Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Big E's avatar

Please, we need an honest discussion about the contributions of geoengineering to wildfires. Even if lightning or arson or hikers in the Canadian woods lights the sparks, could injecting chemicals into the atmosphere be making fuels drier and more volatile?

Lee Zeldin, head of EPA, has finally said the quiet part out loud: that governments are involved and are playing God globally.

Two good places to begin research are https://zerogeoengineering.com/ and https://geoengineeringwatch.org/

Expand full comment
Mike Apicello's avatar

“Aggressive initial attack was never a bad idea.” - Smokey Bear.

With that said, here in southwest Oregon, especially on the Rogue-Siskiyou NF - the aggressive IA STRATEGY seems to be working well this season.

This Forest is keeping lightning starts small. It’s using the full array of our diverse, inclusive, and expansive IA tools. Its cooperative partners are all tied in. Not yet this year have we had a long duration, multi-season, extraordinary expensive fire.

It should be noted however, that this strategy (policy?) was enacted prior to the current administration.

For the last several years - especially since most of this Forest’s lands have burned - it became obvious that in this area - you have got to get them quickly and when they are small (what a novel idea!)

Anyway - I see a difference here.

It’s great not having to breathe smoke all summer long.

Ironically and presently, there does seem to be a lot of slash fuels (both public and private) that still needs to be treated; fuels from logging mega fires, and fuels on private lands that are rapidly being cut … due to fear of large fires. Go figure.

Expand full comment
9 more comments...

No posts