­ We can only watch in a kind of sad horror as flames devastate one of the richest parts of the richest nation on earth. There's no refuge from a changing earth anywhere--I've spent the day worrying about my aunt, who was evacuated near San Diego yesterday. These are, we pray, temporary environmental refugees, but they're just as scared and scarred as people around the world who face disastrous change--the UN says we may see 450 million people fleeing environmental devastation by mid-century.

­Watching from a distance, we can't help put out the flames or shelter the afflicted. All we can do is try to make it less likely that these disasters spread, by trying to bring global warming under some kind of control. That's what Nov. 3 is all about--call it firefighting on a large scale, at the very center of the blaze. Write your politicians and tell them you're scared, you're angry, and you want to see them out on November­ 3 to explain what the hell they're planning to do.

Click here for LA Times coverage of the fires.

Click here for San Diego Union Tribune coverage.

Click here for Bill's interview with Democracy Now about the fires.

Comments

1. Comment by Nick, Oct 28th, 2007 9:25pm

   Normally I am pro government intervention on many issues but since SoCal is definitely conservative country:
   
   Why not let the free market put out the fires and help people rebuild? Government intervention will only encourage dependency here. By refusing to intervene or provide federal aid we will actually HELP Orange County conservatives by encouraging self reliance and self discipline. Perhaps they would need to live in a tent for a few years, or move back in with Mom and Dad at age forty. Perhaps stop watching Fox News and get a second job to pay for the new house.
   
   If you choose to build your houses in chaparral choked hillsides, don't scream for the nanny state when your place starts to burn!




2. Comment by Ginger Wireman, Oct 23rd, 2007 11:09pm

   Just for the record, most of the areas on fire are not forest. They are chaparral - no "commercial value" except to develop. They probably should have had controlled burns on that acreage, but it's steep, and erodes easily so was never a priority I'm sure. We should be careful if discussing the CA firest issue not to mix it with forestry issues, since the majority of acreage burned has been lower elevation.




3. Comment by Daniel Bell, Oct 23rd, 2007 9:59am

   Spending smart money first rather than dumb money later.
   
   That's the crux of wildfires, pollution, and global warming problems, we aren't willing or able as a species to invest in what we need up front. Even though we would save that much many times over in avoided problems. Amory Lovins showed this 30 years ago with soft energy paths, only now are we beginning to think about that, unless the nuke advocates get their way.
   
   On to wildfires. Think of the money spent just containing the fire, then add the insurance claims for lost property and you've got a whole ton of money up in smoke. Now lets think of the C02 emissions from wildfires, and what that might cost if we monetized C02, from wikipedia: "The massive forest fire in Indonesia (1997/1998) released approx. 2.57 gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere (source: Nature magazine, November 2002). During 1997-1998, the total amount of Carbon Dioxide released to the atmosphere was 6 gigatonnes."
   
   Maybe one part of a sustainable future would be extensive forest management plans. Since we mostly have second growth forests that don't receive regular small burns, we need to clear out the smaller trees in these forests. They can be used to make engineered wood or can be used in small scale cogeneration burners. There are some plans along these lines by a long time environmentalist/inventor edburtoncompany.com
   
   We need to sustainably manage our forests for their biodiversity, their raw materials, and to combat global warming.
   
   
   wiserearth.org/user/danielbell
   
   
   




4. Comment by Krys Cail, Oct 23rd, 2007 12:00am

   This is a good example of why individual actions, no matter how well-intentioned and numerous, can't replace political activism on this issue. People hold some very different ideas about why there are more and worse wildfires in the Western US these days-- and some of them are, well, at base, political EXCUSES that hold no resemblance to truth. Sadly, the media often relegates a small reference to global warming and/or climate-change-induced drought to the last few paragraphs of a news story like this.... somewhere below where we learn what a tough time people are having evacuating their pets or something.
   
   If we are all going to get on the same page, under 1 sky as it were, we are going to have to have clearer and more consistent messaging from our political leaders. Is California burning because we didn't let logging companies take as many trees as they pleased? Hardly. But, if our leaders tell us that is why, some people will believe them.
   
   Those who can discern the scientific facts have an obligation to people who have not been given the same mental acuity or critical-thinking educational opportunities. Forget all that holier-than-thou competitiveness about being the most environmentally-appropriate individual in town-- what we need now is to bring everybody on board, and act together as one. Each one, teach one. Reach out. Its not about you, its about us all. If you were caught in that fire (as we all, in fact, are), would you use your abilities to run as fast as you can, or would you pick up a child or a one-legged person to carry?