Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
NB despite @BjornLomborg's framing, the issue is not a false choice between climate action and land management
It's NOT a matter of choosing whether to rein in human influence on climate change OR manage fire-prone landscapes better
BOTH are neededhttps://nypost.com/2020/09/14/sorry-solar-panels-wont-stop-californias-fires/?mc_cid=ab5c945265&mc_eid=6e7990553d …
We certainly should do all smart policies But not false choice to ask: if you want less future fire, should you first a) undertake cheap proscribed burning and avoid lots of future fire or b) cut CO₂ expensively and see higher, but slightly less higher fire risk
Governments never focus on just one policy at a time. Slowing the rise of fire risk is not the only reason to urgently reduce global GHG emissions, and CA can contribute to that at the same time as improving land management. Putting off the former will also make the latter harder
Does California focus much more on climate than land management? Yes. Will that help less with fire? Yes Of course, other reasons for climate policy, but drastically reducing fire in California in the next decades is plainly not one of them
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
