975
Apocalypto indeed.
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
975 points (100.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
6360 readers
2200 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Odds are great that a person set the fire regardless of climate impact. Most sources I see say that climate change is the reason for the fire, and not necessarily pointing out that it's human influence that starts it. Climate change just helps spread the fire.
First we need to convince dumb motherfuckers to stop setting fires or shooting fireworks in dry seasons. Also (IMO) people who set fires that cause this much damage and loss of life should be executed by being burned at the stake
First, there are several fires, it's not one big one. A video cropped up showing a fire starting at the base of an Edison transmission line tower as the start of the Eaton fire. Whether that's the cause remains to be seen. The only almost confirmed arson was the Sunset fire (Hollywood Hills).
Even then, So Cal is on a record dry streak at the moment, with something like less than a quarter inch of rain since last May. Then the Santa Ana winds came, with a vengeance (75 mph sustained winds in some areas). When these winds come, humidity drops to near zero. All it takes is a tree knocking into a boulder, setting it loose down a hill, smacking a boulder and creating a spark that ignites already dry brush. We are already in the middle of a La Nina year (little to no precipitation), though the Santa Ana winds happen all the time, caused by high pressure in the Great Basin in northern Nevada with low pressure off the coast. Not staying climate change isn't a root cause of the intensity of these factors, but So Cal has a history of all these conditions.
Since California is richer than most countries of the world and these fires happen constantly, why don't they invest more into firefighting?
They have invested a lot, but these are nightmare conditions. Strongest wind storms in a decade, and hasn't rained in months. Nothing can be bought that can battle 100 mile an hour winds spreading fire faster than a car on a highway.
I hindsight they could've maybe done more controlled fires to lessen fire fuel, but that's an issue of planning and politics.
There is a large patchwork of different firefighting agencies within CA, notably city FDs, county FDs, forest FDs, hotshots, and others. However, when a fire breaks out and gets out of control, departments from all over swarm to help. When the Line fire ripped through my area back in September, we had crews from all over the country.
The problem with these fires is that there are quite a few going at the same time at a time of year where fire fighters are laying low after the fire season, but also too that conditions prohibited flying. On top of which, more firefighters have responded but the amount of damage in the first 24 hours was the most catastrophic, in which there wasn't time for outside agencies to respond.
You underestimate how much open, undeveloped space there is in CA.
There's a bit more now.
Literally the definition of a fire sale. Despite the fact that maybe they shouldn't, the people in these areas have to money to rebuild almost immediately, and they absolutely will. A helping factor here is that the new homes will be built to current code spec, and will likely include improved fire defence measures (concrete siding, metal roofing, etc; a lot of the houses that went up still had wood shingle roofs that have been outlawed in CA for some time).
It’s a bigger state than you think.
What's even the point of this comment?
The impact of fires started by human error is increased due to climate change. Drier vegetation (and being dry in general) making for faster burning and more violent fires.
https://www.wri.org/insights/global-trends-forest-fires
Please show us these odds.
I was curious too. The US National Parks Service states that 85% of wildfires are caused by humans.
I mean, that's kinda redundant...... That's unless you had previously thought it had been lightning on a clear day, or maybe Bambi with a Zippo.
Unless you are proposing that we have a zero open flame policy in one of the most populated states in America....... Then I really don't see the benefit of blaming any single individual.
People have been lighting fires in California for thousands of years, the reason they are no longer manageable is because of climate change, and because we refuse to spend the time and money on land management.
And then no one ever made a fire again and everyone clapped.....
This would do literally nothing to curtail wildfires in the future. I mean the last big one was started by an electric companies faulty equipment. Are we executing the power grid next?
You want to have a discussion or you want to be a smartass?
Better a smartass than a dumbass.
I don't really know what you want to discuss with me? Imo the silliness of my response matches the silliness of your original claim.
Anyone who believes society as a whole responds positively to outdated ideas of "justice" like capital punishment should be mocked.
You were the one who said we should execute people on stakes. That's not really an invitation for a discussion.
Sure it is. Very direct wording and verbiage. So if and when they discover the people that set a fire that killed 25 people so far, what would be an adequate punishment?
Was my response not direct? I was clearly mocking your assertion by highlighting the illogical nature of your claim.
What leads you to believe that a person committed arson with the intent of killing 25 people?
Or are you claiming that intent has no influence when it comes to the prescription of justice?
Let's propose a scenario...... Your neighbor unbeknownst to you is unsafely storing a dangerous amount of fuel in his yard. You may have occasionally caught a whif of fumes in the air, but hey prob not a big deal. You decide to do a little BBQ or work on your car or whatever, and by chance an ember sparks his fuel and burns down the neighborhood.
Are you or your neighbor to blame? You were the source of the ignition, but it would have never happened unless someone hadn't been creating an obviously dangerous environment.
What is the purpose of your punishment, and how do you define adequate?
Do you seriously think there is a degree of punishment that will change people's behavior on a societal scale? If capital punishment was actually effective at curbing negative behavior, wouldn't we have only had to do it one time?
In the end if the purpose of your punishment is meaningless all you really wanted to begin with is to see someone suffer.