Trump's Plan to Save the Forests

a reply to: TDDAgain

I briefly read your link. I think the equivalent in the English language would be renaturing which would be a more human orientated form of rewilding an area. There's a few small scale projects in the UK but here they'd all be "small scale" because we don't have huge rivers and the likes. There's not that much info out there tbh.

I'm not sure how viable such projects would be on a huge scale in a place like California, I'm also not too sure Trump was actually referencing projects such as renaturing lands. Personally I'm a fan of such projects but in understanding the positivity of such projects one must understand the degradational impact humans have had in lands and waterways which seems to be a stumbling block when I've personally raised topics like this here.
Probably something to do with man made climate change and all the politics involved...

You've seen first hand what humans usually do with the wild with your little piece of forest, it's high time we better utilise our resources for the benefit of more than 1 species because in the end the evidence points towards our shortsighted greed being the main culprit in the fall of biodiversity and the rise of ecological disasters, Especially when it comes to water management. In my eyes the issues go hand in hand.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Before The UAE I'd be inclined to jump on this and Trump, but they have produced rain so heavy they need to accompany their cloud seeding technology with rain upgrades. They can increase rain chances up to 35%. Saudi Arabia has since adopted the practice for the Hajis (technical term) because they do it June in Saudi Arabia.

California could do that. Just aerosols and planes. I think they have it logistically.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
www.businessinsider.com...

''Trump suggested that the Golden State's rougly 33 million acres of forest should be kept damp while speaking at a California Republicans' convention in Anaheim on Friday.''

"They say that there's so much water up north that I want to have the overflow areas go into your forests and dampen your forests, because if you dampen your forests you're not gonna have these forest fires that are burning at levels that nobody's ever seen," Trump said to a cheering crowd.

"All the currently dry canals will be brimming and used to irrigate everything, including your own homes and bathrooms and everything, you're going to be happy, and I'm going to get it done fast," he added.

What a GD idiot.

Disagree. There are lots of different approaches to administrating water and forest management than California's short sighted approach, and California's short sighted approach to addressing these issues is a big part of the problem and probably the main reason why they have these problems.

I suspect there might be a bit of geocentrism going on here with many Californians not really giving enough thought to the problem, and summarily deciding that if the proposed solution wasn't sparked by one of their resident academic experts, then it must not be a very good one.

The problem with that is that those resident experts are most likely beholden to moneyed interests who have strong economic incentives to implement the solutions that they do instead of a different novel approach, whether those 'experts' realize it or not. I'll get into that a little bit farther on.

Question 1. Who are the GD idiots who were cheering this GD idiot when he was proposing this.

Might be the farmers. You know, all those folks in the valleys of California who have looked forlornly at the extensive canal networks that have existed for decades sitting dry so that hydroelectric power companies can let the water out of the dams when those companies can make the most money from the power generated rather than doing so at times when it might benefit the farmers or the environment.

Canals full of water generate a lot of evaporation. I know, I know, "evaporative water loss!!!" you're screaming at the screen, but there's your short sighted vision of stewarding the environment that you were taught by the 'experts' kicking in again. Evaporation means cloud formation, which translates into a higher annual rainfall.

Inland California needs this, because the coastal mountain ranges that run up and down the coast tend to make the moisture laden clouds that blow in from the Pacific on the trade winds dump most of that moisture as they make that climb over the coastal mountain range.

Without the lakes and wetlands that used to exist in those inland valleys, you won't get that evaporation unless you allow those canal networks to operate. Kind of puts the repeated cries of 'We're still in a drought!' even during record rainfall years in perspective, when you take the greed of the hydroelectric power companies into consideration.

Let's not forget the other efficient water thieves though. I'm sure the farmers haven't forgotten them. The coastal cities who receive all of the freshwater that the farmers don't get anymore. They say it's to protect an endangered species of bait fish (a novel species of smelt), but that doesn't stop those coastal communities from taking a big long drink of that fresh water before it reaches the ocean.

Too bad those coastal communities won't do the work, and build enough desalination plants to supply their own water needs. Seems they're more content to screw up the environment while pretending they're protecting the environment, so that they can steal some cheap water.

While we're on the subject of water theft, let's not forget LA county, who steals a lot of its water from the communities on the Eastern slope of the Sierra Nevadas. They've been ordered by the courts to restore the wetlands in the region and allow Owens Lake to refill, but they consistently drag their feet. Who's to stop them? The 15,000 residents of Inyo County, one of the largest counties in the state? LA County owns 90% of the property there, so they technically own the water rights. I mean, who cares about the dust problems that Eastern California has to deal with, and the lack of beneficial evaporation that COULD be occurring there? LA needs a drink! Desalination? Pshaw! Let's just steal it from Bishop and Olancha! It's our water anyway, we own that county!

Question 2. Who the hell are ''they'' that were saying these things that he heard. He uses this '''authority'' to base much of his thinking on. Maybe it's
time for someone to pin him down and ask him just who the hell these idiots he is listening to are.

See above paragraphs. I'll add to that that it seems as though mainstream environmentalism, and water and forest management, schools of thought have developed their own paradigms as to what would be best for the environment and have decided that they should champion those, even if it's at the expense of a better idea. As a result, it looks like alternative approaches are pushed to the fringe and not given much consideration.

Like the concept of allowing fallen leaves and other detritus to accumulate in watershed areas where small portions of the annual runoff could be diverted to allow accumulation and wetland creation, recharging aquifers, promoting beneficial soil regeneration, while tending to preempt out of control mosquito growth.

Like the Gujarat water management system, a traditional water management system from ancient India, where you strategically create ponds, lakes, and wetlands all along the waterway. Portions of India were doing this back in the early 80's. I read about it in a special water issue of National Geographic(I collect old NG's as a hobby). Out of room!

Question 3. Has he given any thought, I mean even a cursory second thought on where these places are that have so much water all the time that they can pipe water to California to take care of Californians home water needs let alone to dampen the millions of acres of forest land?
Oregon? No, Oregon has i'ts own problem with drought. Washington? More rain there but enough to share? And it would be share as he also says it would be free.

Trump: We can actually dampen our forests with water that costs us nothing that will come pouring down. If you had dampened floors, you wouldn’t have forest fires

www.thebiglead.com...


Question 4. What is his plan to get this done FAST. Fast being what, one month? Two months? A year? He's going to get all those canals built to ''where there is water'' in a year? Get the pumps necessary to pump it. Buy all the land that those canals will run through? Pump billions of gallons of water from Washington or Canada all the way though Oregon and then all the way from Northern California south down to Anaheim where all those idiots who were cheering him on could water their lawns? What a GD Idiot.

Question 5. How many other questions could we come up with to ask him, or anyone who would think that this idea is realistic. AT ALL.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

As I was saying, I read about it in an old issue of National Geographic. Don't see much writing about it anywhere else though. I wonder why? It almost seems as if, perhaps, there were some moneyed interests with powerful incentives to execute an agenda at the expense of better ideas...nah, couldn't be.

Question 3. Has he given any thought, I mean even a cursory second thought on where these places are that have so much water all the time that they can pipe water to California to take care of Californians home water needs let alone to dampen the millions of acres of forest land?
Oregon? No, Oregon has i'ts own problem with drought. Washington? More rain there but enough to share? And it would be share as he also says it would be free.

See above paragraphs, see also earlier replies by other users. The waterways are already there. Most of the infrastructure is already there. Of course, Mr. Trump may be right in that there would be other beneficial infrastructure that could be added, not sure about that.

If that is the case, what we're talking about is essentially a ditch digging project. With modern earth moving equipment, that could happen very quickly. The most time consuming part would probably be securing the rights of way for such infrastructure.

Trump: We can actually dampen our forests with water that costs us nothing that will come pouring down. If you had dampened floors, you wouldn’t have forest fires

www.thebiglead.com...


Question 4. What is his plan to get this done FAST. Fast being what, one month? Two months? A year? He's going to get all those canals built to ''where there is water'' in a year? Get the pumps necessary to pump it. Buy all the land that those canals will run through? Pump billions of gallons of water from Washington or Canada all the way though Oregon and then all the way from Northern California south down to Anaheim where all those idiots who were cheering him on could water their lawns? What a GD Idiot.

Question 5. How many other questions could we come up with to ask him, or anyone who would think that this idea is realistic. AT ALL.

Again, it's a ditch digging project. This is elementary civil engineering. It might have taken the Romans a long time, doesn't mean it needs to take us that long.

Speaking of ditch digging, the "Sea To Sea" project bears mentioning in this type of discussion. Connecting Death Valley and the Salton Sea with the Pacific. These are all areas that are below sea level, and have been inland seas in the distant past, so salt contamination of the soil is a non-issue, as these are mostly salt flats already.

It would eliminate the toxic dust hazards to inland residents, create lots of inland evaporation, not to mention lots of resort communities and opportunities for inexpensive desalination projects, but it has of course been voted down and decried as too monumental of an undertaking to attempt, though in reality it essentially a...wait for it...ditch digging project.

Other potential concepts that could benefit California's ecology are taking a look at Oklahoma's water management policies. A state with few rivers, Oklahoma is no longer water poor because of the large number of man made lakes it created to prevent future "dust bowl" type situations after enduring that catastrophe in the 1930's.

Another is to encourage Californians to pee outside more often. Sounds silly, I know, but that's a lot of evaporation that could be generated.

I've spent most of these replies commenting on water management because I think poor water management is directly tied to California's forest management problems.

Raking most detritus into restored wetland areas should encourage soil regeneration from the composting of said detritus, while at the same time the mulch covering the tops of such areas should prevent some evaporation losses and prevent excessive mosquito proliferation. In addition to helping prevent forest fire and the aforementioned benefits, this has the added benefit of recharging aquifers.

Couldn't he just use a sharpie to extend some rivers on a map?

originally posted by: Mahogany
He also thought you could cure covid by perhaps injecting bleach into people,

No he didn't.

originally posted by: nugget1
Trump seems to explain things coming from a layman's viewpoint,..

Yep. He's not an expert in the field of forestry, obviously. No politician is.
But he's got an idea and has suggested it. Maybe do studies on it.
It's better than doing nothing which is going on now.

originally posted by: 1947boomer
When Trump was POTUS he was in charge of the national forests.

The POTUS is not in charge of national forests.
That would be the US Forest Service under the Department of Agriculture.
CLICK HERE

originally posted by: LordAhriman

I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning?

Bleach, disinfectant, potato, potato.

Yeah .... do 'something LIKE that' ... he never said to inject bleach.
That's a left wing twisted talking point.
Trump says enough things that are screwed up.
No need to make up crap like 'he said to inject bleach'.
But that's another topic so I'll drop it there.

Jeez, I sure do feel silly getting dried wood for the furnace. Here I was, thinking I knew it was worth spending extra money on dry wood for something important like my furnace when I could have just used damp wood?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

a reply to: TerryMcGuire
You and the media appear to have taken Trump out of context once again.

I'll be the first to say Trump lacks certain levels of eloquence that are required when conveying these things. But that doesn't mean he is wrong. Just because YOU lack the knowledge to understand what he's referring to. I get the impression you don't have a very firm grasp of how the natural world works.

California is experiencing man made desertification because of water mismanagement. It appears Trump wants to try and fix it. What's so wrong with that?

Is it because it's Trump suggesting it that's got you all worked up?

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Remember he also did not understand why we could not "nuke hurricanes"

While I do think it would be interesting to see what a powerful(Bikini H-bomb or even Tsar bomba) would do to the eye of the storm, the fallout from the radiation would be a nightmare as the storm would literally be radioactive.

Yet we have so many who think that man is incredibly smart which gives us an idea of where the intellect level is.

originally posted by: ITSALIVE
Jeez, I sure do feel silly getting dried wood for the furnace. Here I was, thinking I knew it was worth spending extra money on dry wood for something important like my furnace when I could have just used damp wood?

Does your wood ever get rained on? Mine does. Still burns.

Another nice Sunday with the bonus of "Ooooo time to mention what a dumb-### Trump is!!!"
It's pretty obvious plenty of folks love him an REAL obvious the Dems can't find anyone not worse to run against him.
Fortunately we can all agree on a few things.

There are Parrots with a more proficent working English vocabulary.
Trump has no actual working knowledge of science.
Not a glimmer, not a clue an can't be bothered keeping anyone versed in it anywhere near him. It's weird he can't even find a couple of science geeks who'd go golfing with him? The optics wouldn't hurt & I'd at least know he's trying.

I think we can also agree that no President ever has the ability to do what we "think they can" or even what "they think they can" in office. The US Govt has grown prolly faster than our economy an if we aren't at the tipping point of it dwarfing the economy I'd be surprised.

So back to taking the fun out of Trump-Bashing. WHY????
Everyone I'm sure knows somebody who's great at lots of stuff, but then there's that "one thing" you absolutely can't fathom How/Why?/OMG that they do that just takes you aback every single time in shock. Doesn't mean they aren't excellent in their career, or a role model, or just a fantastic human being. It's just dammmmn! Really??
Seriously, everyone in this thread has done something dumb at one time or another. We just don't have the press chasing us around telling the entire world.

When Trump's being a dumb-### it's ok to say so.
It'd be much scarier if he did effed up stuff an nobody noticed.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

I like your addition Mr. Cabbie. It sounds almost ideal. Ideal in the sense that if we were to establish these policies and practices we could alleviate a lot of our problems of with water sources and distribution. However this is not the sense of what I got from Trump's statements. Implementing the ideas you have brought up would take time, quite a bit of time I'm supposing. If brought about by a centralized authority it would take dislocating swaths of people from where ever it is they are living. Poor people from rural areas and rich people from their estates that would be in the path of different aspects of the transformation.

I just cannot rap my head around the idea that Trump would have all of these major changes to our water and fire problems in mind when he made his promises to that gathering. He promised it would be easy, he promised he could do it fast. Simple, easy and fast. That is what he was offering to those people. And that, it seems to me was all they thought it would take. Because He promised. Any failure of course should he encounter in putting a plan into practice would of course be because of the liberals who opposed him. A nice excuse rapped up with a pretty bow.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

It almost seems as if, perhaps, there were some moneyed interests with powerful incentives to execute an agenda at the expense of better ideas...nah, couldn't be.

Of course. Those who have managed to reach a life style to become a ''moneyed interest'' can and will do what they want because they believe that they are smarter and generally better than the poor. Public projects have a sad history of being stymied by the private interests of the ''moneyed class'' Trump was born into that class I here and for now, remains there.

The waterways are already there. Most of the infrastructure is already there. Of course, Mr. Trump may be right in that there would be other beneficial infrastructure that could be added, not sure about that.

I lived in Northern California for most of my life. I ranged the breath and width of NC from the mountains to the sea in my youth and while I know about the canals and wager sources they are just not plentiful enough to accomplish the task required to water the forests and provide the household needs of clea water that he was promising. So certainly, more infrastructure would be needed.And that would be expensive and certainly not a fast project that he was promising and his supporters were thinking he could bring them

I know about the Hetch Hetchy water project that brings fresh water from the High Sierras to San Francisco. This was a grand project that brought water 200 miles into the city. It was established by the rich business owners of the city not only for the city but also so that they could have plenty of fresh water for themselves to water their large estates on the southern peninsula.

Another is to encourage Californians to pee outside more often. Sounds silly, I know, but that's a lot of evaporation that could be generated.

I know I did. Had a friend once who got all peed off because I peed on a redwood out in the forests of Pescadero. But I wonder just how well it would go over in the cities and suburbs if men were dangling their john thomases or women sqatting in the street every time they had to pee. Plus there are laws against public peeing. Indecent exposure laws, But that is an entirely different topic. A country boycan pee where ever he wants pretty much, around the side of the house or barn or whatever.

a reply to: JAY1980

You claim that he was quoted out of context. Those were quotes. Would you like to present the real context from within which those quotes were quoted? It might help your argument to do so, otherwise I will just have to accept your addition as contrarian.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Remember he also did not understand why we could not "nuke hurricanes"

While I do think it would be interesting to see what a powerful(Bikini H-bomb or even Tsar bomba) would do to the eye of the storm, the fallout from the radiation would be a nightmare as the storm would literally be radioactive.

Yet we have so many who think that man is incredibly smart which gives us an idea of where the intellect level is.

Oh yes, I remember. He has presented a plethora of lame brained solutions to our problems. Some say that he has a natural way of speaking to those who do not have the capacity to understand more complex orders of thinking and so he can speak to the common people in a way they can understand. There was at least one defense earlier in the thread that used that excuse.

Donald Trump's plan is better than anything than anyone else has come up with, which is basically nothing. Rather than have these fires every year, you would think that something would be on the table, except "let it burn".

You do not call him an idiot for attempting to come up with a solution, and actually the real idiots are those that do not fervently search for a solution that live there as well as the agencies we pay big bucks to solve environmental problems like this.

Donald Trump is a smart man, up against an army of idiots in our capital. Getting behind him will save this country and who knows, perhaps the California forests as well.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

I'm guessing he plans to use American taxpayer's money to fund this project instead of giving it all to Ukraine. How dare he try to spend our money on our own country for a change again!