and they have huge budget to wage war abroad
2007-10-23 07:08:20 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I don't think "technology" alone can handle the situation in California. No. 1 - the natural balance of the environment has already been undone by all the building, lack of water resources, etc. The Santa Ana winds actually originate in the Great Basin - so they can't be stopped. The people who refuse to evacuate - causing resources to be moved away from fire to rescue - make for another balancing act. At the scale at which these fires are burning now - technology isn't going to do it. Plus, I don't expect the Federal Government to be able to solve every problem in every state anyway.
Another answerer points to "forest thinning" - and I don't see where there is much forest burning right now. I do know that in Oregon, "fuel elimination exercises" often get out of control and turn into major forest fires. (And, by the way, how much does this kind of event contribute to "global warming"?)
2007-10-23 07:17:46 · answer #1 · answered by Kelly T 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It is not a matter of technology. It is a matter of weather conditions.
Once the wind comes down, the fires will go out.
2007-10-23 07:27:20 · answer #2 · answered by Biggg 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is not the job of the US Government to fight fires in California. It is the job of the cities and counties involved as well as the state of California. Why is that so confusing?
2007-10-23 07:13:50 · answer #3 · answered by davidmi711 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋
Fossil gas is between the oldest. The plant life u.s. has should be kept operating. They have already got sparkling technologies contained in the Fossil gas plant life. One source of skill it truly is fairly valued.
2016-10-22 21:19:07 · answer #4 · answered by love 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why aren't Californians smart enough to use controlled burns?
EDIT: "Another answerer points to "forest thinning" - and I don't see where there is much forest burning right now."
I live next to a wildlife refuge in Minnesota. Every few years, they do a controlled burn about a hundred yards away from my house to get rid of the dead stuff.
2007-10-23 07:14:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It's more a matter of having manpower to fight the fires...The National Guard could help but they're busy elsewhere fighting a phony war for oil.....
2007-10-23 09:03:14 · answer #6 · answered by lillllbit 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋
We do--it's called "forest thinning," and the government gets sued by environmental groups if they use it.
Furthermore, you assume that the war is evil -- an assumption that is unproved in your post.
2007-10-23 07:12:25 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
This isn't one of those slanted "I Hate Bush" questions, is it?
2007-10-23 07:13:57 · answer #8 · answered by labdoctor 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
that's why!, it is wasted on wars, so we do not have any to use when we actually need it (in emergency situations)
2007-10-23 07:18:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋