Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | billclerico's comments login

Probably the most effective thing we could do is re-imagine Smokey Bear from a "put out your campfire" mascot to a spokesperson for effective forest management & prescribed fire.


congrats!!


Thanks!


Also worth mentioning her new podcast (along with Carolynn Levy), The Social Radars, which is sort of a podcast version of Founders At Work: https://www.thesocialradars.com/


This podcast is wonderful – I'd recommend starting with the Paul Graham espisode.


I’m a VC specializing in startups addressing wildfire. If I can be helpful to anyone thinking about this problem, I’m bill at convectivecapital.com


I think it's a false assumption that when something burns in a high severity fire, it returns to a healthy state afterwards. Historically, natural fire was low severity because it was high frequency, burning through once a decade (or even more frequently). This left large trees and soil intact, and so dense regrowth was limited, since there was still shade.

With high severity fire, two things can happen. Trees can be totally wiped out (called a stand-replacing fire) which causes extremely dense, brushy regrowth (prone to another high severity fire). Or in really bad conditions, the soil can be damage so no regrowth happens, causing strange moonscape-like forests that are completely dead. This affects watersheds, causes mudslides, etc. Neither is good.

If we could burn large swaths of landscape with low severity fire, that would be a huge step in the right direction but is extremely difficult. We are treating only a small fraction of the acreage in that manner.

Note: This varies from landscape to landscape but is directionally correct. For example, in some climates, stand-replacing fires are healthy and normal. But in most climates, bad.


I was in the Colorado Springs area following a very bad fire about a decade ago, a fire hot enough to scorch the soil and cause issues with regrowth later.

This was followed by a very wet fall, causing massive amounts of runoff, erosion, and mudslides, blocking culverts and drainages, flooding roads, etc. It started with a fire, but the damage and follow on effects continued long after it was extinguished.


One thing I find frustrating in the discussion of wildfire is that it frequently dumbs down to one thing vs another, usually "We must treat the landscape with thinning and prescribed fire" vs "We need better firefighting resources and equipment". This is a false choice and we need both.

The principle of Defense in Depth in infosec is illustrative. No one would debate whether or not you need secure passwords vs role-based permissions. You obviously need both and they reinforce each other.

The same is true in fire. To end megafires, we need: 1) Landscape Management 2) Community Resilience 3) Fast & aggressive suppression

Better technology can help play a role at all three levels.


There was an enormous & destructive lightning fire in the Santa Cruz mountains in 2020 called the CZU complex: https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/08/16/two-years-later-czu-f...


I was looking at the California Wildfire History Map (https://projects.capradio.org/california-fire-history/#9.62/...) a while back and remember noting that the CZU fire was the first recorded burn for most of the affected area.

I am not sure how complete the map is, but I suspect that the GP means the fires (such as the 1985 Lexington fire) further east mapped in red? Of those, I think I only see two meaningfully overlapped by newer fires (2009 and 2016 Loma fires overlapping 1985 Lexington, 2020 Park within the footprint of the 1985 Finley fire).

Edit: looks like the Finley/Park fires are technically just east of the mountain range, at least per http://www.scmbc.org/map-of-bioregion.


There are plenty of economic models that can support cures to recurrent issues. For example, internal sprinklers & smoke detectors have dramatically improved survivability of structure fires, but that "cure" supports a whole industry of sprinkler and alarm system companies.


New buildings are continuously built as we developer new land or redevelop old land. These need sprinklers.

The companies mentioned in the article are all about detecting/managing a mega-fire once detected. If we "end" mega-fires, there's no business in detecting/managing them.

But, that's a pretty cynical view of these businesses. Maybe I'm just not jaded enough yet.


Pano will have a great business even if megafires are ended, since fire will always be a part of the landscape. One of their major usecases is monitoring controlled burns.


I never said things will not 'improve', even drastically, just not 'end' as the article touts. If sprinklers and smoke detectors truly ended fires happening (as opposed to mitigating the consequences), over time we would neglect them and de-prioritize them in the budget. Wy spend money on tings no-one has heard of in two generations when we have more pressing needs? Psychology and game-theory go hand in hand.


Most experts agree that 3 things are required to end megafires: Landscape management, community resilience and fast & aggressive suppression. It's a layered approach - similar to infosec models. No one layer is an effective solution.

Some of the examples in the article are focused on suppression (since that is a bit easier to grasp) - but there are some really exciting examples that exist outside of that. BurnBot, for example, is a robotic device that helps make fuel management more efficient. Overstory uses satellite imagery to help utilities prioritize line trimming and avoid ignitions.

Disclaimer: I am mentioned in the article as a Firetech investor


What about prescriptive burns? Or is that part of landscape management?

Seems like figuring out how to do it right would be the best answer, as what happened recently in New Mexico for when it goes wrong: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-mexico-wildfire-prescribed-...


important tool for landscape management


firetech has been heavy on the 'suppression' here in California. Its step-children include aggressive surveillance, controlling the movement of people whether they own property or not, increase in fines and legal entanglements for those in fire-prone areas, and I would argue a fertile breeding ground for secretive behind-closed-doors deals regarding public information and public budgets.

ref: https://www.amazon.com/Scorched-Worth-Destruction-Government...

so what to do? Please support and develop public information within the spirit of the Law. California and the US has 'default to public' government data for hundreds of relevant layers. Please do not support "my keys, my data" portal gatekeeping by spatial information handlers for public data. Be explicit about the difference between 'public by default' layers and commercial value added layers. Please do not encourage "onboard AI for drones" without checks and balances for the content and filtering. Please build clear bounds between civilian matters and uniformed services matters -- "we are the Army Corps and we have this handled; please move along" is not an acceptable stance in 2022.

The tragic and catastrophic fires in the Western USA and elsewhere in the past five years are a very large challenge. Let's combine forces and synergize, defeat gatekeeping that is so common in government contracting, and 'secret by default' information handling (e.g. 30x30) so common in the armed forces.

Together we are stronger.


congrats Garry!! you are a founder's founder and will do great things at YC.


Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: