I have written about this and other climate change realities often on HN. It is always met with what I usually refer to as violent rejection. Of course, I understand why this is so. With so many players in this game seeking to benefit from selling a narrative (be it political or financial) it is nearly impossible to counter the carpet-bombing of distorted information that hits the masses on this topic day after day. It's the old adage about about what happens if you repeat something enough times.

The actual headline from the linked page is, one could say, somewhat deceiving. You have to at least read the first paragraph, quoted below, to understand the gravity of what is being reported:

"A new analysis led by researchers with the University of California has found the 2020 wildfires in the state, the most disastrous wildfire year on record, put twice as much greenhouse gas emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere as the total reduction in such pollutants in California between 2003-2019."

A few sentences later, further driving the point home:

"Wildfire emissions in 2020 essentially negate 18 years of reductions in greenhouse gas emission."

Even simpler:

1 year of forest fires >= 18 years of GHG emission reductions

And that, to a greater or lesser degree, happens here in CA every year. For some who don't live here I think what's missing is to actually experience the awesome scale of these events. Some simply can't understand something until they can feel it. I lost count of how many such fires I have experienced. Nothing like having your neighborhood encircled by a fire to see and feel the scale of the event.

I will categorically state that there is no way we can win this battle through any form of emission reduction. That includes a full transition to electric ground transportation. This isn't to say we should not try to clean-up our acts and strive for EV's. Not at all.

My point has always been the same: These things (EV's, reducing emissions, etc.) are good because, well, they are. Marketing them as effective ways to counter atmospheric CO2 concentration is nothing less than a cruel fantasy. The problem is that the masses buy into this (most people are not equipped to evaluate such things analytically), which leads to companies and politicians pushing false narratives benefiting while, at the end of the day, we don't even make a dent.

One year of fires negated 18 years of reductions.

Anyone with one gram of common sense would easily conclude that the forced reductions and the narrative being pushed isn't a solution at all. We are wasting time and money that could be applied towards real solutions.

Solar is another example of this. It's great. I invested in solar. However, it isn't at all a solution for atmospheric CO2 reduction. Even if we install the most optimal forms of renewable energy throughout the land and replace all fossil fuel energy production we will not stop the rise in atmospheric CO2. It will continue to rise as it has.

What we need is honest conversation based on facts and science, not politics and the financial interests of those making an absolute killing with narratives that are, to put it bluntly, nothing but lies.

NOTE:

Reading through the comments I see such things as "bad forest management". I understand where this comes from and, yes, some of that is true. However, it betrays a lack of understanding due to not living here. The largest and most damaging fires we have every year are not forest fires. They are brush fires. Yes, large numbers of trees are burned, however, entire mountains covered in vegetation colloquially referred to as "brush" burn every year. Tens of thousands of acres at a time.

This stuff is impossible to manage. You just can't. The best you can do is control the burn to protect homes. That's it. That's what they do. They pretty much let it burn. You don't have enough fire-fighting aircraft and resources anywhere to actually stop these monsters unless you happen to be able to catch one within a very short window of opportunity after they start. The combination of large brush fires and wind (and their self-generated air currents due to convection) makes for fast-moving ferocious fires that do as they please.

In other words, the forest management narrative is only valid to a point. Ironically enough, cutting down trees and brush is likely the only way to prevent and control these massive CO2 generating fires. Ironic because we need trees to capture CO2.

Not an easy problem.

And it is much harder to find solutions when we accept lies and misinformation for the sake of politics and profit.