> "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.