(no subject)
It's sort of sad that the Colorado wildfire isn't getting more mention from Congress. Since it's not something each side can blame the other for, they seem to sort of be . . . ignoring it?
It's especially sad because this IS something that needs attention. These crazily huge wildfires aren't just the result of a couple years of drought; they are the result of decades of fire suppression, ironically enough.
Basically, in a natural system there are fires fairly frequently which burn the brush but usually don't have the heat and intensity to set the evergreens on fire. The US policy used to be to just let forest fires burn, unless they were actually near a city. They would flare up, burn out, and life would go on.
^ Those ponderosa pines do not give a crap about the fire burning away the pine needles on the forest floor.
Then in 1910 there was a truly unusual and intense bout of forest fires. Many fire fighters died. (Check out the amazing story of Edward Pulasi sometime.) In the aftermath, the policy changed and forest rangers started reporting and putting out ALL forest fires.
But . . . no more fires meant the undergrowth didn't get cleaned out on a regular basis, it just built up and built up . . . We have turned our forests into tinder boxes, filled with enough fuel to give a blaze enough intensity and longevity to burn the evergreens (crown fires). And once the evergreens catch fire, you are in biiiig trouble because those tend to be hotter, more voracious fires.
Summer after summer we have huge, unnatural forest fires. And no one in Congress seems to be talking about it.
It's especially sad because this IS something that needs attention. These crazily huge wildfires aren't just the result of a couple years of drought; they are the result of decades of fire suppression, ironically enough.
Basically, in a natural system there are fires fairly frequently which burn the brush but usually don't have the heat and intensity to set the evergreens on fire. The US policy used to be to just let forest fires burn, unless they were actually near a city. They would flare up, burn out, and life would go on.
^ Those ponderosa pines do not give a crap about the fire burning away the pine needles on the forest floor.
Then in 1910 there was a truly unusual and intense bout of forest fires. Many fire fighters died. (Check out the amazing story of Edward Pulasi sometime.) In the aftermath, the policy changed and forest rangers started reporting and putting out ALL forest fires.
But . . . no more fires meant the undergrowth didn't get cleaned out on a regular basis, it just built up and built up . . . We have turned our forests into tinder boxes, filled with enough fuel to give a blaze enough intensity and longevity to burn the evergreens (crown fires). And once the evergreens catch fire, you are in biiiig trouble because those tend to be hotter, more voracious fires.
Summer after summer we have huge, unnatural forest fires. And no one in Congress seems to be talking about it.