> So, the correct question to ask is "what can we do as a reasonable trade-off to reduce the number of fires in the future without compromising the quality of life?". And the correct answer is "educate people on how to spot hazardous terrain and contain the fires they accidentally started". Requiring fire extinguishers at campsites/ATVs could help. Doing some training would help. Doing controlled burns would help. Renaming Environment Canada to "Environment and Climate Change Canada| and closing down local production in favor of Chinese imports won't.
This is such a wild false dichotomy.
Unless you're saying climate change has nothing to do with it, or is making fires better, it's a strange thing to play devil's advocate about -- especially pre-emptively.
I accept the scientific consensus that climate change is making a lot of these natural disasters worse/different and more frequent, so addressing climate change and teaching people how to survive novel natural disasters are both important on different time scales.
This is such a wild false dichotomy.
Unless you're saying climate change has nothing to do with it, or is making fires better, it's a strange thing to play devil's advocate about -- especially pre-emptively.
I accept the scientific consensus that climate change is making a lot of these natural disasters worse/different and more frequent, so addressing climate change and teaching people how to survive novel natural disasters are both important on different time scales.