On Friday the 16th, President Trump agreed to send disaster relief to California to help contain the wildfires that are ravaging. This comes shortly after the President received letters from Governor Newsom and other Republican Representatives from the state urging President Trump to send aid. The relationship between California and the White House has been shaky ever since President Trump took office.
This Fall, California has had another devastating wildfire season. With numerous fires raging throughout the state, more than 1.8 million acres of land have been burned and thousands of homes destroyed. All of us have felt the effects of these fires one way or another. Whether it’s being forced inside because of the smoke, waking up to an Orange sky, or knowing someone who has had to flee their homes. With these fires affecting everyone in the state, one might ask “why didn’t President Trump send aid sooner?”
President Trump has cited multiple reasons for not providing aid to California. Rather than point to Climate Change as the primary reason like Governor Gavin Newsom does, Trump instead believes that poor forest management is the number one contributing factor. Trump has said numerous times that he won’t send hundreds of millions of dollars to California until they can get their act together. The media often claims that Trump doesn’t send aid to California because of political reasons. California is a very liberal state, and probably will not be helping Trump this coming November. While this is definitely true for Californias population along the coast, which are dominated by liberals and Democrats alike. Communities more inland (and the ones who are most affected by the fires) lean more Republican. However, while these political reasons are probably there, it is unclear to what extent they are.
It would be false to say the President is completely wrong though. Year after year California is hit by devastating wildfires and the state's fire services are completely overwhelmed and caught seemingly unprepared. California has even been known to use prisoners to help fight the fires due to lack of manpower. Californian Democrats point to Climate Change as the primary cause and focus their efforts on tackling climate change to indirectly fight the fires. While Californian Republicans along with President Trump also point to poor forest management. However non-political environmental experts agree that both of these problems contribute to the wildfires.
The wildfire issue in California has become too politicized. California needs a more direct approach to fighting wildfires, alongside the indirect help by tackling climate change. These fires affect people in California from all across the political spectrum, and Californias Democratic leaders along with the White House need to have better communication in order to properly address the Wildfire crisis.
Is President Trump's reasoning for initially withholding aid justified?
Can California do more by itself to prepare for and fight Wildfires?
Sources:
I can see both sides of the arguement. On one hand, Climate Change does certainly have an effect on the intensity of the fires and the amount of dry tinder for the fires. However, I do think that the president does also have a point in that the forest management of California is rather poor. These fires come every year, igniting and using the massive amount of dry and dead fuel in California Forests. I don't think that the President is refusing them merely for Political reasons, while I do think that it wasn't fully justified. California should've gotten federal aid earlier, but it still should adjust it's polices to better manage the forests and to clear underbrush, as is done in other States.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the president in waiting to provide aid to California. It is obvious to see that this year's fires devastated California and were much stronger than seasonal fires. I believe that it is ignorant to tell California to manage their forests better without acknowledging Climate Change, and it is irresponsible to deny Climate Change against environmental expert's opinions. I believe that since a lot of California's land is taken up by forests, and our state's climate is one that fires are more common, the state government should pay greater attention to forest management but ultimately California should have received federal aid sooner.
ReplyDeleteWhile saying that California needs better fire management is not wrong, I believe Trump's argument is largely for political reasons. The BBC notes that "In California state, the federal government owns nearly 58% of the 33 million acres of forest, according to the state governor's office. The state itself owns just three per cent, with the rest owned by private individuals or companies or Native American groups." If there is a problem with forest management, it is arguably with the federal agencies or with private owners. This is why I think Trump's claim, ignoring climate change, is disingenuous.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a really good point with the 58% statistic. These forests are not merely California's responsibility, but also the federal governments as well. That being said I still think that California should put more funding, focus, and priority into its fire agencies, as we all share this land.
DeleteWhile it is a valid claim that California's fire management is not as good as it should be, withholding aid from a state and people in need of it is simply wrong. During a time of crisis such as where people are losing their homes to wildfires and being evacuated all in the midst of a pandemic is not the time to deny resources and assistance, and Trump should have sent as much help to California as he could in order to mitigate the spread of the fires and help those affected by it. Waiting to send help especially in the case of wildfires leads to thousands upon thousands more acres burning destroying everything in their wake, and clearly has very detrimental consequences. The argument made however that California's fire prevention and forest management should be better prepared is important and true, and having many experiences of destructive fire seasons in the past should teach us to more closely monitor and allocate resources to preventing such fires and destruction. With the changing climate, the likelihood of fires will only increase, so it is important to be able to use that knowledge and take actions accordingly.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia's fire management is an absolute disaster. Though the claim of the fires "stopping at the Canadian border" is bogus (the original claim literally only showed American data while excluding Canadian data), California not being able to clear forest debris, create fire lines, and generally maintain its forestry is the main problem; this is because of climate change overregulation, where these massive, dense forests do not undergo controlled burns or any attempt at fireproofing (and, as the article stated, anti-fire agencies are both underfunded and undermanned).
ReplyDeleteClimate change is also a large part of the problem, though not one California on its own can do much about, seeing as China, India, and Russia combined make about 3x more contributions to climate change than the USA, according to ucsusa.org (with China being 2x more on its own): it's doubtful that those countries, especially China, will change their ways, let alone the USA (and even if the USA would change, there's nothing California can do about it now). The hotter the temperature gets, the drier and more combustible the forests grow.
With all that said, President Trump denying fire aid is both unethical and thoroughly senseless from a political standpoint. There's not much else to say here, if you have a fire for any reason you should put it out instead of letting the victim burn for starting it. Hopefully, the new administration, and certainly Californian policy, shifts more to active fire prevention instead of dawdling on lofty promises of singlehandedly changing the climate.
Overall I agree with the majority of that which what you said. California fire management needs to become a higher priority. I don't see the harm in California trying to become a greener state. And while all those statistics on climate change are true, the U.S. is by far the worst carbon emissions per capita or proportionally speaking. China might have 2x the emissions, but they also have 3x our population.
DeleteClimate change I would say is 100% a reason why forest are MORE LIKELY to catch fire. Most fires in California are man-made, on purpose or by accident, because of how dry everything is in the forest because of climate change. I can't understand how Trump supposes that California manages millions of acres of forest across the state 24/7. To me it just seems like an irrational statement that was said to hide something else. Most likely, as stated in the summary, political reasons because he knows California won't support him in the election. Now by doing this, not sending aid, is Trump politically helping or hurting California?
ReplyDeleteI don't think Trump's reason to with hold aid is justified. Climate change is 100% the leading factor for the cause of California wildfires. We can only take preventative measures, like emitting less greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to slow down the rate of climate change and global warming, but simply improving forest management will not fix the problem. for example, in August, the Bay Area was hit with a lightening surge which caused very large wildfires. The lightening surge was caused by climate change and global warming and forest management may have made the situation slightly better, fires will would happened. At the end of the day, Trump is the President of the United States and is responsible for the well being of each state, along with the state government. Trump should not withhold aid, because it will only lead to more destruction.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteSimilar to the previous responses, I do not think Trump’s decision of withholding aid was justified. Trump’s resistance to providing aid to California has had detrimental effects. Not only would early aid save thousands of acres of land from burning, but it would also prevent thousands of people from losing their home. Though it is true California should improve their fire management, it is clear that his decision to hold off on aid was largely influenced by his political disagreements with California. Ultimately, as the President of the United States, it is Trump’s duty and responsibility to take care of his people, whether it's those who support his presidency or not; politics should never have priority over human life.
While I agree that California should be doing more to prepare for fires rather than waiting until they are already here, this is not an excuse for withholding aid. Saying that California will not receive aid until it "gets its act together" is the equivalent of telling a child they can't have desert until they finish their dinner. It's spiteful and petty and not how a president should act. When thousands of lives and homes are on the line, it is not a time to teach a lesson by withholding aid. As president, it is Trump's duty to fight for all American people regardless of where they live, which includes giving aid to help fight fires, ideally before they get out of hand and ruin thousands of lives.
ReplyDeleteThis post is closed; no new comments will be graded.
ReplyDelete