Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, December 04, 2021

As Joe Biden has continued his push for the biggest climate change bill in American history, some Republicans argue that saving the environment isn't nearly this complicated.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

...In an interview on Friday, Congressman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said Democrats have damaged natural cycles of nature with sweeping environmental regulations. Nunes stressed this is on full display with the narrative California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) pushes about wildfires after at least three million acres were scorched this year alone.

Over the past decades, Democrats have pushed tight regulations on the timber industry, making it harder for loggers to clear forests. Nunes linked California's wildfires to the state's poor forest management policies, which Democrats imposed out of environmental concern....


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-12-04 08:44 PM | Reply

Clearing forests makes it rain? Who knew?

#2 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-12-04 08:47 PM | Reply

He's not wrong.

#3 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2021-12-04 08:48 PM | Reply

Not a fan of Nunes, but certainly seems like he's correct.

Not only the cycles he mentions, but the creation of extremist.

Former Santa Clara University professor indicted on arson charges in connection with Dixie Fire
www.mercurynews.com

The blaze is the second-largest in California's history and the biggest to burn in the U.S. this summer, as climate change turbocharged severe
www.washingtonpost.com

Seems to me the GlobalWarming fanatics took over the reasonable argument.

Nunes is a jerk, but in this case the clock is correct.

#StopGlobalWarming
#StopTheFanatics

#4 | Posted by oneironaut at 2021-12-04 08:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Not a fan of Nunes, but...

I see a pattern developing.

#EffingLoser
#SockPuppet

#5 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-12-04 09:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

This is a 5-paragraph OAN story. Take it for what is it worth.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2021-12-04 09:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Take it for what is it worth.

I'll take "not much" for $1, Alex...

#7 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-12-04 09:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#6

... This is a 5-paragraph OAN story. Take it for what is it worth. ..

Oh, you caught that.

I was hoping I could slip it by you. :(

(OK, it's a dull night here in Fairfield County, CT. Give me some slack....)



#8 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-12-04 09:19 PM | Reply

This is a 5-paragraph OAN story. Take it for what is it worth.

It's a 5 paragraph OAN story that basically lays out out the Congressman's position in a fairly straightforward manner.

------ public policy begets ------ forest management practices which begets an unnatural amount of fuel build-up in the understory which begets insanely intense forest fires.

Take it for what its worth.

#9 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2021-12-04 09:20 PM | Reply

@nbsp

@#9 ... basically lays out out the Congressman's position in a fairly straightforward manner. ...

Soooo, the comment.. "... making it harder for loggers to clear forests ... " is straightforward?

Exactly how are those forests to be cleared?

And how will that clearing reduce wildfire risks?

Rep Nunes' comments seem more of a hatchet job on our forests, leveling them when we need them to process carbon dioxide.

OK, your turn...

#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-12-04 09:28 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

loggers don't harvest "understory", they contribute to it

#11 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-12-04 09:32 PM | Reply

Soooo, the comment.. "... making it harder for loggers to clear forests ... " is straightforward?

Yes.

Exactly how are those forests to be cleared?

Selective logging and prescribed burns.

And how will that clearing reduce wildfire risks?

By reducing the amount of fuel available when an uncontrolled fire ignites, thereby lowering the intensity of it and making it far easier to control.

Rep Nunes' comments seem more of a hatchet job on our forests, leveling them when we need them to process carbon dioxide.

You don't strike me as a particularly bright lighter of lamps.

#12 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2021-12-04 09:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

@#12 ... You don't strike me as a particularly bright lighter of lamps. ...

You don't know how much that devastates me.

But I'll move past it.

... Exactly how are those forests to be cleared?

Selective logging and prescribed burns. ...

Selective? How?

To benefit the logging companies or the forests?

... By reducing the amount of fuel available when an uncontrolled fire ignites, thereby lowering the intensity of it and making it far easier to control. ...

That all sounds oh so good. But who is to benefit from that?

If the actual goal is to reduce wild fire risk, I'm all in.

But if the goal is to increase the profits of those who use the land as raw materials, I then would have questions.


#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-12-04 09:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

loggers don't harvest "understory", they contribute to it

I don't understand?

I hate that loggers harvest so much, looking at satellite images between decades is distressing. That being said, I have seen some good things in Washington.

But as Mao_Content points out there are things that can be done to mitigate the size of fires. I would add the immediate extinguishing of fires is also an unfortunate practice.

#StopTheInsanity!

#14 | Posted by oneironaut at 2021-12-04 09:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

If the actual goal is to reduce wild fire risk, I'm all in. But if the goal is to increase the profits of those who use the land as raw materials

But do you understand that two concepts are not mutually exclusive and are, in fact, mostly compatible with each other? That's generally true of most natural resources management dilemmas.

#15 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2021-12-04 09:53 PM | Reply

------ public policy begets ------ forest management practices which begets an unnatural amount of fuel build-up in the understory which begets insanely intense forest fires.
Take it for what its worth.
#9 | POSTED BY MAO_CONTENT

Trump fixed all that.
With rakes

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-04 10:04 PM | Reply

Trump should have started a division of the forestry department to rake federal forests.

But he wanted a tax cut instead.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2021-12-04 10:04 PM | Reply

@#15 ... But do you understand that two concepts are not mutually exclusive ...

Oh, I quite understand that.

But that seems to run against your comment " ... You don't strike me as a particularly bright lighter of lamps. ... "

OK, that ad hominem attack aside...

The question I have is, " when does clearing forests for commercial benefit start to be wholesale exploiting of those forests? ..."

The commercial interests interested in ~clearing the forests~ do not seem to understand that difference.

Do you?

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-12-04 10:05 PM | Reply

I'd sooner listen to nunes cow than him.

#19 | Posted by Tor at 2021-12-04 10:05 PM | Reply

"As Joe Biden has continued his push for the biggest climate change bill in American history"

Is there really much competition there?

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-04 10:20 PM | Reply

@#12 ... lighter of lamps. ...

The Old Lamplighter by the Browns
www.youtube.com

#21 | Posted by LampLighter at 2021-12-04 10:21 PM | Reply

Ever see a clear cut?
It's not like the loggers are raking up behind themselves. It's nothing but acres of highly combustible debris. This notion that clear cutting prevents fire is BS

There is no money to be made in the cleanup of the undergrowth logged or not Period

#22 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2021-12-04 10:40 PM | Reply

"This notion that clear cutting prevents fire is BS"

There's always a tradeoff.

Remember the fatal mudslides in WA a few years back? Those hills had recently been logged.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-04 10:53 PM | Reply

It's nothing but acres of highly combustible debris.

Here they stack it up in huge piles and then light them on fire once the fire season is over.

Cuz that's what we need after fire season... more smoke.

#24 | Posted by REDIAL at 2021-12-04 11:37 PM | Reply

To hear some of the people in this thread talk, nature has a way of sending California prisoners out into the forest with chainsaws, but California bureaucrats have messed it all up.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-04 11:59 PM | Reply

That story had zero details about anything. It was, logging good,forest clearing, good, Dems,bad. No policy details at All.

Prescribed burns can and do reduce wildfire intensity and risk. But mostly in fire dependent ecosystems. Ponderosa pine forests, Douglas fir forests. Bigtree forests and to a lesser degree,coast redwood forests. Chapparal in southern California is well managed with prescribed burns.

In the East. Longleaf pine forests are managed with frequent fire. Deciduous forests are less in need of prescribed burns. Swamp forests also don't burn often. Nunes is a moron. Fires are good management. Logging is greed. The two aren't all that similar.

#26 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-12-05 02:16 AM | Reply

Wildfires themselves make big fires in the future less likely after they occur. It takes years for the fuel loads to really build up after a major fire. Catastrophic fires are a result of long term fire suppresion. Allowing or prescribing frequent fires does make the landscape less prone to massive wildfires.

Logging is Not Nessessary to this process.

That's the Greed talking.

#27 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-12-05 02:27 AM | Reply

In addition. Many early successional plant species only thrive after frequent fires.

Most carnivorous plants, many orchids and rare endemic plants are very fire dependent. Fire suppression is a major cause of species loss.

But only in fire dependent ecosystems.

Not every forest needs frequent fire.

Some forest types are naturally fire resistant. Rain forests, swamp forests. And many deciduous forests are not fire dependent.

Logging is another matter. More an economic argument to be made there. From a management standpoint it's not a good way to maintain healthy forests. It's ok in moderation but it's not, The Answer, to big wildfires.

#28 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-12-05 02:39 AM | Reply

"Fire suppression is a major cause of species loss."

Most everything humans do is a major cause of species loss.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2021-12-05 03:03 AM | Reply

Sometimes I agree. Sometimes I hope we can learn to be better stewards of the Earth.

India,and China as massively populated as they are are far better stewards of their natural heritige than we are. America has the Worst record of environmental and species protection in the developed world. Greed always overwhelms everything else here.Economic Growth is a Religion. It requires living sacrifices.

Extinctions are part of an advanced economy, collateral damage to our great comforts and population growth.

The Earth will Not Miss Capitalism.

I doubt most people will.....

#30 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-12-05 03:14 AM | Reply

I don't understand......
Trump solved all this with his "rake the forest" theory, just get to raking and all our fire problems are solved....just ask Finland.

#31 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2021-12-05 07:00 AM | Reply

Clearing out forests doesn't mean there's nothing left but dirt and rocks. It's all stumps and debris. Basically kindling.

A living forest is less likely to burn than a bone dry clearing. The problem isn't forests, it's climate change.

#32 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2021-12-07 05:30 PM | Reply

Fire suppression in some cases. Not all, overall climate change too. Logging is not a good solution.

#33 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2021-12-07 06:18 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort