In a new article from Reuters, author Daniel Trotta admits that the record rain in California is good for droughts, yet he worries that down the road, vegetation may cause fires; see below:
Explainer-California rains: good for drought, fuel for wildfires
The atmospheric river that has inundated California is a mixed blessing, at once easing drought conditions and promoting threatened fish species while also nourishing the growth of vegetation that will eventually fuel future wildfires.
Here’s a look at the environmental implications:
HOW WET IS IT?
After severe drought conditions for most of this century, California is forecast to have its second wet year in a row, though not quite as wet as the exceptional precipitation of a year ago.
Of course, rain is better than drought for managing California’s water resources, but not all rain is equal.
The current storm is mostly affecting Southern California, which lacks the storage capacity of the northern part of the state and the resources to capture stormwater before it drains into the Pacific Ocean.
The additional moisture is generally good for wildfire resistance, but the rain also promotes growth of grasses and brush that will become fuel for future fires when the weather inevitably turns dry again.
They told us an increase in wildfires was a harbinger of the “climate crisis” but now, with wildfires down substantially over the last two years because of a deluge of precipitation, they have to adjust fire, and pivot, claiming all the rain putting out the wildfires is also bad, because now vegetations will grow, and create a risk of fire. [emphasis, links added]
There’s no winning against the “green” agenda. Since all of history, hasn’t rain brought life to flora? Yet, against all odds (thriving plant life), we’re still here! Would the state be better off if it didn’t get the vegetation and the record rain?
Maybe, when vegetation dries out, the state should ignore the bureaucrats and “environmentalists” and clear out the underbrush before it becomes a tinderbox.
Maybe, instead of dumping billions into vote-buying schemes like welcoming endless hordes of illegals, the state uses the taxes it collects to build the proper infrastructure—if the climate crisis really is as existential as they claim it to be.
What would someone with a brain think? They would wonder why a state like California, with long periods of drought and [sometimes huge rains and snow], didn’t build more reservoirs throughout the state if this has been going on for decades.
Maybe California politicians should have focused on building reservoirs instead of pretending they could control the climate by destroying industries that greatly improve the quality and length of life of people who use natural resources.
Maybe California politicians and the federal government could have spent billions on reservoirs instead of pouring money down the drain on the “train to nowhere.”
But we are supposed to trust that these politicians and bureaucrats can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity forever if we just give up our gas-powered vehicles and appliances and stop eating meat.
Read rest at American Thinker
Trackback from your site.