From January to November 9, 2018, a total of 7,579 fires had burned an area of 1,564,609 acres (6,332 square kilometers), according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the National Interagency Fire Center. The fires caused over $3 billion (2018 USD) in damages, including $1.37 billion in fire suppression costs so far.
Major fires are burning and barely contained. Homes in Malibu and Chico are being destroyed.
There are 129 million dead trees in California’s forests. In 2016, the estimate was 100 million dead trees.
The Butte county Fire (Campfire) has burned 100,000 acres and threatens 15,000 buildings. It is 20% contained.
The Woosley fire has burned 70,000 acres and threatens 3500 buildings.
Through the end of August 2018, Cal Fire alone spent $432 million on operations. The Mendocino Complex Fire burned more than 459,000 acres (1,860 square kilometers), becoming the largest complex fire in the state’s history, with the complex’s Ranch Fire surpassing the Thomas Fire and the Santiago Canyon Fire of 1889 to become California’s single-largest recorded wildfire.
There were also large fires in 2017 in California. At least 245,000 acres (99,148 ha) were burned and $14.5 billion in damage was caused. 8900 buildings and 44 people were killed.
In August, US Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, surveying fire damage near Redding recently, called for culling more trees from national forests and slammed environmental groups for blocking timber harvesting. Republican Rep. Tom McClintock, whose district stretches from Lake Tahoe to Kings Canyon and Yosemite National Park, is repeating his longstanding arguments that forests are too thick with trees and that conservation rules are too strict.
McClintock, whose district stretches from Lake Tahoe to Kings Canyon National Park, spoke to The Sacramento Bee after meeting with officials battling the Donnell Fire in Stanislaus National Forest on Thursday. “It’s the same old story. I asked them what the tree density was in the forests where the fire is,” McClintock said. “It’s about 300 trees per acre.”
“A healthy density in the Sierra is about 80 to 100 trees,” McClintock continued.
In September, California passed a $1 billion fire risk reduction package. It give grants over five years to communities to cut fuel breaks, thin flammable brush, and educate firefighters. The bill also relaxes rules on logging to make it easier to get to some of the most flammable trees.
The bill also allows Pacific Gas and Electric to pass off some its liabilities to customers. The utility is facing billions of dollars in damage payouts after its power lines were blamed for starting some of the fires in California last year.
the Emmerson family is the third largest landowner in California. They have a net worth of $4 billion. They own Sierra Pacific. Sierra Pacific has operating profits of approximately $375 million annually on sales of $1.5 billion. They perform most of the logging in California.
A 1990 law prohibits bidding from any lumber companies that export logs. Rivals like publicly traded Weyerhaeuser and Rayonier as well as big Canadian firms are not allowed into California.
Recommended Forest Management plan from 2014
There needs to be a large and aggressive program of controlled burning. More logging should be permitted while getting the lumber companies to help with clearing the dead trees.
Forest managers need to create new zoning plans for national forests, the way Parks Canada does. Forests near populated areas would be managed through a mix of mechanical thinning and fire suppression.
Remote forest areas could be thinned via prescribed fires or by letting smaller natural fires burn themselves out, so long as weather conditions are right.
Dedicated crews that work on reducing fuel build-up in forests — crews that don’t get diverted into suppression during wildfire season, as currently happens.
There need to be large anti-fire areas around cities, towns and communities. There needs to far larger fire-barrier zones around communities. Housing needs to have more treatments to make them less ignitable and easier to defend.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
California, what a great place to live. It is always sunny 350 days of the year (maybe that is not so good). They have laws against controlled burns so the the landscape is pristine (maybe that is not such a good idea). They have little towns in the foot hills that only have one way in or out (oops, definitely not a good idea). Well with all the fires, California no longer needs a control burn policy anymore (that’s good but a little late)
I think the real question is why are people drawn to areas where they already know natural environment is prone to hurricanes and forest fire. And are distressed and shocked when disaster strikes. Like the FLORIDA coastline is full of expensive property which only gets rebuilt every time a hurricane knocks it down.And the california hilly grasslands are natural forest fire environment. Lol
I know it’s a tragedy, suffering etc, but I’m a glass half full guy. The Campfire affected about 30m trees. With an average tree carbon mass of about 40 tons/acre, it comes to about 4 million tons of wood. You need about 10 tons of wood/ton charcoal, so the potential charcoal is about 400,000 tons, and a lot of the pyrolysis processing is already done. The US charcoal production is about 1m tons. I see an excellent export market here, especially to Africa where they have de-forested huge areas. 100-kg bags are gong for about $30 in Tanzania, wholesale.
It’s really pretty. And insurance allows people to do really stupid things with other people picking up the tab.
SB901 (the CA fire bill) has some really interesting provisions. Power companies are not allowed to sell timber from the clearance of right of way, instead, they must build new wood powered power plants and burn the wood in true green carbon neutral fashion. Regardless of the terrain, they are not allowed to use helicopters to lift out the cut trees. There is a long and onerous process to construct logging roads so I guess that wood is going to be carried out by flying unicorns. They are not allowed to use contractors or third party logging firms to clear those trees but must instead hire full time union employees who must be maintained on payroll even when not cutting trees because of weather. And lastly, they are not allowed to sell the power companies or stop operation in California without approval from their masters in Sacramento. Oh, they are no longer allowed to use income from selling power to pay their executives, who apparently will be expected to work for free since dividends to shareholders have been suspended for the foreseeable future. Insanity.
Maybe what was done in the past wasn’t wrong. Instead of throwing out past practices they should be modified and built upon to achieve the desired result. There are over 170000 prisoners in California prisons I’m sure some of them may be interested in becoming Foresters, others maybe great working in mills,truck drivers,heavy equipment operators, etc. I think its worth a shot. We could save lives, drive the price on lumber down and prevent wasting forests by fire.
So, a LONG time ago, some developers thought it would be a GREAT idea, to build houses in FIRE PRONE areas, and talked the local city/county/state officials of granting them the permits to buildthere. Then, the environmentalist come along and demand NO fire breaks, NO clearing on undergrowth. Then, when the fires happen everyone has a SHOCKED look on their faces. And what happens next? They clear out the debris and build again. Same with flood prone areas. People wonder why insurance in such areas is high?
Maybe what was done in the past wasn’t wrong. Instead of throwing out past practices they should be modified and built upon to achieve the desired result. There are over 170000 prisoners in California prisons I’m sure some of them may be interested in becoming Foresters, others maybe great working in mills,truck drivers,heavy equipment operators, etc. I think its worth a shot. We could save lives, drive the price on lumber down and prevent wasting forests by fire.
SB901 (the CA fire bill) has some really interesting provisions. Power companies are not allowed to sell timber from the clearance of right of way, instead, they must build new wood powered power plants and burn the wood in true green carbon neutral fashion. Regardless of the terrain, they are not allowed to use helicopters to lift out the cut trees. There is a long and onerous process to construct logging roads so I guess that wood is going to be carried out by flying unicorns. They are not allowed to use contractors or third party logging firms to clear those trees but must instead hire full time union employees who must be maintained on payroll even when not cutting trees because of weather. And lastly, they are not allowed to sell the power companies or stop operation in California without approval from their masters in Sacramento. Oh, they are no longer allowed to use income from selling power to pay their executives, who apparently will be expected to work for free since dividends to shareholders have been suspended for the foreseeable future. Insanity.
It’s really pretty. And insurance allows people to do really stupid things with other people picking up the tab.
SB901 (the CA fire bill) has some really interesting provisions. Power companies are not allowed to sell timber from the clearance of right of way, instead, they must build new wood powered power plants and burn the wood in true green carbon neutral fashion. Regardless of the terrain, they are not allowed to use helicopters to lift out the cut trees. There is a long and onerous process to construct logging roads so I guess that wood is going to be carried out by flying unicorns. They are not allowed to use contractors or third party logging firms to clear those trees but must instead hire full time union employees who must be maintained on payroll even when not cutting trees because of weather. And lastly, they are not allowed to sell the power companies or stop operation in California without approval from their masters in Sacramento. Oh, they are no longer allowed to use income from selling power to pay their executives, who apparently will be expected to work for free since dividends to shareholders have been suspended for the foreseeable future. Insanity.
Maybe what was done in the past wasn’t wrong. Instead of throwing out past practices they should be modified and built upon to achieve the desired result. There are over 170000 prisoners in California prisons I’m sure some of them may be interested in becoming Foresters, others maybe great working in mills,truck drivers,heavy equipment operators, etc. I think its worth a shot. We could save lives, drive the price on lumber down and prevent wasting forests by fire.
It’s really pretty. And insurance allows people to do really stupid things with other people picking up the tab.
SB901 (the CA fire bill) has some really interesting provisions. Power companies are not allowed to sell timber from the clearance of right of way, instead, they must build new wood powered power plants and burn the wood in true green carbon neutral fashion. Regardless of the terrain, they are not allowed to use helicopters to lift out the cut trees. There is a long and onerous process to construct logging roads so I guess that wood is going to be carried out by flying unicorns. They are not allowed to use contractors or third party logging firms to clear those trees but must instead hire full time union employees who must be maintained on payroll even when not cutting trees because of weather. And lastly, they are not allowed to sell the power companies or stop operation in California without approval from their masters in Sacramento. Oh, they are no longer allowed to use income from selling power to pay their executives, who apparently will be expected to work for free since dividends to shareholders have been suspended for the foreseeable future. Insanity.
Maybe what was done in the past wasn’t wrong. Instead of throwing out past practices they should be modified and built upon to achieve the desired result. There are over 170000 prisoners in California prisons I’m sure some of them may be interested in becoming Foresters, others maybe great working in mills,truck drivers,heavy equipment operators, etc. I think its worth a shot. We could save lives, drive the price on lumber down and prevent wasting forests by fire.
A simple google search reveals that the earthworm story is exaggerated. But based on a less extreme version:”The hardwood forests of New England and the upper Midwest, for instance, have no native earthworms—they were apparently wiped out in the last Ice Age. In such worm-free woodlands, leaf litter piles up in drifts on the forest floor. But when earthworms are introduced, they can do away with the litter in a few months.”and “There are two genera of Lumbricid earthworms that are native to North America. The family Lumbricidae includes most of the earthworms familiar to people in North America and Europe, including the red worm Eisenia fetida and the nightcrawler Lumbricus terrestris. In the US and Canada, there are about 182 taxa of earthworms, about a third of which were introduced. “
Look, it’s simple and basic physics.The effect of carbon dioxide is based entirely around human desires. This is PROVEN SCIENCE. If a place is considered “too cold” then carbon dioxide will make it even colder. If a place is “too wet” then it will become even more wet. If a place is “too hot and dry” then it will become even more hot and dry. And places that are filled with radical screaming activist hippies will become even more filled with radical screaming activist hippies. Plus spiders.If you deny this the only possible explanation is that you are racist.
So, a LONG time ago, some developers thought it would be a GREAT idea, to build houses in FIRE PRONE areas, and talked the local city/county/state officials of granting them the permits to buildthere. Then, the environmentalist come along and demand NO fire breaks, NO clearing on undergrowth. Then, when the fires happen everyone has a SHOCKED look on their faces. And what happens next? They clear out the debris and build again. Same with flood prone areas. People wonder why insurance in such areas is high?
So, a LONG time ago, some developers thought it would be a GREAT idea, to build houses in FIRE PRONE areas, and talked the local city/county/state officials of granting them the permits to build
there. Then, the environmentalist come along and demand NO fire breaks, NO clearing on undergrowth. Then, when the fires happen everyone has a SHOCKED look on their faces. And what happens next? They clear out the debris and build again. Same with flood prone areas.
People wonder why insurance in such areas is high?
“Shut up and accept the narrative, dammit! DON’T YOU DARE QUESTION IT!”Sadly, their ideas aren’t exactly congruent with reality. Stopping fires is unquestionably good. Clearing out dead wood is messing with nature, and unquestionably bad. Unfortunately, the more dead wood you have the higher the chance of a fire.And at a certain point it’s more like looking at a pile of dry, gasoline-soaked brush – ready to flare up at any provocation. Add in the winds that CA gets – and once that fire starts you’ll have to let it burn itself out.
California, what a great place to live. It is always sunny 350 days of the year (maybe that is not so good). They have laws against controlled burns so the the landscape is pristine (maybe that is not such a good idea). They have little towns in the foot hills that only have one way in or out (oops, definitely not a good idea). Well with all the fires, California no longer needs a control burn policy anymore (that’s good but a little late)
Why keep building your house there over and over again? It s because for some reason, it’s worth it to certain people to take risks despire regretting it when it goes bad. Humans can be irrational. 🙁
I think the real question is why are people drawn to areas where they already know natural environment is prone to hurricanes and forest fire. And are distressed and shocked when disaster strikes. Like the FLORIDA coastline is full of expensive property which only gets rebuilt every time a hurricane knocks it down.And the california hilly grasslands are natural forest fire environment. Lol
why don’t you tell us instead? How is global warming impacting the tree growth of California? Are they growing faster, slower, denser, more or less infestations? And is (whatever the data says) a result of warmer temperatures, natural variation, human encroachment, pollution, lack of forestry management?The dead tree problem in the Sierras, for example, is entirely man-made. Aggressive fire suppression from the past 100 years led to very dense forests, dense= problems. Here is a quote from climate scientists at UC Riverside. They think Cali will get 15-20% more rain due to “climate change”. Hmm, seems to bode well for plant growth, like trees.”Most previous research emphasized uncertainty with regards to future precipitation levels in California, but the overall thought was California would become drier with continued climate change,” said Robert Allen, an associate professor at UC Riverside and one of the authors of the paper. “We found the opposite, which is quite surprising.” Read more at:
I know it’s a tragedy, suffering etc, but I’m a glass half full guy. The Campfire affected about 30m trees. With an average tree carbon mass of about 40 tons/acre, it comes to about 4 million tons of wood. You need about 10 tons of wood/ton charcoal, so the potential charcoal is about 400,000 tons, and a lot of the pyrolysis processing is already done. The US charcoal production is about 1m tons. I see an excellent export market here, especially to Africa where they have de-forested huge areas. 100-kg bags are gong for about $30 in Tanzania, wholesale.
“Shut up and accept the narrative, dammit! DON’T YOU DARE QUESTION IT!”
Sadly, their ideas aren’t exactly congruent with reality. Stopping fires is unquestionably good. Clearing out dead wood is messing with nature, and unquestionably bad. Unfortunately, the more dead wood you have the higher the chance of a fire.
And at a certain point it’s more like looking at a pile of dry, gasoline-soaked brush – ready to flare up at any provocation. Add in the winds that CA gets – and once that fire starts you’ll have to let it burn itself out.
California, what a great place to live. It is always sunny 350 days of the year (maybe that is not so good). They have laws against controlled burns so the the landscape is pristine (maybe that is not such a good idea). They have little towns in the foot hills that only have one way in or out (oops, definitely not a good idea). Well with all the fires, California no longer needs a control burn policy anymore (that’s good but a little late)
I read that North America had no earthworms. They were introduced from Europe, then spread into forests all over the place by fishermen using them for bait. The worms pull leaf litter underground, and the native trees had evolved to germinate their seedlings in thick leaf litter, so the mix of trees has changed. Not sure if all that is true – when I was in the States, the guys I mixed with were wearing T shirts inscribed ‘ Cut it , Burn it , Pave it – Hang glider pilots for a snag – free environment !’
Sorry soil does not restore itself. The minerals are lost. That tree mass did not come out of thin air.And the Europeans including Germans have been damaging the soil for a few thousand years. Americans have only been at it for 500 years or so. Still the dust bowl, a human caused catastrophe, well past your 1600 date where supposedly everyone suddenly became brilliant at managing soil, farmers lost 480 tons of great soil per acre, and that has never been recovered. No spontaneous return to previous soil depth…just gone.
why don’t you tell us instead? How is global warming impacting the tree growth of California? Are they growing faster, slower, denser, more or less infestations? And is (whatever the data says) a result of warmer temperatures, natural variation, human encroachment, pollution, lack of forestry management?
The dead tree problem in the Sierras, for example, is entirely man-made. Aggressive fire suppression from the past 100 years led to very dense forests, dense= problems.
Here is a quote from climate scientists at UC Riverside. They think Cali will get 15-20% more rain due to “climate change”. Hmm, seems to bode well for plant growth, like trees.
“Most previous research emphasized uncertainty with regards to future precipitation levels in California, but the overall thought was California would become drier with continued climate change,” said Robert Allen, an associate professor at UC Riverside and one of the authors of the paper. “We found the opposite, which is quite surprising.” Read more at: phys.org/news/2017-07-california-wetter-century.html#jCp
I know it’s a tragedy, suffering etc, but I’m a glass half full guy. The Campfire affected about 30m trees. With an average tree carbon mass of about 40 tons/acre, it comes to about 4 million tons of wood. You need about 10 tons of wood/ton charcoal, so the potential charcoal is about 400,000 tons, and a lot of the pyrolysis processing is already done. The US charcoal production is about 1m tons. I see an excellent export market here, especially to Africa where they have de-forested huge areas. 100-kg bags are gong for about $30 in Tanzania, wholesale.
They are not necessarily efficient. It can be difficult to keep them warm, but with the right materials and insulation, sure. It is possible to put stuff in the concrete to reduce heat loss. Dehumidifiers may also be required to prevent mold and such. But, yes, it can reduce exposure to fire. A lot of people also want a view. Not real easy to get a view if you are underground. I think you can build most of the house underground and just have a stucco/reinforced concrete tower with an enclosed dining area and kitchen and outdoor deck 30-50 feet up. Maybe 300-500 square feet. You would need a Dumbwaiter or regular elevator. Too much to carry everything up there.If the tower does burn, it should be much less costly to replace than a whole house.
Monolithic concrete dome structures are earthquake proof, hurricane proof, tornado proof to f-5, and very fire resistant. So energy efficient they will pay for themselves in less than 20 years with energy savings.
Germany ran out of virgin forest in the 1600s. Their first attempt at sustainable forestry was to row-crop Northern pines, which depleted the soil in a single generation. After that failed experiment, they learned to nurture a varied biome. Today, forest managers know what percentage of woody mass must be left behind to sustain the forest. You point to the Middle East, but it should be noted that the ancients had zero understanding of sustainable anything. They ran the environment into the ground, at which point there was nothing left to regenerate it. That’s not how it works in every location, and we don’t run the soil to ruin any more. In much of the US, for example, untended fields are immediately overtaken by nature. In some areas, untended land is immediately overtaken by trees, and some years later, the soil is restored to its original state. This is where your Nile soil comes from, actually. The Nile constantly strips nutrients from upstream areas, depositing some of them into downstream areas. Most, however, is dumped directly into the sea. It’s the same with every river. Where, then, do all these nutrients come from? Nature has some ability to replenish them. Foresters know the replenishment rate, which is how they determine how much biomass must be left behind. We certainly need to amend some practices, but I don’t think the situation is as dire as you claim.
Do you know how much they have to leave behind to avoid any soil depletion? All of it. That is a fact. A tree is made of the minerals where it grew, CO2, and water…nothing more…nothing less. Even the nitrogen was not taken from the air by the tree, microbes in the soil did that. Stripping the bark and limbs they are doing for other reasons none having anything to do with preserving nutrients. They just want the tree to dry and they only care about the trunk mostly because it is easier to make boards from and easier to transport. And replacing the tree with a sapling? Give me a break. That does not come remotely close to the nutrients taken from the land when a big tree is drug off.Europe used to be virtually entirely forested. It takes thousands of years, but eventually you can’t grow anything. Every city that is a few thousand years old has depleted the nearby soils substantially…except in places where it flooded each year restoring nutrients such as in the delta in Egypt (until recently). The Middle East used to be forested but thousands of years of cities have destroyed the land. Think about it. If no one really owned land 10,000 years ago and you could and did wonder all over, why would you pick the most barren place you could find to start a city and start farming? They didn’t. They chose the best land around…land that could already support them or nearly so without even moving around. They depleted it. Look up Uruk. Not a blade of grass for miles…no one lives there. That is what 6,000+ years of human farming does. There is even evidence that human farming and especially pastoralism 8,000 years ago created the Sahara desert…though that is not firm…could be coincidence.Regardless, we have to start putting the minerals back that we take in the form of trees, other plants, and animals.And we are sending the nutrients to the ocean from our soil at a rate hundreds of times higher than those ancient cities did. We restore nitrogen, because we know how to make nitrogen fertilizers, but that is just one element…the rest is lost. Fruits, vegetables, grains…go from the farm to our mouths and into the sewers where they sent down the rivers and into the ocean…gone. Trees are taken from the land that donated the nutrients and concentrated in cities where they are mostly prevented from decaying, and then later dumped in a land fill somewhere full of toxins…usually far closer to the water’s edge shortening its eventual loss to the ocean. Or they are turned into toilet paper and sent to the ocean via the sewers.We need to clean up the heavy metals from our cities, redesign our drugs so that they are easily broken down or otherwise made safe for the environment and start recovering all the nutrients perhaps by charring or irradiating them and returning them to the fields and forests…restoring the soil. Adding that investment, restores the true cost of our food, natural fibers, leather and wood.
That’s not exactly a natural forest either though. More a giant garden or plantation.
This is where a proper comment system would allow me to link to photos of Bilbo Baggins’ house, showing the windows.
It would not be a problem except that we are putting so much CO2 and methane in the air ourselves. Reducing it in a fairly painless way is just smart. The 3 easiest ways are: 1. Adding seaweed to cow feed and maybe other farm animal feed if it also works on them. 2. Setting high requirements and fines for leaks as well as making gas companies pay for the value of losses when lost from public lands. Though they can flame it without penalty for a time. 3. Char biomater. Charring limits the availability of this material to microbes and termites that emit a lot of methane. We also want to encourage charring over composting. And we want to fertilize the oceans and char a lot of the surplus algae that is produced. The charred sea weed and such can then just be dumped overboard if the water is a couple thousand feet deep or more. The sunlight does not reach down there so there is relatively little life on the bottom in deep areas…except around hydrothermal vents…which can also be dodged as there are not many. Natural gas (AKA methane) is a far more potent greenhouse gas. It is about 84x worse than CO2. It is the low hanging fruit. CO2 is very hard to dramatically reduce quickly, but methane emissions can be reduced very easily at comparably minimal cost.Just burning trees, or allowing them to burn? I admit that that is the natural way, but the CO2 released, the poor air quality, and the public endangerment makes that option suboptimal. If we can do better, we should.
Sorry soil does not restore itself. The minerals are lost. That tree mass did not come out of thin air.
And the Europeans including Germans have been damaging the soil for a few thousand years. Americans have only been at it for 500 years or so. Still the dust bowl, a human caused catastrophe, well past your 1600 date where supposedly everyone suddenly became brilliant at managing soil, farmers lost 480 tons of great soil per acre, and that has never been recovered. No spontaneous return to previous soil depth…just gone.
You realize you would then give california a water shortage as both Ethanol and Methanol require massive amounts of water to produce yes? I know its part of my job to know. Trust me the amount is INSANE.
You can build windows just make sure they have drop down shutters that will protect them from fire.
No the problem is that due to a host of regulations and such put into play mostly by the left and animal rights people the important task of burning out brush to reduce the threat of these fires is GONE. Add to this SOME PEOPLE short cutting the forest service so they to can’t do the burning or the studies they need to and you get the perfect storm….a fire storm.
And nobody here on this Blog seems willing to even consider how climate change is impacting California’s trees… of course that is par for the course. I suppose a few will chant “libtard” if given the chance…
And nobody here on this Blog seems willing to even consider how climate change is impacting California’s trees… of course that is par for the course. I suppose a few will chant “libtard” if given the chance…
They are not necessarily efficient. It can be difficult to keep them warm, but with the right materials and insulation, sure. It is possible to put stuff in the concrete to reduce heat loss. Dehumidifiers may also be required to prevent mold and such. But, yes, it can reduce exposure to fire. A lot of people also want a view. Not real easy to get a view if you are underground.
I think you can build most of the house underground and just have a stucco/reinforced concrete tower with an enclosed dining area and kitchen and outdoor deck 30-50 feet up. Maybe 300-500 square feet. You would need a Dumbwaiter or regular elevator. Too much to carry everything up there.
If the tower does burn, it should be much less costly to replace than a whole house.
Monolithic concrete dome structures are earthquake proof, hurricane proof, tornado proof to f-5, and very fire resistant. So energy efficient they will pay for themselves in less than 20 years with energy savings.
Germany ran out of virgin forest in the 1600s. Their first attempt at sustainable forestry was to row-crop Northern pines, which depleted the soil in a single generation. After that failed experiment, they learned to nurture a varied biome. Today, forest managers know what percentage of woody mass must be left behind to sustain the forest.
You point to the Middle East, but it should be noted that the ancients had zero understanding of sustainable anything. They ran the environment into the ground, at which point there was nothing left to regenerate it. That’s not how it works in every location, and we don’t run the soil to ruin any more. In much of the US, for example, untended fields are immediately overtaken by nature. In some areas, untended land is immediately overtaken by trees, and some years later, the soil is restored to its original state.
This is where your Nile soil comes from, actually. The Nile constantly strips nutrients from upstream areas, depositing some of them into downstream areas. Most, however, is dumped directly into the sea. It’s the same with every river. Where, then, do all these nutrients come from? Nature has some ability to replenish them. Foresters know the replenishment rate, which is how they determine how much biomass must be left behind.
We certainly need to amend some practices, but I don’t think the situation is as dire as you claim.
Do you know how much they have to leave behind to avoid any soil depletion? All of it. That is a fact. A tree is made of the minerals where it grew, CO2, and water…nothing more…nothing less. Even the nitrogen was not taken from the air by the tree, microbes in the soil did that. Stripping the bark and limbs they are doing for other reasons none having anything to do with preserving nutrients. They just want the tree to dry and they only care about the trunk mostly because it is easier to make boards from and easier to transport. And replacing the tree with a sapling? Give me a break. That does not come remotely close to the nutrients taken from the land when a big tree is drug off.
Europe used to be virtually entirely forested. It takes thousands of years, but eventually you can’t grow anything. Every city that is a few thousand years old has depleted the nearby soils substantially…except in places where it flooded each year restoring nutrients such as in the delta in Egypt (until recently). The Middle East used to be forested but thousands of years of cities have destroyed the land. Think about it. If no one really owned land 10,000 years ago and you could and did wonder all over, why would you pick the most barren place you could find to start a city and start farming? They didn’t. They chose the best land around…land that could already support them or nearly so without even moving around. They depleted it. Look up Uruk. Not a blade of grass for miles…no one lives there. That is what 6,000+ years of human farming does. There is even evidence that human farming and especially pastoralism 8,000 years ago created the Sahara desert…though that is not firm…could be coincidence.
Regardless, we have to start putting the minerals back that we take in the form of trees, other plants, and animals.
And we are sending the nutrients to the ocean from our soil at a rate hundreds of times higher than those ancient cities did. We restore nitrogen, because we know how to make nitrogen fertilizers, but that is just one element…the rest is lost. Fruits, vegetables, grains…go from the farm to our mouths and into the sewers where they sent down the rivers and into the ocean…gone. Trees are taken from the land that donated the nutrients and concentrated in cities where they are mostly prevented from decaying, and then later dumped in a land fill somewhere full of toxins…usually far closer to the water’s edge shortening its eventual loss to the ocean. Or they are turned into toilet paper and sent to the ocean via the sewers.
We need to clean up the heavy metals from our cities, redesign our drugs so that they are easily broken down or otherwise made safe for the environment and start recovering all the nutrients perhaps by charring or irradiating them and returning them to the fields and forests…restoring the soil. Adding that investment, restores the true cost of our food, natural fibers, leather and wood.
we have pines in NJ ‘pine barrens” that release seeds after a brush fire
termites are ubiquitous – they are everywhere – they are prolific
because that is the natural process? Nah. That just speeds decay. Either fungi eat it, or it burns. Ex-mother in law was always surprised how much wood was left to rot in mid-atlantic forests, being from a former soviet bloc country, where all this firewood would have been collected – going back hundreds of years that way. Collect it and burn it or let it rot and build your houses wisely. Spread the ash if you want to “return the nutrients”.
That’s not exactly a natural forest either though. More a giant garden or plantation.
This is where a proper comment system would allow me to link to photos of Bilbo Baggins’ house, showing the windows.
People want windows, very few would willingly live in an underground house, regardless of the safety/efficiency.
IIRC, logging companies have figured out exactly how much biomass must be left behind to prevent soil depletion. They’ve been farming trees since the 1600s; it’s a well-understood process by now.
Biomass plants are economical where the biomass has already been gathered, but that’s not the case here.
And some effort should be made to minimize the methane that could be produced by microbes and termites. Maybe introduce termites to the logs on the ground that don’t produce methane. Or we may need to char the wood right there and leave it. That preserves the nutrients, and prevents decay and digestion that would otherwise produce methane.
Logging is not the answer. That takes nutrients from the soil. If you are going to thin the forest the trees cut should be left on the ground or put in a chipper and the chips spread where the tree was cut.
Logging is not the answer. That takes nutrients from the soil. If you are going to thin the forest the trees cut should be left on the ground or put in a chipper and the chips spread where the tree was cut.
It would not be a problem except that we are putting so much CO2 and methane in the air ourselves. Reducing it in a fairly painless way is just smart. The 3 easiest ways are: 1. Adding seaweed to cow feed and maybe other farm animal feed if it also works on them. 2. Setting high requirements and fines for leaks as well as making gas companies pay for the value of losses when lost from public lands. Though they can flame it without penalty for a time. 3. Char biomater. Charring limits the availability of this material to microbes and termites that emit a lot of methane. We also want to encourage charring over composting. And we want to fertilize the oceans and char a lot of the surplus algae that is produced. The charred sea weed and such can then just be dumped overboard if the water is a couple thousand feet deep or more. The sunlight does not reach down there so there is relatively little life on the bottom in deep areas…except around hydrothermal vents…which can also be dodged as there are not many.
Natural gas (AKA methane) is a far more potent greenhouse gas. It is about 84x worse than CO2.
It is the low hanging fruit. CO2 is very hard to dramatically reduce quickly, but methane emissions can be reduced very easily at comparably minimal cost.
Just burning trees, or allowing them to burn? I admit that that is the natural way, but the CO2 released, the poor air quality, and the public endangerment makes that option suboptimal. If we can do better, we should.
Most homes are insured against fire. A program of controlled burns decreases the amount of damage, so insurance companies should be all for it. They might be willing to cover things not normally covered, if damaged due to a controlled burn.
To “irrigate” your forest, you take measures to slow down the flow, so it has time to be absorbed into the soil. For instance, you divert water away from steep slopes, and into forested areas where there is leaf litter. You make small impoundments everywhere, designed to allow the water to seep out, so they will be empty for the next rain. When you thin timber, your “roads” should be on an isocline, so they do not drain the forest, afterwards, the road can be plowed, and dirt pushed towards the edges to impede the flow of water.Here in piedmont NC, the tree of choice is the loblolly pine. Unless there is bedrock near the surface, the taproot of the pine can grow about as deep as the tree is tall. In many places, the taproot can access the water table. My well’s water level is about 19 feet below grade, of course, the fault in the rock the water comes from is about 100 feet below grade. Still, you’d have to have quite a drought before mature trees run out of water.
I own a tree farm dedicated to timber production. Either you thin timber, or it thins itself, usually by insect, or wind. It’s my experience that dead trees are not saleable. Maybe it’s different in an arid environment.
Anyone that builds in a Californian rural area, needs to consider fire. My solution of choice would be an earth sheltered dwelling built of concrete, and steel. Underground structures are inherently earthquake resistant, and energy efficient too.As far as fire, controlled burns during times of low wind, humidity, and temperature are the best policy. Here in piedmont NC, before europeans showed up, the natives practiced controlled burns to keep the forest at bay, and provide wide savannahs for grazing animals. Devastating fires were not a problem, because small frequent fires destroyed the fuel.
Anyone that builds in a Californian rural area, needs to consider fire. My solution of choice would be an earth sheltered dwelling built of concrete, and steel. Underground structures are inherently earthquake resistant, and energy efficient too.As far as fire, controlled burns during times of low wind, humidity, and temperature are the best policy. Here in piedmont NC, before europeans showed up, the natives practiced controlled burns to keep the forest at bay, and provide wide savannahs for grazing animals. Devastating fires were not a problem, because small frequent fires destroyed the fuel.
Skip the pyrolysis and just burn the biomass (fixed it for you)
Isn’t this natural forest? It wouldn’t be irrigated even if water was available.
You realize you would then give california a water shortage as both Ethanol and Methanol require massive amounts of water to produce yes? I know its part of my job to know. Trust me the amount is INSANE.
You can build windows just make sure they have drop down shutters that will protect them from fire.
No the problem is that due to a host of regulations and such put into play mostly by the left and animal rights people the important task of burning out brush to reduce the threat of these fires is GONE. Add to this SOME PEOPLE short cutting the forest service so they to can’t do the burning or the studies they need to and you get the perfect storm….a fire storm.
And nobody here on this Blog seems willing to even consider how climate change is impacting California’s trees… of course that is par for the course. I suppose a few will chant “libtard” if given the chance…
Yeah, or you know, proper water management.You know why half of California is dry? Growing water chestnuts in San Bernidino Valley for salads. Seriously.
we have pines in NJ ‘pine barrens” that release seeds after a brush fire
termites are ubiquitous – they are everywhere – they are prolific
because that is the natural process? Nah. That just speeds decay. Either fungi eat it, or it burns. Ex-mother in law was always surprised how much wood was left to rot in mid-atlantic forests, being from a former soviet bloc country, where all this firewood would have been collected – going back hundreds of years that way. Collect it and burn it or let it rot and build your houses wisely. Spread the ash if you want to “return the nutrients”.
People want windows, very few would willingly live in an underground house, regardless of the safety/efficiency.
IIRC, logging companies have figured out exactly how much biomass must be left behind to prevent soil depletion. They’ve been farming trees since the 1600s; it’s a well-understood process by now.
Biomass plants are economical where the biomass has already been gathered, but that’s not the case here.
And some effort should be made to minimize the methane that could be produced by microbes and termites. Maybe introduce termites to the logs on the ground that don’t produce methane. Or we may need to char the wood right there and leave it. That preserves the nutrients, and prevents decay and digestion that would otherwise produce methane.
Logging is not the answer. That takes nutrients from the soil. If you are going to thin the forest the trees cut should be left on the ground or put in a chipper and the chips spread where the tree was cut.
Most homes are insured against fire. A program of controlled burns decreases the amount of damage, so insurance companies should be all for it. They might be willing to cover things not normally covered, if damaged due to a controlled burn.
To “irrigate” your forest, you take measures to slow down the flow, so it has time to be absorbed into the soil. For instance, you divert water away from steep slopes, and into forested areas where there is leaf litter. You make small impoundments everywhere, designed to allow the water to seep out, so they will be empty for the next rain. When you thin timber, your “roads” should be on an isocline, so they do not drain the forest, afterwards, the road can be plowed, and dirt pushed towards the edges to impede the flow of water.
Here in piedmont NC, the tree of choice is the loblolly pine. Unless there is bedrock near the surface, the taproot of the pine can grow about as deep as the tree is tall. In many places, the taproot can access the water table. My well’s water level is about 19 feet below grade, of course, the fault in the rock the water comes from is about 100 feet below grade. Still, you’d have to have quite a drought before mature trees run out of water.
I own a tree farm dedicated to timber production. Either you thin timber, or it thins itself, usually by insect, or wind. It’s my experience that dead trees are not saleable. Maybe it’s different in an arid environment.
Anyone that builds in a Californian rural area, needs to consider fire. My solution of choice would be an earth sheltered dwelling built of concrete, and steel. Underground structures are inherently earthquake resistant, and energy efficient too.
As far as fire, controlled burns during times of low wind, humidity, and temperature are the best policy. Here in piedmont NC, before europeans showed up, the natives practiced controlled burns to keep the forest at bay, and provide wide savannahs for grazing animals. Devastating fires were not a problem, because small frequent fires destroyed the fuel.
Skip the pyrolysis and just burn the biomass (fixed it for you)
Isn’t this natural forest? It wouldn’t be irrigated even if water was available.
PGE should deploy electric powered– plasma arc pyrolysis plants– near forested regions in California to convert the wood and other foliage from dead trees into methanol. For every kilowatt of electricity used in this process, more than six kilowatts of electricity could be produced! And its relatively cheap and easy to convert existing natural gas burning electric power plants into highly efficient renewable methanol burning electric power plants. So this method could help to reduce fire danger near forested areas while also producing a lot more– carbon neutral electricity– and local jobs. Marcel
PGE should deploy electric powered– plasma arc pyrolysis plants– near forested regions in California to convert the wood and other foliage from dead trees into methanol. For every kilowatt of electricity used in this process, more than six kilowatts of electricity could be produced! And its relatively cheap and easy to convert existing natural gas burning electric power plants into highly efficient renewable methanol burning electric power plants. So this method could help to reduce fire danger near forested areas while also producing a lot more– carbon neutral electricity– and local jobs. Marcel
Its a fire based ecology. Every few years the natural fire cycle clears out the tinder, but we do the opposite, protecting every precious tree and its become cataclysmic. I’m in Canada, and we have had bad fires lately. Timber companies still want to “protect” their trees, but the problem is liability. who is responsible if a prescribed burn goes bad? it was shown in 1980’s that burns would fix this. I did a couple courses at UBC. Is any of this going on yet?
Yeah, or you know, proper water management.
You know why half of California is dry? Growing water chestnuts in San Bernidino Valley for salads. Seriously.
If we key cars of right tards (i mean SUVs and big polluting cars only) as well you have me on! Luca Mazza
For a ride through the Camp fire region where you can see the mounds of brush and dead tree limbs prior to the fire and this was higher in elevation where the density is lower….
Someone should publicly shame CA for their fires’ effect on global warming and pollution – just to see how the greenies react.
“A 1990 law prohibits bidding from any lumber companies that export logs. Rivals like publicly traded Weyerhaeuser and Rayonier as well as big Canadian firms are not allowed into California.”Either Humanity will harvest timber or Nature will cull timber with fire.
PGE should deploy electric powered– plasma arc pyrolysis plants– near forested regions in California to convert the wood and other foliage from dead trees into methanol.
For every kilowatt of electricity used in this process, more than six kilowatts of electricity could be produced!
And its relatively cheap and easy to convert existing natural gas burning electric power plants into highly efficient renewable methanol burning electric power plants.
So this method could help to reduce fire danger near forested areas while also producing a lot more– carbon neutral electricity– and local jobs.
Marcel
Its a fire based ecology. Every few years the natural fire cycle clears out the tinder, but we do the opposite, protecting every precious tree and its become cataclysmic.
I’m in Canada, and we have had bad fires lately. Timber companies still want to “protect” their trees, but the problem is liability. who is responsible if a prescribed burn goes bad?
it was shown in 1980’s that burns would fix this. I did a couple courses at UBC. Is any of this going on yet?
If we key cars of right tards (i mean SUVs and big polluting cars only) as well you have me on!
Luca Mazza
For a ride through the Camp fire region where you can see the mounds of brush and dead tree limbs prior to the fire and this was higher in elevation where the density is lower…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43U0UWmiiL4
Someone should publicly shame CA for their fires’ effect on global warming and pollution – just to see how the greenies react.
“A 1990 law prohibits bidding from any lumber companies that export logs. Rivals like publicly traded Weyerhaeuser and Rayonier as well as big Canadian firms are not allowed into California.”
Either Humanity will harvest timber or Nature will cull timber with fire.
For a ride through the Camp fire region where you can see the mounds of brush and dead tree limbs prior to the fire and this was higher in elevation where the density is lower….
Someone should publicly shame CA for their fires’ effect on global warming and pollution – just to see how the greenies react.
“A 1990 law prohibits bidding from any lumber companies that export logs. Rivals like publicly traded Weyerhaeuser and Rayonier as well as big Canadian firms are not allowed into California.”Either Humanity will harvest timber or Nature will cull timber with fire.