I largely agree with the thrust of the article, but wow is it one-sided. Which is fine, I'd just like to read another article that discusses some of the issues as well. Like air quality—the mention of smoke being thick enough to drop stream temperatures by 2.5°F didn't seem quite as wonderful to me as the article implied. (Then again, that seems like an extreme case, and one where you're burning a lot of wet stuff. Well, or oily stuff like scotch broom; that smoke can be black.) Obviously it's still a lot better than an out of control wildfire, but still not something to just ignore.
The one thing they did mention is fires that escape. It's a risk when doing traditional burns in highly non-traditional settings: lots more dead vegetation in the surrounding area, invasives (like scotch broom or eucalyptus) that burn hotter and can shoot out streams of fire, drier conditions overall, etc.
That said, continuing the trend of constructing buildings in the midst of forests where you're allowing fuel to just pile up over time, in drought conditions no less, is stupid. I'd rather try to manage and mitigate the risk over time with controlled burns than keep allowing it to build up while we're all busy wringing our hands over it.
This episode is great for anyone interested in the problem. At the end of the day most places in the US have been 'designed' over the last 50,000 to 100,000 years to burn, and to burn at pretty regular intervals. We've interrupted that burn cycle, and we've increased temperatures so we're well into megafire territory now. Even worse is we're building houses in places that must burn at a regular basis with houses themselves that are built-to-burn.
this is a "feel good" article for public outreach (and votes) in California. In the last ten years, forest bureaucracies here had to do a 180 degree turnaround from the Federal arrogance and helpless wishful thinking on the ground that ruled previously.
A combination of forest stress via drought and a hundred years of ignorant executive management resulted in multiple catastrophic fires and ruined lives, with more on the way.
These areas are going to burn - whether we like it or not. You can either do it routinely in a controlled manor, or stick your head in the sand and the suffer catastrophe when they do eventually go up.
The one thing they did mention is fires that escape. It's a risk when doing traditional burns in highly non-traditional settings: lots more dead vegetation in the surrounding area, invasives (like scotch broom or eucalyptus) that burn hotter and can shoot out streams of fire, drier conditions overall, etc.
That said, continuing the trend of constructing buildings in the midst of forests where you're allowing fuel to just pile up over time, in drought conditions no less, is stupid. I'd rather try to manage and mitigate the risk over time with controlled burns than keep allowing it to build up while we're all busy wringing our hands over it.