Connect with us

Uncategorized

The debate was a disaster – but the climate change came up?

Published

on

Share this:

I don’t know—perhaps it is because Trump had no preparations and didn’t really know what to say.” Was Trump said that he wanted clean crystal water and air that could be a big order given the man himself.

The moderator Chris Wallace lobbed a surprise question to Donald Trump at the end of the catastrophe debate of last night: And what will you do in the next four years to face it?

It was surprising because it was not on the list of questions he said that he would be asking the campaigns for. For another, climate change usually remains out of sight at the very bottom of the dumpster fire that is modern American politics. And much more importantly, after an hour and a half of close interruptions and insults, mostly from Trump, what followed was a discussion that ephemera towards civility.

I think that that was the most attractive part of the whole debate, says University of California, Los Angeles climate scientist Daniel Swain. And that seems to be something that others have also noticed. It was the part of the discussion with the fewest interruptions. I don’t know—maybe it is because Trump had no preparations at all and didn’t really know what to say.”

Was Trump said was that he wanted Crystal clean water and air, which, given the man himself, may be a big order. He said also that the Paris Agreement that the United States negotiated a disaster during his presidency. As for the destructive fires which are ravaging the western states today? Trump said that the forests are loaded with dead trees that are years old and they are like tinder. And ripest leaves and all else. It drops a cigarette in there, and the entire forest burns down. You have to have forest management.”

When Wallace asked him whether he thinks human greenhouse gases cause climate change, Trump said:’I think a lot of things do. But I think it is yes in some respects. Yes, to some degree. But I also think that we have to better manage our forests.”

It’s a common refrain from Trump, who tends to boil down the extremely complex problem of wildfires into a single problem : Western states are not doing enough to close their forests. (Never think that 60 percent of California’s forests are Oregon and a quarter of Washington’s forests.) After Trump, he calls out the shoddy forest management. Why, precisely? Fire historian Stephen Pyne says: “I don’t know what he has in mind—he probably doesn’t know either.” He’s just looking for attention, he just chants. But the people behind him, I think, want to open up the public domain to more logging—national forests and so on. Logging does not help in the protection of fires. It does the opposite.”

That’s because logging companies aren’t interested in taking off all the bristle that grows between the large trees. Pyne says that “logging takes the big and leaves the little stuff,” Frank burned the little stuff and leaves the big. So the next time you see a forest moonscape that has been blasted by fire, what stands behind? What remains are the tree trunks that would have been logged. They are not contributing to the fire itself.”

Indigenous peoples of Western states have a long history of land management practices that deliberately open fires to reset ecosystems in a sense. It opens the way for new growth which attracts large herbivores which make good food. Fires sparked by lightning naturally do not burn as intensely without so much fuel. But as more and more people have seized the American West, the modern approach has moved away from prevention and moved towards reaction — defending cities and homes. Firefighting agencies have been under increasing pressure to halt the fast-approaching of wildfires to protect human populations. By not letting fires bite through the thicket of a landscape, we’ve in turn allowed the small stuff to build in western forests. A lot of people call this policy “fire suppression,” a different tactic than merely preventing them, because there is no way to stop all fires from starting. Pyne also says the better term would be fire exclusion. It’s not just that we are putting out fires—we’re not even putting out them anymore,” he says.

Share this: