Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Hurricane and Severe Weather Tracking -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LoneClone who wrote (25053)	1/10/2025 3:23:19 PM
From: LoneClone	1 Recommendation Recommended By S. maltophilia Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26004

I spent some hours doing real research on the LD wildfires, avoiding any podcasts and any sources with ideological biases. The deep background lies in decisions made by a variety of actors over a number of decades. At heart, the decisions were made to equip LA to fight structure fires, not wildfires. As best as I can piece together, these decisions were made to keep down taxes -- it is orders of magnitude more expensive to build protection against wildfires -- and the inability of decision -makers to imagine conditions this bad even though they were being warned by scientists. This decision also seems to have been influenced by climate change deniers. To turn to the more immediate causes, we start a little less than a year ago with the wettest spring in more than 20 years, creating abundant growth. However, the precipitation abruptly ceased and since then the Los Angeles area has endured eight months of drought, exacerbated by the highest temperatures ever recorded in the area. Add in the strong Santa Ana winds and you have a recipe for disaster. LC