Article is behind a paywall, but my challenge to the excerpted portion is that its premise (current policies to reduce carbon emissions have been ineffective) doesn’t necessarily support a conclusion that differs from the consensus (we need new policies to control carbon emissions; our inability to control carbon emissions has resulted in the Earth becoming increasingly hot and prone to events like species extinctions/droughts/weather anomalies). I’ve seen very few (if any?) climate scientists make the claim that we’re on track to meaningfully reduce emissions enough to change the trajectory they anticipate we’re on.
What frustrates me isn’t that people are looking for practical solutions to solving the suddenly global wildfire crisis in ways that don’t involve accepting climate change to be effective, but rather that people are ignoring observable facts (global temperatures are rising, the Los Angeles area is exceptionally dry at the moment compared to all other recorded measurements, trees in Boreal climates are burning at alarming rates) and looking for the first solution that can blame LGBT people or some other social policy they dislike. In a situation where hundreds of fires are burning at once and being carried by intense winds that ignite even more fires, people are talking about Karen Bass being in Africa, promos for Fox television dramas where an official in the LAFD said something dumb and Los Angeles spending money on the homeless.
