GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASH

In case you haven't noticed, Southern California is on fire ... and it's bad. By some estimates, over 500000 people evacuated their homes during the height of the disaster. And should you falsely assume that Santa Barbara was spared this recent tragedy, we received a not so gentle reminder of our own Zaca Fire when Santa Ana winds whipped-up a bunch of ash, which inspired health officials to insist we stay indoors for several days. Cough!

On 60 Minutes a couple weeks ago, there was a great segment on the increase in frequency and intensity of wildfires over the last few years. In the show, it was pointed out that what would have been considered extreme fires a decade ago are common place today. And the key question it seems people are still a little afraid to ask is whether or not the cause is global warming. The 60 Minutes report definitely implied that was the case, although the "liberal media" couldn't avoid making the disclaimer that these "particular" fires couldn't necessarily be linked to climate change. Whatever. The thing I found the most telling, however, was the point at which Scott Pelley asked the lead firefighter about global warming skeptics, and his response was something to the effect of, "Well, you won't find any in our profession." If the 9/11 heroes believe it, shouldn't everybody?

The facts are overwhelming. If you read Joseph Romm's Huffington Post entry last week, you will see that this is exactly what has been predicted by many scientists in their climate change models. He starts off by pointing out that ....

Global warming makes wildfires more likely and more destructive -- as many scientific studies have concluded. Why? Global warming leads to more intense droughts, hotter weather, earlier snowmelt (hence less humid late summers and early autumns), and more tree infestations (like the pine beetle). That means wildfires are a dangerous amplifying feedback, whereby global warming causes more wildfires, which release carbon dioxide, thereby accelerating global warming.

Yet, unbelievably, there are still deniers out there who are determined to bury their heads in the ash and blame natural weather patterns or immigration or some such nonsense. None the less, the proof keeps mounting. In his post, Romm goes on to quote the August 2006 Science cover story, "Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity" ...

... virtually all climate-model projections indicate that warmer springs and summers will occur over the region in coming decades. These trends will reinforce the tendency toward early spring snowmelt and longer fire seasons. This will accentuate conditions favorable to the occurrence of large wildfires, amplifying the vulnerability the region has experienced since the mid-1980s ... If the average length and intensity of summer drought increases in the Northern Rockies and mountains elsewhere in the western United States, an increased frequency of large wildfires will lead to changes in forest composition and reduced tree densities, thus affecting carbon pools ...

This leads me to everyone's favorite Santa Barbara topical topic: The Light Blue Line Project. If you don't know, this was a nice, minimal cost effort to paint a blue line around the city showing where water levels might be if computer models predicting sea level rise were to play out. Good idea, right? I thought it was, and so did many of us who think it's important to raise awareness of global climate change. But sadly, the project was killed by a vocal group of people who thought the line might affect property values. In fact, some people were so angry that it apparently inspired all five Santa Barbara City Council challengers to jump into the race and oppose it. Here's what I said on Blogabarbara regarding the topic ...

Doesn't the blue line project really show the problem with the global warming debate in general? ... People are concerned about it, but they don't want to take any action if it adversely affects them in any way. In this case, it's just the "idea" of global warming's effect on SB that has these people up in arms. Shouldn't they (and all of us) be more worried about the real effects?

Here's the lesson, folks ... you could ignore the line but you could not ignore the fire. And you will not be able to ignore the other effects of global warming. So, let's stop ignoring and start doing.

SANTA BARBARA RANTING

There were just so many Santa Barbara related topics to discuss last week that I decided to sum them all up in one entry ...
________________

On Thursday, there was a short article on the Santa Barbara Independent web site about developer Jerry Beaver and his desire to seek donations to help make up for the $35,000 he spent fighting the Light Blue Line project. Maybe I'm overreacting a little here, but this really chaps my hide. The Light Blue Line was a nice little endeavor with the sole purpose of bringing awareness to the very real threat of global warming. The fact that a small group of vocal opponents was able to kill this project was a sad day for my town and makes Santa Barbara look pretty lame in the eyes of other more progressive cities who will take this enlightened action.

So, now we're so supposed to feel bad that some rich developer wants his money back? No one asked you to spend your money to fight this fight, Mr. Beaver. If you didn't want to pay the piper, you should have kept your feelings (and your dollars) to yourself. As much as I despise Wendy McCaw, I doubt you'll see her looking for handouts to pay for the legal fees she's incurred fighting the union, Jerry Roberts, the NJR, the former NP employees, the businesses that posted signs, everyone who's worked on her house, people who want to walk on the beach, bloggers ... Ow, I think I'm getting carpel tunnel. Anyway, Mr. Beaver, if you do get 35K in donations, will you make a pledge give it to the people who's houses are under water when SB is swallowed by the sea?
__________________

On the front page of Thursday's Santa Barbara News-Press was the headline "ROOT OF THE PROBLEM - Removal of El Paseo eucalyptus spurs controversy over protection of landmarks." Was I the only one that had that "deja vu all over again" feeling upon reading that? Since Wendy is now famous for being enraged by the removal of trees and then pointing to Travis Armstrong as proof of a community-wide outrage, I can't help but ask if that is what is happening here. I know that El Paseo is a local landmark, and you're not supposed to make changes without permission. But the question I'm asking is if "locals are really upset" about the tree itself? Can anybody help me out here? Are people other than the NP editorial section really angry by this? Inquiring minds want to know.
__________________

Apparently I wasn't the only one who didn't like the Daily Sound's Conservative Turtle debut. Reader Kevin McDaniels had the audacity to write a letter to the Sound stating that he wasn't so happy with their portrayal of liberals. So, the Turtle decided to spend its entire second column (on Thursday) tearing apart Mr. McDaniels's statements. Is this what we get to expect from the new column: Turtle makes outrageous statements about progressives, someone writes a letter calling Turtle on it, and then Turtle picks apart letter? If you feel the need to spend an entire column responding to one negative letter, I think you need a thicker shell.

I will give the Turtle credit for one thing, though ... they actually discussed an issue in this one instead of simply taking pot shots at the left. Specifically, they talked about Das Williams's efforts to convert city vehicles to run on biofeuls. You'll be surprised to hear that I actually agreed with many of their statements about this up and coming fuel source. But then they quickly lost me again by going on a tirade against compassion and tolerance, frequently linking those traits to Nazism. After that, the Turtle -- once again -- went back to the "poor me" stuff ...

We fear the effects of their [progressive liberalism] attacks on traditional institutions such as a biologically related family (based on marriage and procreation between a man and a woman), attacks on religion, attacks on our culture by those from other cultures, and the undermining attacks on the military.

Why don't you stop making these high level vagaries and give specifics? For example, what attacks on religion have I made? Are you talking about the fact that religion is often used to justify homophobia (as you've done here)? If so, then yes, I attack religion in that case. And how have we attacked the military exactly? Democrats want to give the military body armor, better health care, and more time at home with their families (your side just fought and defeated that last one, by the way). Being against Bush and against the Iraq war is not attacking the military.


You state you want a constructive confrontation ... then start talking about something of substance.

Sincerely,

The Liberal Rabbit