Which is not uncommon for authors Paid by think tanks funded by oil companies and for-profit prison corporations.
But it's interesting that the article DOES discuss fire suppression as being a problem, but then makes the assumption that "the forest product industry professionals who grew, managed, and harvested trees on private and public lands" he mentions would be "managing" those forests the same way fires would. And I seriously doubt that, because that's not where the real money is. Not to mention that many if not most of our fires occur in areas that aren't in "forests" at all, or at least not forests populated by trees with marketable lumber (like chaparral or oak woodland). I also seem to recall that a few years back when a fire hit the northwestern edge of Yosemite it burned furiously through the forest service region, but then slowed at the national park border where they'd been conducting controlled burns for years. Which might not be a fair comparison considering there's a lot more human habitation in and around the national forest land which makes controlled burns less feasible, but it still speaks strongly to your points 1 and 3.
The article seems to blame "regulations" for logging companies no longer removing trees and leaves it at that, but the way those companies operated changed drastically at some point (which is why many of the regulations were imposed) that put higher quarterly profits way above simply proper yearly forest management, using less labor (to cut costs/increase profit) meant they started more clear-cutting and fewer targeted removals. So yeah, the logging companies practices required more regulations to curb that (which may have been arguably worse for the environment than what we see now). Developers did not help either. No-one has been saying increased CO2 causes more fires as the article phrasing suggests, but it drives longer climate patterns like droughts which in turn may cause more drastic fire-friendly conditions, and the increased fuel (due partly to company practices and state regulations) adds to the problem when they do occur, etc. Regulations rarely exist in a vacuum. And they're rarely evil.
I agreed with everything except that last sentence. I’m sure most regulations aren’t intended to be evil but often end up that way.
Generally speaking, industry tends to massively overestimate implementation costs for regs. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...ower-benefits-greater-than-industry-estimates That’s not to say that regs can’t be unduly burdensome. In many instances where that’s the case, it is the product of trying to create regulatory content capable of withstanding an army of attorneys trying to circumvent the intent of the regs though.
They often have unintended consequences and do not solve the intended problem. There should be a very careful, evidence-based weighing of the costs and benefits before any regulation is implemented. And the burden should be on the agency to make this showing, including through compliance with all notice and comment procedures under the APA (where applicable).
You know they do this with RIA, right? And as far as “burden” goes, that’s in the eye of the beholder. A model is only as good as its inputs and ability to capture dynamic effects created by a regulation. All inputs have some range of reasonable and you can consistently select assumption estimates that bias high or low and these have a cumulative runaway impact on the conclusion. What we do know: industry consistently overestimates costs in their “independent” analyses, which means that more often than not the RIAs are closer to being correct than the first industries fighting the proposals. So what do regs get a bum rap? It’s a form of corporate NIMBYism. Industries subject to the proposal feel a greater impact while the benefits are spread amongst the general public.
You reek ah...we're saved! Got the 1st measurable amt. of rain since about last March. 5/32" is nothing to sneeze at where I am. The deluge filled all the rain barrels and the solar panels are again at peak performance. And the people rejoiced!
By the way, Knave, congratulations on being in one of the few California districts still represented by a Republican. The OC may have flipped, but we can always count on the mountainbillys staying red.
Actually, that's beginning to change. My CA04 may be deep red, but my Nevada County is now reliably blue!
A few stories about LA public transit. So it seems LA people love paying money to fund their public transportation, as long as they are not forced to ride it. So this is the goal. https://www.economist.com/united-st...o-pay-for-public-transport-but-loth-to-use-it How is that working out? https://www.citymetric.com/transport/los-angeles-metro-great-so-why-aren-t-people-using-it-2742 https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/31/16950224/metro-ridership-decline-stats-car-ownership-study I guess riding public transit is just not California cool. Good thing the State wants to spend hundreds of billion of dollars on a fast train that nobody is going to ride.
It's kind of a stupid comparison with New York, the LA metropolitan area is a massive, sprawling thing as opposed to a highly concentrated urban area. And the rail system is relatively limited in scope, so that in most cases you need a car on one end or the other anyway. But you're right that most people in California won't ride buses, unless that's all they can afford. The exception is in San Francisco, public transit use is much higher there, by either bus or train; and not coincidentally, it's another highly concentrated urban area where you can actually get around the city by public transit in a somewhat reasonable fashion.
Good enough for me to rarely drive if my destination is within San Francisco. But still poor compared to most major European cities. And atrocious compared to Japan.
San Francisco is much more of an "East Coast" city than most places in the west/south/southwest. Well, except for the time I was at a conference and crossing the street with a huge horde of people. The cop directing traffic cheerfully encouraged everyone to "have an awesome day, folks!" Like that would ever happen in NY, Boston, Philly, etc.
Oh definitely. Part of that is because the subway system is so limited making you dependent on buses.
Never mind Japan. SF public transit is atrocious compared to Buenos Aires. Still, by California standards, it's fantastic.
On a non-Coronavirus-related news note: the state of California has come to a criminal settlement with PG&E over 2018's Camp Fire, the deadliest wildfire in California history. PG&E, as a company, will plead guilty to 85 counts of involuntary manslaughter and suffer a criminal penalty of $3.5 million. Does $3.5 million as a criminal penalty seem small to you? Well, there's also criminal charges against PG&E executi- -- oh, wait, the plea agreement says "no other or additional sentence will be imposed on the utility in the criminal action in connection with the 2018 Camp Fire." Of course.
One of my colleagues mentioned that the last place she went to prior to the mandatory "shelter in place" order in Illinois was the local dispensary.