No possibility of bringing the fires under control
It’s not the future any more. Big chunks of Los Angeles are on fire.
Firefighters in Los Angeles are battling a number of blazes in city suburbs, as tens of thousands of residents are forced to flee.
The rapidly changing situation is compounded by Santa Ana winds and extremely dry conditions. Currently authorities say there is no possibility of bringing the fires under control.
The Palisades fire, which is closest to the coast and also the largest, has ripped through picturesque suburbs which are home to many Hollywood stars. More than 1,000 buildings have already been destroyed.
Picturesque and very very very expensive.
LA has always been a mistake. It’s in a desert, and it’s way too big for a desert.
Four major fires are currently being tackled.
The Palisades fire was first reported at 10:30 (18:30 GMT) on Tuesday, and grew in just 20 minutes from a blaze of 20 acres to more than 200 acres, then more than tenfold in a matter of a few more hours. At least 30,000 people have so far been ordered to leave their homes.
The Eaton fire grew to cover 1,000 acres within the first six hours of breaking out. It started in Altadena in the hills above Pasadena at around 18:30 local time on Tuesday.
The Hurst fire is located just north of San Fernando. It began burning on Tuesday at around 22:10 local time, growing to 500 acres, according to local officials. It has triggered evacuation orders in neighbouring Santa Clarita.
The latest of the four fires is the Woodley fire, currently 75 acres in size. It broke out at approximately 06:15 local time on Wednesday.
It’s terrifying – pow pow pow pow, in less than one day.
Arsonists? That’s a horrible thought, but it’s been the cause of some terrible fires in Australia.
Expect federal aid to be… Reluctant at best (unless bringing the LA Times to heel was sufficient).
And we knew that when LA was built. The city founders were warned not to let their city get too big. They ignored the warnings.
You’d think the desert bit would be hard to ignore!
Tigger, arsonists lighting bush fires in Australia is an Urban Myth promulgated by the Lunatic Left, The Renewable Renegades, and the Solar Elites to hide the fact, fact I tell you, that all Australian bush fires are caused by out of control windmills, over heating solar panes, and over stretched transmission wires, all built at the expense of wonderful coal!
/sarc
In reality, those who cling to coal generation are the ones who will deny arson as a cause and try to do anything to pin bush fires on renewables. Some of our worst fires have been arson.
and yet and yet…most Southeastern cities are built in an enervating climate where humidity literally can kill. And coastal southern cities are regularly and increasingly hit by hurricanes.
The Cascadian Subduction Zone is overdue for a major jolt and resulting tsunami. Maybe Seattle and Portland are “too big”?
Southern Oregon also has wildfires…and drought. Should we depopulate Ashland and Medford and Riseburg? When I drove through Roseburg last year I could almost hear the roar of flames.
The northeast almost requires the burning of oil or coal to keep it livable in winter. Where can the residents of Boston and NTYC relocate? Especially after the increasing number of Nor’easters and hurricanes.
We need a virus to reduce us by 90% so we can go back to hunting and gathering lifestyles.
Well then what would be the point? The next space rock or major ice age would kill us all…
Not saying decreasing the population by 90% would be bad by itself, but you have to plan (we’re terrible at executing plans).
Brian M., Los Angeles has a problem some other cities don’t – it is prone to thermal inversions, which means a large city will create smog. Smog that wouldn’t be there if the city remained a village. Denver has the same problem, for similar reasons. In the case of Los Angeles, it is because they are between the mountains and the ocean; for Denver, it is because they are between mountains.
These are problems that didn’t have to happen. At the time these cities were settled, our population was not so big we required these cities, but everyone was restless and moving west. Yes, all areas have problems; the midwest is prone to tornadoes, which have been known to level entire towns. In the case of Los Angeles, the problems were added to by humans, and it was predictable. This is the case with a lot of cities, which are often placed in locations no city should be located. New Orleans is another good example, since it is below sea level.
Oh I understand LA has unique problems. One factor is people love living in scenic foothills next to fire prone landscape.
My reaction is one could argue many/most modern cities are too big. Myself, I live in a seismic zone (Sacramento*) but I could never live in Seattle because the projected earthquakes from that fault are on another level. So saying “LA is just too big” triggers me as another example of fashionable California bashing because arguably so very many cities are pretty precariously sited.
But yes, living in a SoCal canyon probably not a good idea.
*Sacramento faces epic flood threats of course. But geez the levee projects the past five years are massive in scope. I actually live a five minute walk from the river, so…we will see.
Is California bashing fashionable?
Surely it’s not all that eccentric (or fashion-following) to think putting huge cities in deserts is not a brilliant plan unless there’s an infinite supply of water underneath them. Phoenix is another city that keeps bumping up against its desert idenniny.
I sort of agree, but some cities are worse than others. i am not California bashing, though. I would argue the same for Phoenix, Las Vegas, New Orleans…I could go on. Oklahoma City sprawls over a huge area of real estate. And don’t get me started on Dallas/Fort Worth!
The problem isn’t necessarily the cities, though. It’s the size of the population. You couldn’t spread such a population out with small patches of land without doing even more damage, and destroying agriculture. This would likely lead to a lot of people not having enough food.
By the way, I like Sacramento (but I love San Francisco).
15 years ago I loved SF. Now? Market Street and Union Square appear 50% empty.
But hey, with a click I can now have delivered cheap stuff from Temu made by slaves in Myanmar! Who needs shops?
But Market Street and Union Square have always been nasty. What I love about SF is everything miles away from that stuff – GG Park, the Presidio, the Palace of Fine Arts, Lafayette Park, the Haight, West Portal, Twin Peaks – the ocean, the bay, The Bridge.
I haven’t been to all those places, but I love the ocean, the bay, the bridge…and they have great seafood.