Wildfires, Evacuations, and Smoke Hit Europe and North America (thestar.com) 111
270,000 people have been displaced by wildfires in France and Spain, reports the Guardian. A wildfire even forced evacuations in Scotland.
And wildfires "have now scorched four million acres of land in the U.S.," reports NPR, as tens of millions of people in North America "are continuing to endure hazardous smoke from out of control wildfires burning across Canada and the Western U.S."
At America's National Interagency Fire Center, NPR's wildfire correspondent says all of America's firefighting resources have now been deployed across the country. "So if we get another big fire, we're in trouble... International aid could be harder to come by if the situation in Southern Europe gets worse and firefighters are going to be needed there."
Meanwhile Toronto was blanketed this week "with eye-watering, cough-inducing soot," writes a climate-change reporter for the Toronto Star newspaper, "briefly giving us the worst air quality in the world." But looking to the future after a wildfire that's 50% larger than any in Ontario's history (315,000 hectares or 778,331 acres), he had this to say about the eye-watering smoke. "It will be back." The article's headline warned of "Our smoke-filled future" and how Canada "must prepare for bigger wildfires, every summer — forever." Even if global carbon emissions were cut dramatically, so long as any greenhouse gases are being put into the atmosphere, climate scientists say the world will continue to get hotter. And as the temperature rises, the forests dry out and the wildfires will get bigger, stronger and more frequent. "It's not going to get better. It's going to get worse," said Edward Struzik, a fellow with the Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy at Queen's University and the author of Dark Days at Noon: the Future of Fire . "These fires aren't going away. Toronto is going to get smoke every summer...."
The best solution would have been to dramatically cut emissions years ago. The harsh scientific reality is there's nothing we can do to stop wildfire smoke from blanketing cities for a few days every summer — and it's going to continue for decades to come. We're all going to need to buy air purifiers and masks and get used to it....
"The idea that we can thin our way through the boreal forest boggles the mind," [says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth, an independent non-profit research organization]. "There aren't enough people in Canada to do that." The boreal forest in Canada is an enormous and largely roadless expanse bigger than the entire European Union. In comparison, America's much smaller forests are criss-crossed by roads, making firefighter access much quicker and easier. And the nature of the forests is fundamentally different as well, said Hausfather, who wrote an article summarizing research on the subject. "Western U.S. forests have evolved for frequent low-level fires that burn out the undergrowth — usually every five to 30 years," he said. "Historically, before fire suppression, fires would burn through, and they wouldn't actually kill the trees. They'd just kill smaller trees and clear out the brush."
"The boreal forest is a fundamentally different beast," he said. "It's an ecosystem designed to burn." With smaller, more densely packed trees, the boreal is wetter and colder and doesn't burn anywhere near as often — every 100 to 200 years on average, Hausfather said. But when fire does erupt, it's often much more intense, burning up into the canopy and levelling everything in its path... Clearing out the dead wood on the ground wouldn't prevent, or even slow, the canopy fires that sweep the boreal, said Hausfather.
And wildfires "have now scorched four million acres of land in the U.S.," reports NPR, as tens of millions of people in North America "are continuing to endure hazardous smoke from out of control wildfires burning across Canada and the Western U.S."
At America's National Interagency Fire Center, NPR's wildfire correspondent says all of America's firefighting resources have now been deployed across the country. "So if we get another big fire, we're in trouble... International aid could be harder to come by if the situation in Southern Europe gets worse and firefighters are going to be needed there."
Meanwhile Toronto was blanketed this week "with eye-watering, cough-inducing soot," writes a climate-change reporter for the Toronto Star newspaper, "briefly giving us the worst air quality in the world." But looking to the future after a wildfire that's 50% larger than any in Ontario's history (315,000 hectares or 778,331 acres), he had this to say about the eye-watering smoke. "It will be back." The article's headline warned of "Our smoke-filled future" and how Canada "must prepare for bigger wildfires, every summer — forever." Even if global carbon emissions were cut dramatically, so long as any greenhouse gases are being put into the atmosphere, climate scientists say the world will continue to get hotter. And as the temperature rises, the forests dry out and the wildfires will get bigger, stronger and more frequent. "It's not going to get better. It's going to get worse," said Edward Struzik, a fellow with the Institute for Energy and Environmental Policy at Queen's University and the author of Dark Days at Noon: the Future of Fire . "These fires aren't going away. Toronto is going to get smoke every summer...."
The best solution would have been to dramatically cut emissions years ago. The harsh scientific reality is there's nothing we can do to stop wildfire smoke from blanketing cities for a few days every summer — and it's going to continue for decades to come. We're all going to need to buy air purifiers and masks and get used to it....
"The idea that we can thin our way through the boreal forest boggles the mind," [says Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist at Berkeley Earth, an independent non-profit research organization]. "There aren't enough people in Canada to do that." The boreal forest in Canada is an enormous and largely roadless expanse bigger than the entire European Union. In comparison, America's much smaller forests are criss-crossed by roads, making firefighter access much quicker and easier. And the nature of the forests is fundamentally different as well, said Hausfather, who wrote an article summarizing research on the subject. "Western U.S. forests have evolved for frequent low-level fires that burn out the undergrowth — usually every five to 30 years," he said. "Historically, before fire suppression, fires would burn through, and they wouldn't actually kill the trees. They'd just kill smaller trees and clear out the brush."
"The boreal forest is a fundamentally different beast," he said. "It's an ecosystem designed to burn." With smaller, more densely packed trees, the boreal is wetter and colder and doesn't burn anywhere near as often — every 100 to 200 years on average, Hausfather said. But when fire does erupt, it's often much more intense, burning up into the canopy and levelling everything in its path... Clearing out the dead wood on the ground wouldn't prevent, or even slow, the canopy fires that sweep the boreal, said Hausfather.
A tariff would help (Score:5, Funny)
But can Trump levy a tariff on the US?
Re:A tariff would help (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A tariff would help (Score:4, Informative)
From the dementia patient himself. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/... [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
I read almost all of this in Boris Tizengauzen's Ukrainian accent. I was even looking for the tell-tale "botox jellyfish" nickname for Putler.
Re: (Score:2)
So which part is incorrect, oh brilliant MAGA cultist?
The part where Trump is slapping tariffs on Canada because of wildfire smoke? That's true, and unbelievably stupid - how does paying more for construction materials (wood), potash, steel, and aluminum help extinguish wildfires in the middle of fucking nowhere above the 50th parallel?
The part where US consumers pay the tariffs? That's also true. Why do you think the Department of Revenue is issuing refunds for illegal tariffs to US COMPANIES?
The part w
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the "product" when he tariffs smoke coming from Canada? It's not like anybody is buying the smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A tariff is a tax. Its purpose is to protect domestic producers of a good from foreign producers of it who charge too little.
You probably know this already, but Trump has been abusing tariffs. Instead of for the above purpose, he has been using them as a weapon to effect foreign-policy leverage. To be fair, it appears he is not the only president to have done so. But I'm not aware of anyone who went to his extremes.
But more than that, he has been levying tariffs that make no freaking sense. For example, lev
Re: (Score:2)
How about we don't try to "recover the cost" from US consumers? They are the ones paying the costs in a shitty health care system to begin with.
It's insanely fucking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worse than that. Tariffs are levied on you through higher prices. When they get thrown out by a court, the refund goes to the retailer, with interest on top which is paid for from your taxes. You are being robbed blind by these tariffs.
Re: (Score:2)
It's exactly as simple as that.
What importer is just going to eat the additional costs from a deranged moron thinking that a tariff will somehow extinguish hundreds of thousands of burning acres?
Importers are not charities. And the last crop of tariffs, after being rejected by the Supreme Court, is resulting in refunds with interest paid by taxpayers. How much of those refunds do you think you will see, for the illegal tariffs passed down to you through higher prices? My guess is a big whopping $0.00.
Why
Re: (Score:1)
Elasticity of supply and demand determines who pays the additional tax.
Tax cigarettes and the consumer pays. Tax apples and consumers buy pears instead. The seller pays the tax.
Reality for most products is somewhere in between.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's play a quick game of causality, shall we?
1. someone buys property and goes through all the work to have someone design a house to put on it, gets permits to build, gets a construction loan.
2. some jackass puts a tariff on Canadian lumber, where somewhere between 1/5 and 1/3 of softwood lumber used to build houses comes from Canada.
You now get a choice between:
1. pay for more expensive US lumber
2. pay for more expensive Canadian lumber due to jackass tariffs imposed for no fucking reason at all
3. delay
Re: (Score:2)
Since many wildfires are man-made, maybe a tariff on matchsticks? The tariff money from Indian matches can use to buy aerial firefighting from Canada.
Re: (Score:2)
Since many wildfires are man-made, maybe a tariff on matchsticks?
When matchsticks are heavily tariffed, only arsonists will have matchsticks.
Re:A tariff would help (Score:5, Interesting)
A tariff would help, I mean, Trump suggested it would work against the Canadian wild fires.
Maybe some corporal punishment on the wild fires, like When Persian King Xerxes Ordered His Soldiers to Punish the Sea by Lashing It [greekreporter.com]
Determined to finish the Greeks once and for all, Xerxes amassed a massive army. He planned to cross the Hellespont using a bridge he had constructed. When his forces reached Sardis, however, a violent storm destroyed the bridge.
When his men reported the disaster, Xerxes was furious. He was enraged both at the sea for demolishing the structure and at the architects for failing to make it strong enough to withstand the storm. Resolute, he determined to punish both the waves and the workmen.
According to Herodotus, Xerxes commanded his men to scourge the sea with a monstrous whip and to cast heavy chains into it, symbolizing both his defiance of its power and his determination to assert control over it.
As for the men who had constructed the bridge, which had proved incapable of withstanding the force of a winter storm, Xerxes ordered that every one of them be beheaded.
The story of Xerxes and his extraordinary decision to order his soldiers to punish the sea by whipping it was viewed by Greek historians and later thinkers as a symbol of imperial arrogance and the illusion of absolute power, portraying the king as a god.
Honestly, I wouldn't put it past him - on the other hand, this kind of thing isn't working for him with Iran ...
Re: (Score:2)
The story of Xerxes and his extraordinary decision to order his soldiers to punish the sea by whipping it was viewed by Greek historians and later thinkers as a symbol of imperial arrogance and the illusion of absolute power, portraying the king as a god.
Sounds related to that Canute guy.
Re: (Score:2)
symbolic acts are quite common in human history to this day, i doubt there is a single civilization or even country you couldn't ridicule and mock on that basis. otoh ... there's no confirmation whatsoever of that story except herodotus who had reasons to hate the persians, so his account might be very distorted or even straight out fake "news".
Re: A tariff would help (Score:2)
Re:A tariff would help (Score:5, Insightful)
You know what would really help? American forestry firefighters going to Canada to help fight the blazes. (*)
That's what Canadians do when the USA has wildfires. Recently, one of those Canadian firefighters even died whild doing just that.
(*) Shout-out to firefighters from Michigan who actually have gone north to help out.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: A tariff would help (Score:3)
Those tariffs are just meant to force countries to buy American rakes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bring back forest managment (Score:2)
Re: Bring back forest managment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You pay a little bit now so that your offspring and the offspring of their offspring can live in a world where humans and forests still exist.
Re: Bring back forest managment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Canada is in the top 10 GHG producers in the world, but it's at #10 just behind Iran.
A lack of forest management is not the problem. The big remote forests were never managed by humans, and are biologically engineered to burn sometimes. Some species of pinecones evolved to become seed spreading hand grenades when burned. The biggest conifers can live 1000 years, and the ones that do have survived many forest fires. The infrastructure needed to deal with climate change, if it can be dealt with, is going to b
Re: Bring back forest managment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The original comment by memory_register got voted down as flamebait. I agree with that assessment. The Trump administration and their mouthpieces are blaming Canada's forest management instead of looking for solutions.
The UN climate summit in 2024 (COP29) was setup to finance aid for developing countries to help reduce GHG emissions.
Finance was the main focus of the COP and a few regimes were developed for mitigation and adaptation contexts:
Polluter pays --
Re: Bring back forest managment (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most of my last comment was cutoff. Formatting probably. Anyhow, for financing mitigation and adaptation projects, the UN is moving (slowly) towards a model where the biggest contributors to GHG historically; the big GDP countries that benefitted most from polluting will contribute to funds to help developing nations with adaptations, and to distribute funding to mitigation projects.
Canada would be paying for all of its mitigation and adaptation itself in this model, since it not only has the GDP but also h
Re: (Score:2)
somewhere in a backyard in St Petersburg, with a printed photo of a submarine stuck on the wall behind them
With the sweet smell of freshly baked wild berries wafting through the air :-)
Re:Bring back forest managment (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you stage controlled burns in an area where the nearest road is hundreds of miles away?
Re: (Score:2)
By cutting all funding to forest management that doesn't benefit the corporations who make toilet paper out of trees.
Re:Bring back forest managment (Score:5, Informative)
You failed to read Canada's boreal forests are larger than the EU, and without roads.
No one's ever 'cared' for the vast majority of these forests, and no one's ever lived in them either.
The fucking planet is too hot, and what were fairly cool and damp forests are now turning into tinder sticks.
The 'greens' have been lobbying for decades to stop and reverse global warming. It's people like you trying extremely hard to ignore reality that makes any progress impossible. Because you insist it's a park that isn't being raked.
Re: (Score:2)
Whataboutism.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you missed the part of the summary that tells the reader what the fundamental problem with your idea is in the boreal forest. It's larger than Europe and there are no roads.
"There aren't enough people in Canada to do that." The boreal forest in Canada is an enormous and largely roadless expanse bigger than the entire European Union
I have this wild idea (Score:2)
Make autonomous bots for forest strip-cleaning. Or hell, make it a game.
Give random people a joystick to a drone forest-clearing machine and tell them if they help clear firebreak lanes in the boreal forest, they will get paid.
Implement some basic "rails" controls so they can't cause havoc by bumping into other machines doing the same thing, etc and I can practically guarantee folks will sign on for this. Have someone organize things a bit and publish goals and a leaderboard.
Look at what random people have
Re: (Score:2)
Another person who does not understand the scale of the problem and who has clearly never witnessed a firestorm like these.
We cannot manufacture enough drones. There are not enough water bombers, and even if there were, there aren't enough runways, pilots, or enough fuel to do what you're thinking. It's akin to spitting in a bonfire and expecting it to make a difference.
These fires are jumping across lakes miles across, and you think making fire breaks is the answer?
When you see the skies turn red, when you
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it takes 20+ years, if we do nothing then nothing will change, obviously.
If 10,000 people spit into a bonfire multiple times, the bonfire will go out. One person won't make much difference, but a lot of people can - over time
Re: (Score:3)
Additionally, just imagine doing this on millions of acres of wilderness.
Re: Bring back forest managment (Score:2)
Canada has 10% of all forests on earth. How do you manage something so big? America doesn't have forests like Canada does, and it has 10x the population and infinitely more money, yet America burns all the same. Why is that?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Bring back forest managment (Score:5, Informative)
No amount of forest management can help a forest that's tinder dry the whole year.
I live in the Okanagan valley in BC, and this winter we got so little snow, and the snow pack had melted off extra early. A deeper snow pack lets the water feed the water system over a longer period of time, keeping the ground wet for longer. Our early summer was a little cooler and wetter than usual, but our lake levels are the lowest in recorded history. (My city is in between two lakes: Okanagan and Skaha.) I talk to the farmers at the market every week, and every farm exists in a different microclimate, so sometimes 10 minutes between farms is the difference between ground so wet you can't walk in the fields and dusty-dry conditions.
But overall, it's hot and dry here, and getting hotter and drier. We've been on level 2 water restrictions since early May, if I remember right, and we've had a campfire ban for about the same time. There was no ice on the lake over the winter--the long-distance outdoor swimmers swam the whole winter this year. 40-50 years ago (long before I moved here, this is just what the older folks around town say) the lake froze over so solid that you could drive a car across it.
The tinder isn't the issue anymore, even though it's true that we ignored the indigenous people here for too long and should have adopted their land use practices. I wish it were as easy as you say.
Re: (Score:2)
The inexorable march toward +4C (Score:5, Informative)
And the sad part, the tragic part, the awful part, is: this is only the beginning. It's the shallow part of an exponential curve.
Re:The inexorable march toward +4C (Score:4, Informative)
Your wish is my command...
And it's going to be a hell of a lot worse and much more expensive and damaging to human society than having to 'minimize your carbon footprint'. That was actually the easy and pleasant option.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing about it would have been easy or pleasant, and yet it would still have been less awful than the alternative. A plus 4 world is a horror show for human civilisation.
Re: (Score:1)
Nothing about it would have been easy or pleasant, and yet it would still have been less awful than the alternative.
You discount the amount of violence that would be required. That sort of global social engineering does not just happen without liberal application of lethal force. Or did you think the OP was using the world revolution figuratively?
There is no path for 8 billion people to have a "modern" standard of living in any case, but there are a number of possible ways it will all collapse. None of them will be pleasant.
Re: The inexorable march toward +4C (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t discount anything. *You* discount what a plus 4 world entails. I don’t use the term “horror show” lightly. It *will be worse* than your fever dreams about the effects of attempted mitigations.
Re: The inexorable march toward +4C (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When your daily life becomes smoke-fill heatwaves, flooding, or similar climate-fueled disasters with failing electricity - yeah, what they've been telling us to do will be easy peasy.
And yes, I live it. Vegan over 35yrs, I don't drive or travel, and consume very little/ I've sent one trash bag to the landfill in the last half decade. I'm actually quite happy, because it's not all that shit in your life that brings happiness. That's the biggest lie of all.
Re: (Score:2)
When your daily life becomes smoke-fill heatwaves, flooding, or similar climate-fueled disasters
Last year we had smoke, this year we have flooding. I'm old enough to remember these are not new things, they have happened before. Whether they become more frequent is hard to gauge in one lifetime. It's funny how people used to chastise "weather is not climate" at one time and now every single weather event is climate.
I'm actually quite happy, because it's not all that shit in your life that brings happiness.
This is certainly true, unfortunately happiness is something you have even less control over than climate. Life can change in a second, never mind worrying about 50 years from now.
Re:The inexorable march toward +4C (Score:5, Interesting)
"A 4 degrees C future is incompatible with an organized global community, is likely to be beyond adaptation, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems, and has a high probability of not being stable."
I'm not British, but I'm certainly well-educated in science, so let me translate that for you. "Incompatible with an organized global community" means that it's unlikely countries will exist: the inevitable forced mass migrations, wars over water and food, and social unrest will make them untenable. "likely to be beyond adapation" means that we're not going to be able to engineer our way out of it. "devastating to the majority of ecosystems" means more floods, more fires, more superstorms, and even worse: no food. "high probability of not being stable" means that a runaway scenario is likely -- that is, it won't stop or even slow down at +4C, it will accelerate.
In this future, which is the one we're headed for, your "freedoms" will be meaningless and irrelevant. It's unlikely you'll survive, because it's unlikely most people will survive, and those that do will probably be those in remote areas and with the skills to survive without modern technology -- in other words, people who aren't posting on SlashDot today and who likely have no idea that the Internet exists.
So while you're certainly free to continue being selfish and ignorant, and my guess is that you'll make that choice, you might want to pause for just a moment and consider that your approach inevitably results in the deaths of billions of people -- including yours, your family's, your friend's, etc. -- and that maybe it might be a better idea to consider the merits of embracing science and cooperation. There's no other way, sadly, because all of the things that could have been "other ways" are no longer viable options.
Re: (Score:1)
Let me quote Kevin Anderson, director of the Tyndall Energy Program. Keep in mind that (a) he's a scientist, and scientists are trained to write conservatively, and (b) he's British, and they are trained to write conservatively. In other words, when a British scientists puts something down on paper, it's quite likely to be the opposite of hyperbole.
Most scientists have moved away from the end-of-the-world narrative. I suppose that is another definition of conservative though.
Re: The inexorable march toward +4C (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So while you're certainly free to continue being selfish and ignorant, and my guess is that you'll make that choice, you might want to pause for just a moment and consider that your approach inevitably results in the deaths of billions of people -- including yours, your family's, your friend's, etc. -- and that maybe it might be a better idea to consider the merits of embracing science and cooperation. There's no other way, sadly, because all of the things that could have been "other ways" are no longer viable options.
The people who think and act like they own 'us', the regular people, don't care how we act. They are going to do whatever it is they are going to without any regard to input from the rest of us. Go ahead and act selfish. It will not make a difference. Go ahead and try to conserve what we still have. It will not make any difference. The industries need to change, not the people. The people will go wherever they are led.
Re: The inexorable march toward +4C (Score:2)
Either approach results in you losing your freedoms.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: The inexorable march toward +4C (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Life is short. Try and enjoy it while you can.
And ideally not trash the planet doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
So your solution is acid rain, cutting supply, and generally doing everything other than addressing the nations with the largest and most significant per capita emissions like the USA?
Why do you have more of a right to pollute than others? Try and formulate a response without sounding racist or elitist.
I was in Bordeaux in May (Score:3)
Trump making it worse (Score:4, Insightful)
Dear Leader has said wildfire mitigation is "woke" (whatever that means) and has cut funding [apnews.com] to both research [npr.org] and prevention [npr.org] of forest fires in the U.S.
When wildfires rage across country, one thing is for certain: this will either be Obama or Biden's fault.
Re: (Score:1)
Climate change causes drought (Score:2, Interesting)
What pisses me off is all the old farts voting Republican or whatever the fuck your local equivalent is who enjoyed a period of time when water was plentiful and electricity cheap and now everything is falling apart because the environment is collapsing and instead of learning from that they just keep pulling the ladder up behind them. More right wing politics and more expensive dirty energy that we have to get into wars for.
But at least
In the United States (Score:2)
nothing will be done about climate change, and the prison population will be used to fight these fires.
Inmate firefighters are incarcerated individuals who volunteer to clear brush, dig fire lines, and suppress wildfires through state conservation camp programs.
I would think that if the fire problem gets bad enough, they won't be volunteering, they will be made to do it.
Re: (Score:1)
Canada has 912 million acres of woodland (says a comment above), and a prison population of about 40,000. That's 22800 acres per inmate. They'd have to work 62 acres of land *per day* for an entire year, every year to get across it all.
America has about 1.83 million inmates, and 766 million acres of forests. Even with that smaller forest cover and much, much larger prison population, each inmate still has to work 418 acres per year, so a rate of 1.14 acres per day, every day, every year.
I realise you don't
This is fine. (Score:2)
record LOW areas burned (Score:2, Interesting)
I know it's important to panic, but let's #followthescience, surely?
https://x.com/BjornLomborg/sta... [x.com]
https://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/... [europa.eu]
Halfway through 2026, every continent burn levels are below average. Africa, the Americas and Europe are at record lows.
Keep this in mind as the press (and slashdot) keep insisting how terrible everything is.
Record.
Lows.
Re: record LOW areas burned (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
At the risk of Ad Hominem, Bjorn Lomborg has a masters and PhD in political science, no formal qualifications in hard science of any kind. He's a very well-known climate sceptic, and has been disproven in many of his assertions over the years.
So, as an alternative to attacking the source, have an alternative hypothesis (that, as someone who has a science degree, I considered off the cuff...)
We're only half-way through 2026, but, as far as I can tell, he's comparing to full-year averages of 2012-2025. Perhap
Re: (Score:1)
In the US, nearly double the ten-year average area had burned by 11 May 2026 compared with the same period. https://morningoverview.com/wi... [morningoverview.com]
In Canada, burned area stood at 61% of the ten-year average by early July, though with local outliers such as Newfoundland and Labrador at roughly 460% of n
Undo moderation (Score:2)
"International aid could be harder to come by" (Score:2)
This 'climate change,' it's the greatest con job (Score:2)
The president of the usa claims "This 'climate change,' it's the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, in my opinion".
There, folks, is the single greatest reason for the mess we find ourselves in. And its going to get worse - much worse - for at least two more years.
Re:Thinning wouldn't be a full solution but (Score:4, Insightful)
Canada has 912 million acres of forest, the vast majority of which is inaccessible. Just like TFS says, there aren't enough Candians to rake all of that, nor could you even if you had enough people.
It may be too late for a solution. That would have been halting the rise in average temperature of the planet. Like TFA says, wildfires are probably here to say and we may just have to get used to them.
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what I'm talking about, but it would be climate irony if the mitigation to Canadian wild fires was to build roads through the forests as a sort of fire break (obviously you don't need to drive on the roads, but you'd cut the trees and clean up the ground as if you were making a road).
Typical roads are not effective firebreaks in dense, tall forests. The general rule is that you need 1.5X (minimum) to 3X the height of the surrounding vegetation. In a forest with 100-foot trees that means you need firebreaks 300 feet wide. In areas that are sloped or often windy, the width needs to be increased.
Re: (Score:2)
There was a fair sized tree just at the edge of the fire and once it reached it it took only seconds for the whole tree to go up in flames.
Yeah right, manage the forests by cleaning the ground.
On the other hand, when you thin the forest so trees are several hundred feet apart and you lay cement between them your system might work.
But then don't call it a forest.