wapo via msnbc on sprawl vs nature, and fire:
"The weapons of mass destruction have been found," a San Diego resident wrote in the letters page of Thursday's Los Angeles Times. "They are poor land-use planning, budget cuts, arsonists and one foolish hunter."
via DeLong, Matthew Yglesias Can't See The Forest For The Timber Company Profits:
I should state at the outset of my discussion that I do not give a damn about America's national forests and that if George W. Bush wants to let the timber companies cut them all down, I wouldn't be particularly upset...
LA Times, Little of Tax Hike Goes to Fight Fires:
Ten years ago, voters statewide passed a half-cent sales tax increase to provide money for county and city public safety programs. Proponents credited the measure's success, in part, to wildfires that burned hundreds of homes in Southern California the week before election day.
...when Proposition 172 was passed, a lot of people who voted for it assumed that some of the money would be going to the Fire Department and that hasn't happened."
Ten of the 28 counties that responded to informal surveys by the California State Assn. of Counties in 2001 and 2003 reported using Proposition 172 money for fire protection...Most of those reported using just a small amount for fire, such as .8% in Placer County and 5.63% in Santa Cruz.
New York Times, In California's Inferno, an Oasis of Planning Stands Out:
"With more people being born than dying, we add 400,000 to 700,000 people a year, even if no one ever moves again into California," said Timothy P. Duane, an associate professor of environmental planning and policy at the University of California, Berkeley, who has written about wildfires. "That is a Fresno to a San Francisco every year. That is a lot of people that need to go somewhere."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Welcome, and thanks for caring enough to donate your time and thoughts toward greater collective wisdom...
Terms of engagement:
* Please be civil.
* * * * Please do not post anonymously * * * (I'd remove this choice if I could, and I may remove your comment if you do) - instead, do this:
Click on the 'Name/URL' radiobutton, then enter your real name (if you're brave) or a pseudonym (if you're not). (You can leave the "URL" field blank.)
Or go ahead and click "Anonymous", but put your name in your comment.
* The Management reserves the right to delete comments (Moderation Certificate can be found here). You can always post it on a blog of your own.
If you run into technical difficulties, please a) accept my apologies, then b) email your comment to aherror2011 at gmail.com with "Comment for [name of this blog]" in the Subject line.
New policy re climate contrarianism comments as of 11/11/2009:
Comments questioning the climate science community's understanding of climate change (97% of active climatologists now believe that the earth is currently warming and that it's human-caused - link) will be deleted unless the commenter:
a) is local
b) uses his real name
c) provides link(s) to substantiate his claim(s)/inference(s)
d) is willing to collaborate on constructing an argument tree, to get us past the usual sterile point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint.
(For people who can't read the above, a summary:
1) Be civil;
2) Don't post w/o giving at least a pseudonym;
3) Don't espouse climate-denial crankery unless you're local and willing to stand behind it.)
Caveats:
1. Comments could be delayed: they are being moderated, and I'm sometimes away from the computer for a day or more.
2. : Perfectly legitimate comments are sometimes miscategorized (by the blogging platform) as spam, & not published. If this happens to yours, please notify me, else I might not notice for a day or two.