The point is that the focus on global warming means no one will do anything about poor land management because that problem is not made public.

You can see what happens right here in the downvotes I have got. Just because I shift blame for something away from global warming to another cause, people feel they most downvote me.

Global warming is to blame in their minds is equivalent to no other cause can be blamed.

I partly made that comment to see how much a rational and reasonable comment would get downvoted for that reason. I think the experiment proved something.

It's a matter of framing. We just have to move the discussion from "global warming increases wildfires, buy more EVs" to "global warming increases wildfires, let's improve our forest management to manage the impact (while also fighting against climate change)".

> "Buy more EVs"

Similar issues with public transport, imvho

The "buy more EVs" conclusion when considering environmental impact of transit is an egregious logical fallacy (and I don't mean to say that a new car should preferably be a combustion one with that).

It's just that the logical conclusion from a perspective of scarcity or danger regarding environmental issues is hard to "sell", long-term, and acting on it requires collective effort and planning.

Just the oppoaite is true for handing out subsidies with a harmful shotgun mentality, worsening instead of bettering the problems.

So that's why I answered with this here: it's a similar problem and somewhat paradoxical. Generall, public attention to the topic of climate change is not doing anything useful by itself, as you correctly pointed out.

> "global warming increases wildfires, buy more EVs"

There is a profit to be made from selling EVs.

> "global warming increases wildfires, let's improve our forest management to manage the impact (while also fighting against climate change)"

Better forest management IS fighting climate change. Well managed land can be a carbon sink whereas fires release huge amounts of CO2 and are damaging in many other says. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27353-x bout just one region of the world

But doing this is costly and there is not much to be sold to do it.

There is always a lobby for doing something that that means someone can sell something. For things that do not increase sales, particularly things that involve not doing things (e.g. no cutting down forests) there is no equivalent lobby.

Fighting wildfires is expensive, which means it's big business. There's absolutely business interests in keeping wildfires raging. Fire suppression means the government gets to purchase planes and helicopters, 3M can supply countless brand new sets of fire resistant gear every year considering how high wildland fire employee turnover is, Perimeter Solutions gets to sell Phos-Chek faster than they can produce it, etc.

Just to be clear, the point you are making is that there is a business opportunity in not having good land management.

Yes. There's business interest in getting legislators/officials distracted from what is really good land management, namely prescribed fires and public services around clearing combustibles away from infrastructure and homes.

The problem is extremely public here in the western US.

Don't worry, nobody will do anything about global warming, either.

We've already blown right past the Paris accord, I'm sure we'll soon come up with a new accord that will set a target that we will also blow past.

In the meantime, invest in an air conditioner and an air purifier for your city home, and try not to own any summer dachas in heavily forested areas.

The problem is not made public...except in the New Yorker? Except by the president of the United States?

Shifting blame towards land management practices - not necessarily by you, but for example by that particular POTUS - is often an attempt to downplay global warming and the urgent need to do take steps to stave it off, rather than a good-faith attempt to reform land management practices. If people detect a whiff of that, that's what makes them downvote; given the present and future consequences of downplaying global warming and the urgent need to take steps to stave it off, and the push that's been behind that for the past, oh, fifty-to-seventy years or so, can you blame them? No one's against reforming land management to prevent forest fires.

> is often an attempt to downplay global warming and the urgent need to do take steps to stave it off…

I mean so what…. I don’t see how having a conversation about taking a practical steps to avoid a disaster should be suppressed just because the person initiating the conversation might have a different opinion on a related subject.

You or I may want to have a conversation about taking practical steps to avoid a disaster, but personally speaking I don't want to have it with a hypothetical interlocutor who is not having that conversation in good faith, but rather weaponizing it in an attempt to further their catastrophic political goals.

“The northwest might burn to the ground, people may die or be displaced, but god dammit we simply cannot give that political party a win (even if we win too).”

Yep, that attitude that makes perfect sense for society.

Downvoting someone on HN for arguing in bad faith isn't keeping "a political party" from having "a win", much less determining whether or not the PNW is going to burn down.

I am a pragmatist so I am “results oriented” instead of “intention oriented”. But if you feel the need to try and suppress comments on here because it creates suspicion in you around the intentions of the commenter that’s your thing. For what it’s worth, I won’t downvote anyone on here for anything or any opinion whether I agree with the opinion or the commenter’s intention.

How do you know someone "arguing in bad faith"?

They might have different views from you, that you are certain are wrong, but they might be entirely sincere.

Describing it as "an experiment" to see how people would respond to it is one tip-off.

It is how you say that and how you just state something very oversimplified like fact, almost like a climate denier. To start with

> "focus on global warming means no one will do anything about poor land management"

Gross generalization, a lot changed long and still lately, you are just saying: all lazy because of global warming excuses.. and then

> "Global warming is to blame in their minds is equivalent to no other cause can be blamed."

Any quote where someone official reasoned like that? Btw funny, seeing that actually you are the one here blaming "global warming" for something?