> forestry mismanagement (which they’ve corrected but it takes time to make an impact)
no, this is trivializing badly. A more accurate statement is work, and there are varying opinions. The progress might be that some selection of smart, concerned and able public members now know about this topic, and discuss it at all without falling into fundemental disagreements.
At this time, one estimate shows fifteen percent of a total of thirteen million+ homes, are in extreme fire danger in 2023. But wait, that means that eighty five percent of homes are not.. and California is geographically diverse. So there are lots of real places with homes where this dire language does not apply. You cannot plaster over the reality of that with a parenthetic one-liner, however.
I don’t know what you think you’re saying but you don’t appear to be responding to anything I said & it reads like a bad copy & paste of a ChatGPT response.
But to your point: Millions of homes being in danger is a big problem but hardly the only one. Huge forest fires—homes in their path or not—are an ecological disaster. They are more likely with the bad forestry management I mentioned that it will likely take a decade to undo.
no, this is trivializing badly. A more accurate statement is work, and there are varying opinions. The progress might be that some selection of smart, concerned and able public members now know about this topic, and discuss it at all without falling into fundemental disagreements.
At this time, one estimate shows fifteen percent of a total of thirteen million+ homes, are in extreme fire danger in 2023. But wait, that means that eighty five percent of homes are not.. and California is geographically diverse. So there are lots of real places with homes where this dire language does not apply. You cannot plaster over the reality of that with a parenthetic one-liner, however.