Obviously Gavin Newsom and his team have political motivations for posting this as well, but I just wanted to share it. I've been so, so disappointed in some of my friends and coworkers over the...
Obviously Gavin Newsom and his team have political motivations for posting this as well, but I just wanted to share it. I've been so, so disappointed in some of my friends and coworkers over the last few days as I've listened to them spout off things about "California doesn't manage its forests" or "how'd they mismanage things to run out of fire hydrant water".
This is all so terribly sad for the people affected, and I think it's pretty clear that LAFD, LA County FD, CalFire, and all of the agencies across the country that have rushed resources to help want to protect people as best they can and put out each fire as soon as possible.
Not sure what else to say other than that I'm sad that all of this misfortune and misery is being used to try to score political points when the people on the ground at the water agencies, fire departments, etc. are just doing the best they can.
Facts aren't political, so I'm a bit curious why you say he has a political agenda in posting this. Countering lies and bad information isn't political.
Facts aren't political, so I'm a bit curious why you say he has a political agenda in posting this. Countering lies and bad information isn't political.
Facts can be political in two ways: one, they can be false, two, they can be misleading if you omit other facts. As an example of the latter, it's a fact that 100% of people who drink water have...
Facts can be political in two ways: one, they can be false, two, they can be misleading if you omit other facts.
As an example of the latter, it's a fact that 100% of people who drink water have died, but it implies things which are not true.
Not to say that the link necessarily contains either, but it's useful context that the page is written by an entity with a vested interest in expressing how the state is competent.
As a concrete example of something that – to me, at least – sounds kind of questionable/potentially misleading: “The state has now invested” doesn’t sound like a recurring budget element, but...
As a concrete example of something that – to me, at least – sounds kind of questionable/potentially misleading:
FACT: The budget for managing the forest (AKA “raking the forest”) is now TEN TIMES larger than it was when Governor Newsom took office. It was a $200 million annual budget in 2018. The state has now invested $2 billion, in addition to the $200 million annually.
“The state has now invested” doesn’t sound like a recurring budget element, but rather more like a one-time thing (potentially spread across several years) in addition to the $200m baseline, whereas the first part of the sentence makes it sound like yearly spending.
It might be either, it might be (and probably is) factually correct…, but then it’s still worded rather poorly.
California officials treated more than 700,000 acres of land for wildfire resilience in 2023, and prescribed fires more than doubled between 2021 and 2023.
Is this a lot of land in relation to California’s area? How much do forests occupy in total? Why does it not just simply mention a percentage (i.e. “80% of land treated for wildfire resilience”)? Optionally (I do realize this might be the wrong format for longer, in-depth explanations) were the areas crucial and chosen well or just selected from anywhere that has lower risk of fires/fires spreading to begin with?
A quick google search shows California has 33 million acres of forested land, 57% of which is managed by the federal government. According to Forest Unlimited, which I am not sure how accurate...
A quick google search shows California has 33 million acres of forested land, 57% of which is managed by the federal government. According to Forest Unlimited, which I am not sure how accurate this is, 3% of that 33 million is managed by state and local agencies... so 700k acres may be ALOT for what California is responsible for managing. Also, all of this reminds me of how much these politicians are focused on mitigating the effects of climate change rather than actually doing anything about the problem, but I'll save myself from getting bent of shape about that today.
Among other efforts, California is mandating that all new vehicles sold in 2035 have to be zero-emission, so state politicians are both mitigating the effects and doing things about the problem.
Among other efforts, California is mandating that all new vehicles sold in 2035 have to be zero-emission, so state politicians are both mitigating the effects and doing things about the problem.
I know I’m replying to this over a month later, but I honestly find those deadlines so laughable. 2035 is the deadline we need to, at this point, reverse carbon releases if we want to mitigate...
I know I’m replying to this over a month later, but I honestly find those deadlines so laughable. 2035 is the deadline we need to, at this point, reverse carbon releases if we want to mitigate climate change. And on top of that, that’s only new vehicles, which then you have a lot of people still buying used and using their old gas vehicles. It’s… just not solving the systemic issue of car centric design is bad for so many reasons.
Yeah, one of the really challenging things with communication regarding changes like this is the mismatch between human-scale and organization-scale timelines. 2035 is one decade from now. If we...
Yeah, one of the really challenging things with communication regarding changes like this is the mismatch between human-scale and organization-scale timelines. 2035 is one decade from now. If we want to avoid destroying the auto industry in the state, they need time to develop, prototype, and have electric vehicles for mass sale. That takes years. There has to be charging infrastructure sufficient for all the new cars. That also takes years. It gives companies who see which way the wind is blowing time to get there first and get cars to market, which puts pressure on other companies to move along. It gives time for consumer sentiment to be in alignment, etc.
I agree that it's so slow. But organizations as large as a state or a major vehicle company works on timelines of a decade or more all the time. If it was on a 2 year timeframe it would break so many things, for better or for worse. Given that the government is there to try and keep things functional, working over the course of decades is going to be how things are. You might change things on a city level in a year or two, but a state doesn't make giant changes at the drop of a hat without harming a lot of people.
Thank you for actually putting in the work looking this up, I wasn’t able (nor willing :p) to earlier when I wrote my above comment. One has to wonder then why there’s no “further reading” section...
Thank you for actually putting in the work looking this up, I wasn’t able (nor willing :p) to earlier when I wrote my above comment.
A quick google search
One has to wonder then why there’s no “further reading” section included in there, especially when it’s presumably fast to compile that information and paints Newsom in a good light.
I see it differently. Reducing carbon emissions is abstractly doing the right thing (If everyone else in the world helps) and California is doing good things, but it doesn’t count as practical...
I see it differently. Reducing carbon emissions is abstractly doing the right thing (If everyone else in the world helps) and California is doing good things, but it doesn’t count as practical disaster preparedness. A state government has a duty to its residents to protect them, and for California that means being ready for drought, earthquakes, and wildfires, among other things.
I guess my thought there was just that Newsom is a politician and will naturally view things like "responding to criticism" from a political place. Basically, I'm sure there are things that the...
I guess my thought there was just that Newsom is a politician and will naturally view things like "responding to criticism" from a political place.
Basically, I'm sure there are things that the city, county, and state could have done to make a disaster like this less likely or more manageable, but I'm annoyed by the rush from people who have things to gain from calling local and state leaders incompetent or malicious to do so, especially when they lie or distort the truth.
The conservative mainstream media are working hard to prove Trump was right four years ago when he said Gavin needed to do more raking, and have less water released into the ocean. Trump is...
The conservative mainstream media are working hard to prove Trump was right four years ago when he said Gavin needed to do more raking, and have less water released into the ocean.
Trump is legitimizing hateful misinformation during a crisis, much like he did during COVID.
The media is largely silent on this.
(I'm no fan of Gavin, he over-reported the amount of forest treated by 690% in 2021, and PGE decided to stop spending $2b on fire prevention because it was "ineffective," meanwhile PGE reports $2b in profits, but Jesus, lets wait for the fires to go out before distracting everyone with hot takes and sunday quarterbacking)
I am not surprised that this situation has turned into a big blame game. The public is furious and will demand answers, and everyone they demand answers from will do everything in their power to...
I am not surprised that this situation has turned into a big blame game. The public is furious and will demand answers, and everyone they demand answers from will do everything in their power to pass that hot potato to someone else.
The truth is, I don't know that anything could have been done. I know a lot of CFA people (members of the main bushfire fighting force in Australia), and a common opinion I've heard is that some fires just can't be brought under control until weather conditions change. The firefighters still do extremely valuable work during that time — they can save people's lives, and they might be able to protect a few key sites if they aren't too densely packed — but even if they had all the resources in the world, they cannot counter strong winds. We simply don't have that technological capability.
Except that the fire chief either has her own political opinion of Newsom or her own political aspirations. Because her angle that the budget was cut is extremely misleading....
Except that the fire chief either has her own political opinion of Newsom or her own political aspirations. Because her angle that the budget was cut is extremely misleading.
Did we watch the same video? The fire chief, Kristen Crowley, acknowledged that the Los Angeles Fire Department had faced a $17 million budget cut, which required them to focus resources on...
Did we watch the same video?
The fire chief, Kristen Crowley, acknowledged that the Los Angeles Fire Department had faced a $17 million budget cut, which required them to focus resources on essential duties like firefighter training and everyday emergency response, rather than "non-essential duties and responsibilities."
When asked specifically about an earlier quote that the $17 million budget cut had impacted the fire department's ability to respond to large-scale emergencies like wildfires, the chief said "yes, we were limited to a certain factor."
Ive seen a few videos of her and shes going full scorched earth, I think they fired her and I’m not sure which happened first, her words or her being fired. Lady is pissed though. Fire chief isn’t...
Ive seen a few videos of her and shes going full scorched earth, I think they fired her and I’m not sure which happened first, her words or her being fired. Lady is pissed though.
Fire chief isn’t some public elected position, she was chosen by the mayor for the role after a lifetime of dedication to the fire dept. This is her whole entire life here, shes worked every fire dept role you can think of.
Obviously Gavin Newsom and his team have political motivations for posting this as well, but I just wanted to share it. I've been so, so disappointed in some of my friends and coworkers over the last few days as I've listened to them spout off things about "California doesn't manage its forests" or "how'd they mismanage things to run out of fire hydrant water".
This is all so terribly sad for the people affected, and I think it's pretty clear that LAFD, LA County FD, CalFire, and all of the agencies across the country that have rushed resources to help want to protect people as best they can and put out each fire as soon as possible.
Not sure what else to say other than that I'm sad that all of this misfortune and misery is being used to try to score political points when the people on the ground at the water agencies, fire departments, etc. are just doing the best they can.
Facts aren't political, so I'm a bit curious why you say he has a political agenda in posting this. Countering lies and bad information isn't political.
Facts can be political in two ways: one, they can be false, two, they can be misleading if you omit other facts.
As an example of the latter, it's a fact that 100% of people who drink water have died, but it implies things which are not true.
Not to say that the link necessarily contains either, but it's useful context that the page is written by an entity with a vested interest in expressing how the state is competent.
As a concrete example of something that – to me, at least – sounds kind of questionable/potentially misleading:
“The state has now invested” doesn’t sound like a recurring budget element, but rather more like a one-time thing (potentially spread across several years) in addition to the $200m baseline, whereas the first part of the sentence makes it sound like yearly spending.
It might be either, it might be (and probably is) factually correct…, but then it’s still worded rather poorly.
Is this a lot of land in relation to California’s area? How much do forests occupy in total? Why does it not just simply mention a percentage (i.e. “80% of land treated for wildfire resilience”)? Optionally (I do realize this might be the wrong format for longer, in-depth explanations) were the areas crucial and chosen well or just selected from anywhere that has lower risk of fires/fires spreading to begin with?
A quick google search shows California has 33 million acres of forested land, 57% of which is managed by the federal government. According to Forest Unlimited, which I am not sure how accurate this is, 3% of that 33 million is managed by state and local agencies... so 700k acres may be ALOT for what California is responsible for managing. Also, all of this reminds me of how much these politicians are focused on mitigating the effects of climate change rather than actually doing anything about the problem, but I'll save myself from getting bent of shape about that today.
Among other efforts, California is mandating that all new vehicles sold in 2035 have to be zero-emission, so state politicians are both mitigating the effects and doing things about the problem.
California also produces quite a lot of renewable energy. It’s the 11th state by proportion of energy generated or 3rd by watt hours.
I know I’m replying to this over a month later, but I honestly find those deadlines so laughable. 2035 is the deadline we need to, at this point, reverse carbon releases if we want to mitigate climate change. And on top of that, that’s only new vehicles, which then you have a lot of people still buying used and using their old gas vehicles. It’s… just not solving the systemic issue of car centric design is bad for so many reasons.
Yeah, one of the really challenging things with communication regarding changes like this is the mismatch between human-scale and organization-scale timelines. 2035 is one decade from now. If we want to avoid destroying the auto industry in the state, they need time to develop, prototype, and have electric vehicles for mass sale. That takes years. There has to be charging infrastructure sufficient for all the new cars. That also takes years. It gives companies who see which way the wind is blowing time to get there first and get cars to market, which puts pressure on other companies to move along. It gives time for consumer sentiment to be in alignment, etc.
I agree that it's so slow. But organizations as large as a state or a major vehicle company works on timelines of a decade or more all the time. If it was on a 2 year timeframe it would break so many things, for better or for worse. Given that the government is there to try and keep things functional, working over the course of decades is going to be how things are. You might change things on a city level in a year or two, but a state doesn't make giant changes at the drop of a hat without harming a lot of people.
Thank you for actually putting in the work looking this up, I wasn’t able (nor willing :p) to earlier when I wrote my above comment.
One has to wonder then why there’s no “further reading” section included in there, especially when it’s presumably fast to compile that information and paints Newsom in a good light.
I see it differently. Reducing carbon emissions is abstractly doing the right thing (If everyone else in the world helps) and California is doing good things, but it doesn’t count as practical disaster preparedness. A state government has a duty to its residents to protect them, and for California that means being ready for drought, earthquakes, and wildfires, among other things.
I guess my thought there was just that Newsom is a politician and will naturally view things like "responding to criticism" from a political place.
Basically, I'm sure there are things that the city, county, and state could have done to make a disaster like this less likely or more manageable, but I'm annoyed by the rush from people who have things to gain from calling local and state leaders incompetent or malicious to do so, especially when they lie or distort the truth.
The conservative mainstream media are working hard to prove Trump was right four years ago when he said Gavin needed to do more raking, and have less water released into the ocean.
Trump is legitimizing hateful misinformation during a crisis, much like he did during COVID.
The media is largely silent on this.
(I'm no fan of Gavin, he over-reported the amount of forest treated by 690% in 2021, and PGE decided to stop spending $2b on fire prevention because it was "ineffective," meanwhile PGE reports $2b in profits, but Jesus, lets wait for the fires to go out before distracting everyone with hot takes and sunday quarterbacking)
I am not surprised that this situation has turned into a big blame game. The public is furious and will demand answers, and everyone they demand answers from will do everything in their power to pass that hot potato to someone else.
The truth is, I don't know that anything could have been done. I know a lot of CFA people (members of the main bushfire fighting force in Australia), and a common opinion I've heard is that some fires just can't be brought under control until weather conditions change. The firefighters still do extremely valuable work during that time — they can save people's lives, and they might be able to protect a few key sites if they aren't too densely packed — but even if they had all the resources in the world, they cannot counter strong winds. We simply don't have that technological capability.
Its kind of hard to take the governor seriously when the LA fire chief is going scorched earth on the guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XldrFfST848
Except that the fire chief either has her own political opinion of Newsom or her own political aspirations. Because her angle that the budget was cut is extremely misleading.
https://www.theoaklandpress.com/2025/01/10/factcheck-was-the-lafd-budget-cut-no-it-actually-increased-heres-how/
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-10/how-much-did-the-l-a-fire-department-really-cut-its-budget
https://www.snopes.com/news/2025/01/09/karen-bass-cut-fire-funding/
Did we watch the same video?
The fire chief, Kristen Crowley, acknowledged that the Los Angeles Fire Department had faced a $17 million budget cut, which required them to focus resources on essential duties like firefighter training and everyday emergency response, rather than "non-essential duties and responsibilities."
When asked specifically about an earlier quote that the $17 million budget cut had impacted the fire department's ability to respond to large-scale emergencies like wildfires, the chief said "yes, we were limited to a certain factor."
Ive seen a few videos of her and shes going full scorched earth, I think they fired her and I’m not sure which happened first, her words or her being fired. Lady is pissed though.
Fire chief isn’t some public elected position, she was chosen by the mayor for the role after a lifetime of dedication to the fire dept. This is her whole entire life here, shes worked every fire dept role you can think of.
I gotta believe that gives her some credibility.
She has not been fired.
You’re right I tracked it down that appears to have come from the Youtube community.