Lynyrd wrote: ↑Wed Oct 09, 2019 12:48 pm
PG&E is cutting power to more than a million people today to try and avoid being the "cause" of more wildfires.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cali ... SKBN1WO13X
The company is facing court battles and financial problems after being blamed for fires last year. Somebody that knows the background in California please correct me if I'm wrong. But it seems to me that dead or dry timber near power lines is the hazard, not the power lines themselves. People out there scream and protest about logging and say they want to save the trees. Yet in a climate situation where the dry season turns everything into a tinderbox, they won't cut the timber. Result? Raging fires.
They protest cutting the trees. They blame the power company for starting the fire. So the power company cuts off the power due to fire danger. Now they are mad at the power company for cutting off their power. From the outside looking in it seems many are unwilling or unable to understand the reality of their situation and only looking to blame and complain.
What is wrong with this picture? Can some ex-Californians weigh in and explain?
I lived in SoCal for most of my life before moving here in 2006, and I’ve been way too close for comfort to a number of fires before. Here’s the problem, and it isn’t all PG&E's fault.... For one thing, there are a lot of small communities that are located in hilly/mountainous regions, with heavy brush and forest coverage. Many of these people do not want to do the brush clearing from around their dwellings that would help to keep their properties safe in the event of a fire. They want their cabins to be "nestled in the trees" but they don’t want there to be a fire risk. And then to add insult to injury, the state has so many foolish regulations that add to the danger.
Large parts of the forest are protected from any kind of logging. Part of that protection prevents anyone from removing dead wood from the first floor, OR cutting down dead trees and removing them from the available fuel load for forest fires. Because the forest is so micromanaged, it has become unhealthy. The trees are becoming infested with bark beetles, which kill the trees. Those tall dead pines are like Roman candles just waiting to be lit. The state won’t let anyone cut them down and haul them out of the forest. So what happens is that they become forest fire fuel, AND they infect the remaining healthy trees with the beetles ... which kill more trees, etc., etc. If you want to watch a fireworks display, watch a still-standing dead pine tree catch fire. The go up like Roman candles, and they shoot sparks out everywhere.
In lots of National forests, when there’s a fire, steps are taken to protect the few structures located there, but the fire is mostly allowed to eventually burn itself out ... because THAT IS HEALTHY FOR THE FOREST. The fire consumes the brush beneath the trees, without killing all of the tall timber, and it moves on before too many big trees are involved. That clears out the forest floor, which makes room for new tree saplings to take root and grow, gradually replacing the mature trees as they naturally die off.
But not in California. The state's policies regarding the removal of diseased, or dead and/or fallen timber means that the fuel load accumulates on the forest floor, with predictable results. Now PG&E is
supposed to keep the ground underneath their transmission towers ...and I
believe under the lines too, but I could be wrong about that... free and clear of brush. I used to live right at the base of the frontal range of the San Gabriel mountains, and I can tell you that back in the day, they DID keep their towers and lines free of brush buildup. In fact, there were firebreaks cleared by bulldozers all along the length of the lines. That was the old days. The flip side of that is that the hippies now sue them for clearing the brush, because reasons, and the commies in Sacramento don’t have enough sense between them to pound sand down a rat hole and fix the problem. When you add in the desire of unprepared people to escape California’s overcrowding and move into these small remote mountain communities, you have a disaster in the making. There’s LOTS of remote desert landscape they could move to and get the isolation they want, WITHOUT the fire danger, but hippies are powerfully drawn to trees.
It would be less costly and make more sense in the long run (as long as federal flood control $$ are going to be misspent) to tear down New Orleans and rebuilt it on high ground, instead of putting up with massive hurricane damage every 5-10 years. In the case of California, it would be less costly and make more sense (as long as assinine policies are going to make forest fires worse than need be) to tear down the mountain communities and move all those hippies out to Apple Valley. But hippies gonna hippie, and they’re gonna sue PG&E because it’s an "evil corporation", instead of suing their own gov’t for creating the situation in the first place.
