
Fires are raging from British Columbia to California - car
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-west-is-going-up-in-flames
======
rapnie
> Why would we gut policies that save thousands of lives and eliminate tens of
> thousands of cases of childhood asthma, bronchitis and emphysema annually?
> Why wouldn’t we want more efficient cars when we’re still importing three
> million barrels of oil a day from OPEC countries like Libya, Saudi Arabia
> and Venezuela?

Countless articles like this ask the same kind of questions over and over
again. Leaving the reader to ponder the answers to them.

I'll answer here: People in power earn their money that way.

~~~
nikanj
As evidenced by the "rollin' coal" phenomenon, destroying the environment is a
way to signal how manly you are.

~~~
gear54rus
> Practitioners cite "American freedom" and a stand against "rampant
> environmentalism" as reasons for coal rolling

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal)

My god. Every time I think I've seen all the possible dumb shit people do
something like this inevitably comes up.

~~~
mirimir
Funny you should say "god". Some argue that environmentalism is inconsistent
with Genesis. In that God gave us everything to use as we see fit. But others
say that God made humans responsible for managing the Earth. So that
environmentalism is indeed Godly. That makes more sense to me, not that I'm
particularly religious.

~~~
halfdan
It's interesting - yet eating a single apple cast us out of paradise. Maybe
the symbolism here is: Don't take what wasn't yours for the taking (i.e.
earth's resources).

For the religiously inclined, consider that this planet earth could become our
"paradise". Destroying its resources may just cast all of us out of paradise
once again.

~~~
mirimir
Not that it's likely to change anyone's mind, but I do recommend _The Making
of a Conservative Environmentalist_ by Gordon K. Durnil (Indiana Univ.,
1995).[0]

As I recall, one of the core arguments was the equivalence of abusing a child,
and poisoning them by polluting the environment. So if one is evil, why not
the other?

0) [https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/gordon-k-
durnil/t...](https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/gordon-k-durnil/the-
making-of-a-conservative-environmentalist/)

------
sgt101
The title is nothing to do with the article

~~~
rflrob
The title here (“The long night that will last centuries...”, in case a mod
changes it) is the last sentence of the essay.

~~~
dtornabene
and it also perfectly encapsulates the point of the piece.

~~~
pgsandstrom
Well, it made me think the piece would speculate about the climate change
effects for the coming centuries. So for me it would have helped with a more
straight forward title.

------
southern_cross
I've seen estimates which say that up to 90% of wildfires these days are
started by humans. So who's starting all of those wildfires in British
Columbia?

~~~
Fjolsvith
Just reading into your comment, I'd say that 90% of those wildfires in British
Columbia are started by humans.

~~~
southern_cross
Bears. It's bears, I'm thinking. Smokey Bear never made it across the Canadian
border, as far as I can tell, so I reckon their bears just never got the
message!

------
mirimir
Scientific American or not, this is just a rant. It's not that I don't share
the author's concerns. It's just that there's a large jump from a summer with
lots of fires in the Northern Hemisphere to the collapse of human
civilization. Maybe if the next summer or two are as bad or worse.

I honestly don't understand how we got to current US policy. But it does seem
pretty clear that people who voted for Trump wanted these policy changes.
Arguably because it's all become so horribly polarized and confused. Somehow,
concerns about terrorism, trade imbalances, immigration, affirmative action,
changes in sexual identity and so on have become associated with skepticism
about anthropogenic global climate change. It makes no sense to me.

~~~
m0nty
> the collapse of human civilization

I must have missed that bit in the article.

~~~
mirimir
OK, that's my reading of "the long night that will last centuries".

~~~
m0nty
Always worth remembering that the person who writes the article usually
doesn't write the headline.

My reading is that climate-change effects have got dramatically worse in the
last few years, and are not likely to improve in any foreseeable time-frame. I
hope this is hyperbole but it doesn't look good so far.

~~~
mirimir
I don't disagree. But I just hate to see stuff that polarizes the debate
further.

------
TheForumTroll
It says a lot that it is easier to get China onboard anti-pollution deals than
the US.

~~~
YokoZar
China is much more obviously polluted such that ordinary citizens have to deal
with it every day.

Most parts of the west aren't so visibly polluted anymore, but that doesn't
mean the air is clean.

~~~
mirimir
NOx in particular is a hard problem for all motor vehicles. And they react
with naturally occurring atmospheric hydrocarbons to create ozone pollution.
Which is hard on lungs, and on rubber products. Also particulates for diesel
vehicles.

