back

by kristjansson·1y ago·view on hn ↗
We need to manage the forest! We need prescribed burns, fire roads, lookouts, etc. But we also need sensible development at the interface, stricter brush-clearance laws, emissions restrictions to attempt to mitigate climate change, etc.

But people get angry because 'forest management' has become a shorthand for the former without the latter (or in denial of the latter). It's been promulgated as an _alternative_ policy, not a _complimentary_ policy.

1 comments
Who the hell cares what some climate change denying Republican says? Ca is run by democrats and they categorically refuse to do forest management..

If hearing we need to manage the forest makes you more upset at your fellow Americans rather than more concerned about the viability of your community, you are the problem.

As a policy, it shouldn't make anyone mad. The fact that there is organized and successful resistance to prescribed burns is a failure of CA politics. I hope this event eliminates at least some of that resistance.

As a message, presented on its own, it connotes a reductive sophistic denialist take. Getting to the effective policy requires an effective message. Like you and I have talked about before, the burden is on the advocate to craft a message whose whole meaning (denotation & connatation) conveys what they intend.