other words, if there is a lack of fire prevention maintenance, it's not on California's part, but on the Fed's.
It would be more accurate to say that climate change is making the problem worse, so despite their increases in fire management, even more is required.
A lesson in there somewhere about investing in the future...
Problems associated with climate change tend to grow exponentially. Meanwhile, resource management tends to reach a point of diminishing returns. So, yeah, any increase in fire management will be outpaced by climate change.
I don't think you can controlled burn a suburb tho.