Stop politicizing a tragedy

California's top *forest* scientists say main causes of fires are

- 5x more wood fuel in forests due to 100+ years of fire suppression

- Drought (2012-16) that would have occurred w/o climate change
“Climate dries the [wood] fuels out & extends the fire season BUT IT'S NOT THE CAUSE OF THE INTENSITY of the fires. The cause of that is fire suppression and the existing debt of wood fuel.”

— Malcolm North, US Forest Service…
The 2013-2014 Rim fire, which burned 250,000 acres, exposed FIVE TIMES MORE PEOPLE to unhealthy air conditions from smoke than it would have if the same area had been burned regularly with smaller “prescribed” fires.
You @GavinNewsom were Lt. Gov from 2011-19 during which time you:

- did nothing to improve forest management

- helped raise Calif. electric prices 6x more than rest of U.S.

- fought to replace our last nuclear plant with fossil fuels

- ran for governor
@GavinNewsom Now, you are:

- shamelessly politicizing a tragedy

- pretending to care about climate change while shutting down our last nuclear plant

- pretending to care about forests you neglected for the last decade

- running for president
Now you & @JerryBrownGov are scrambling to deflect attention from your catastrophic, decades-long failure to manage our forests

And you & Jerry are hustling to deflect attention from your efforts to kill off our largest source of zero-carbon energy, nuclear power
Is climate change "playing a role"?Sure. Scientists estimate that climate change made the 2012 - 16 drought *15-20%* worse & extended the fire season

Should we address climate change? Yes! And most of the US is doing just that by:

- switching from coal to natural gas

- keeping their nuclear plants operating

You @GavinNewsom & @JerryBrownGov talk non-stop about climate change AS P.R. COVER FOR KILLING OFF NUCLEAR POWER
@GavinNewsom @JerryBrownGov Climate change or no climate change, scientists say somewhere between 500,000 and 4M acres of forest land need to burn *annually* in California.

Doing that requires moving beyond the pyrophobia, alarmism, and politicization that got us into this mess in the first place.
@GavinNewsom @JerryBrownGov Even left-wing magazines in California were starting to cover forest fires in a sane and scientific way until @GavinNewsom @KamalaHarris started politicizing them
This is a terrific article by @SavorTooth from @MotherJones a left-wing magazine in SF from just last year:

"Drought, disease, and insects have left 100 million dead trees browning across California, and in some places, 90 percent of the trees have died"…
Good @ShogrenE @MotherJones in 2017 “We have 100 years of fire suppression that led to huge accumulation of fuel loads... As a result, our forests and woodlands are not healthy, and we’re getting more catastrophic fire behavior than we would otherwise.”…
"Between 4.4M & 12M acres burned each year in prehistoric California but btwn 1982-1998 managers burned, on average, 30,000 acres a year. Between 1999 and 2017, that number dropped to an annual 13,000 acres."…
Even @nytimes did a pretty good job here:

"With rare exceptions [prescribed burning] remains infrequent in the West. Calif intentionally burned just 50,000 acres in 2017... One study found that the state would need to burn or treat 20M acres…
But all of that nuance went out the window this morning with this irresponsibly alarmist, one-sided & misleading travesty that @nytimes put on the front page…
And then there's this nonsense propagated by a scientist & journalist who know better

The amount of carbon emitted and absorbed by forests goes up and down depending on how bad the fires were that year.

@Weather_West & @dwallacewells are trying to be clever in noting that the carbon emitted in a big fire year is larger than the emissions from energy production...
... but it doesn’t actually show anything important to either climate change or conservation since the carbon will be reabsorbed by the forest in the form of new vegetative growth in future years of less burning, when the forest is growing back.
If there is net emissions over a long period of time then what’s happening is deforestation, and if that’s our concern, and I think it is a bigger and more important one than climate change, then we measure that directly in terms of changes to land in California.
Again, climate change is real and we should address it.

But the over-the-top alarmism we are witnessing is polarizing, destructive, and anathema to both adaptation (e.g. forest management) and decarbonization.


• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Mike Shellenberger

Mike Shellenberger Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ShellenbergerMD

11 Sep
As governor you

- grossly mismanaged forests resulting in today’s explosive fires

- diverted resources from electric grid maintenance, resulting in black-outs

- replaced reliable nuclear w/ unreliable renewables, raising electric prices 6x more than in rest of US
Read 5 tweets
8 Sep
2M acres of California have burned so far this year

But *4.4 - 12M* acres (!) burned each year in *pre-industrial* times

It is gross misinformation to blame climate change for our fires
And scientists in February 2020 concluded that California needs to burn 20M acres to restabilize forest ecology…
“Of the hundreds of persons who visit the Pacific slope of California every summer to see the mountains,” reported a U.S. government scientist in 1898, who had surveyed the region, “few see more than the immediate foreground and a haze of smoke.”…
Read 9 tweets
7 Sep
@KamalaHarris Hi Kamala,

California resident here

3M people could lose their power & A/C tonight, which is dangerous

Do you think it still makes sense to shut down our reliable nuclear plants and try to rely so heavily on solar, which stops producing electricity just as peak demand begins?
Read 7 tweets
4 Sep
Britain is set to close 14 of its 15 nuclear reactors by 2030

Now, the UK and @BorisJohnson have major opportunity to lead the West on nuclear energy

Time to go big or go home

My latest with @ChrisBarnardDL
@Telegraph — please share!…
@BorisJohnson @ChrisBarnardDL @Telegraph At some point in the next two weeks, the Johnson government will decide whether to build two new nuclear reactors at the Sizewell nuclear plant in Suffolk or abandon those plans for a risky experiment with Rolls-Royce.
Blood, sweat, and tears have been shed building the advanced nuclear reactor design known as the EPR in Finland, France, and at Hinkley Point in Britain.
Read 29 tweets
3 Sep
If you care so much about plastic waste polluting the environment then why aren't you advocating for higher economic growth in poor nations so they have the money to build the waste-management systems required to prevent plastic from escaping into the environment?

Plastic waste in the oceans comes from

- poor nations that lack waste collection

- rich nations that dump plastics on poor ones by deceiving themselves that their plastics will be recycled when they often are not
It's great that people are raising the alarm, again, about rich nations dumping plastics on poor nations, but people should remember that this is because:

- poor nations lack waste-management systems rich nations take for granted

- we irrationally think plastic must be recycled
Read 6 tweets
31 Aug
Most everything they say about plastic waste is wrong:

- ocean biodegrades 99.9% of it

- bioplastics worse than fossil-plastics

- landfill & incineration better than recycling

Nobody likes waste but it's wrong to deny plastics to poor nations…
In a front-page story in today's @nytimes @HirokoTabuchi @mccorkery5 @CarlosMureithi suggest that that plastic waste is, or should be, a high-priority for poor African nations, and that the best way to deal with it is by not having plastic at all.

In fact, poor nations in Africa need to use more, not less plastic, since doing so will improve people’s lives, just as plastic has improved people’s lives in developed nations for over a half-century.
Read 29 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!