I lived in India, in Vadodara, for 5 months as a student back in 2000. While there, I got to travel around a lot of the country. When I visited Delhi, every night when I returned to the hotel, my nose would be all stuffed up from the pollution. When I cleared it out, what came out of it onto the tissue was black with pollution. A few years later, I lived in Moscow. The times I would leave the city and get way out into a forest to go for a hike, my lungs would burn from inhaling the super clean air.
The NYT reviewed a study that shows that the yearly burnt surface in the US in prehistoric times was about 5 times what it is today. There are species that are adapted to live on burnt soil that are facing extinction because of lack of fires. So highlighting human-started fires is just selective reporting. There is a federal agency tasked with suppressing them. Why not mention that? Because you’ve decided you are against fires in advance, like the logging industry or the real estate industry. So you select the facts you want, and sell those. What kind of information is that? Being in balance with Nature means accepting that it does sometime things we don’t like.
What’s the paper that was referenced in Lancet? How is a science podcast referring to a massive number like “9 million” from a scientific journal and then not referencing the paper?
Comments are closed.