It does not emit more than letting it rot . A good read on this topic is Norwegian Wood: Chopping, Stacking, and Drying Wood.

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Jan 8 2025 04:43pm

You think the forms of energy released are exactly identical? That's ridiculous. If you just mean CO2, you're correct, but burning something(even a tree) results in many other noxious chemicals.

Edit: I don't even think it's true of CO2 actually. It releases most of the carbon it contains as CO2 when burnt, whereas in decomposition most of the carbon will remain in the soil.

This post was edited by Shadowoffury on Jan 8 2025 05:09pm

Have no fear California, thankfully your government decolonized firefighting and made it so much more diverse and less white and male.



Big shoutout to the guy upstairs for this epic smite of LA

This post was edited by El1te on Jan 8 2025 06:12pm

controlled fires arent banned here!
there are a limited days when they are possible (these are heavily condition-dependent obviously) and the budget for firefighters in most counties is getting smaller and smaller and smaller
a bunch of ranchers and farmers in my local area have controlled burns all the time, its the federal land that isnt getting the attention it needs
lack of controlled burns + droughts + winds + global warming = disaster


https://cepr.net/us-forest-service-decision-to-halt-prescribed-burns-in-california-is-history-repeating/



This post was edited by gnarjay on Jan 8 2025 06:13pm

That is a great point and actually is a reason to burn vs let it rot. The emitted gases combust better in the high efficiency stoves. You should really check that book out. The wood supply was crucial for WWII countries and some decent case studies around it

Letting it rot is also moronic, as it dries out long before it rots, which of course creates the fire hazard.

(satire)
OMG did you just suggest that we don't allow some bug that is part of the environment to have a natural home!
You must HATE the environment!

^ this is the type of green scam shit that's happening,
I'm not kidding, these people are out of their minds.

The green scam supporters come up with every possible excuse.
Like I mentioned in the OP, a Newt is more important than forests and homes, to them.

They completely ignore the fact that a wild forest fire will burn up entire forests and cities.
They will give you hell if you even suggest doing a controlled burn because a critter may be harmed.

This post was edited by Mondain on Jan 8 2025 06:48pm

The number one cause of damage from natural disasters, whether its flooding or fires, is always the same. Encroachment into hazardous areas. Building in floodplains or below sea level, building in hills prone to wildfires. And thats the case here.

From a policy side the worst fuckup is how insurers have been driven out of california with their heavy regulations aimed at making what was already difficult to insure properties, impossible to insure. You can't squeeze blood from a stone. Forget the brush management, forget that California had record rainfall a year ago and was demolishing dams instead of building new reservoirs to retain that water- if you know wildfires ravage your homes and simultaneously make homes uninsurable with insane fiscal policy, you've destroyed the #1 relief tool that exists for natural disasters

The demolishing of dams was due to the green scam.
Gotta save some fish! A newt! or even a bug!

Insurance for these homes could and would have been possible if measure were taken.
Measures that are blocked by the green scam.