Is Trump right or isn’t he?
As I say, even a fuckwit is right half the time, but the “cause” of forest fires isn’t a simply binary (political poll) question.
Forest fires are natural, a natural part of the cycle of change that brings us evolution over time. The planet needs them.
The reason we’re having more forest fires, and more in previously cooler regions, is almost certainly to do with climate change. How much of that is a natural cycle of climate change (see above) and how much is “AGW” exaggerated by human activity is scarcely debatable. Whatever the proportion or form of human effects, it’s in the interests of “our” planet to work against them, to reduce and reverse our negative effects. They’re not negative because they’re human.
The reason we’re having more serious, more continuous, forest fires spreading closer to human populations more often, is almost certainly down to “light touch” eco-friendly forest management, choosing to do less maintenance for the benefit natural forest flora & fauna inhabitants instead of the neighbours. The eco-warriors have a lot of human suffering to answer for.
These are not mutually exclusive positions. Both are likely true.
Later the same day 75/25 (usual 80/20 in my book) relative contributions:
— Bjorn Lomborg (@BjornLomborg) September 15, 2020
It’s perfectly possible to think differently and not be in denial. The activists are fucking it up for all of us. As a spokesperson for XR said the other day it’s not contradictory that they are climate activists and a good old fashioned anti-establishment anarchists. Don’t be fooled into thinking they care more about the planet than they do about their anti-human, anti-establishment credentials.
And there’s more Mon 21st Sept, here in The Spectator
“How environmentalists destroyed California’s forests – Short-sighted eco-measures helped cause the devastation we see today”
“We couldn’t have created better conditions for devastating fires if we’d tried. ”
“Even if every single thing that [eco-warriors] claim about climate change were to be true, it wouldn’t undo the consequences of decades of mismanagement driven by their ‘advocacy.’”