• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

The Great Los Angeles Fire of 2025


On the low end private firefighters are getting $500 to $2000 per day.
On the high end, $2000 an hour. :crazyeye:


Here is the other side of the coin.
Prisoners get $10 per day.
Or up to $27 per day with lots of emergency pay.


The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has deployed 931 incarcerated firefighters and 114 support staff as of Sunday.

The volunteers earn between $5.80 and $10.24 per day, plus an extra dollar per hour during emergencies, according to the CDCR.

The incarcerated people work with Cal Fire officials in 24-hour shifts.
 
The fires have finally stopped growing. :D


The Palisades Fire remains at 23,713 acres and is 17% contained, according to updated Cal Fire numbers this morning.

The Eaton Fire is at 14,117 acres and is 35% contained.

The Hurst Fire spans 799 acres and is 97% contained.

The newest addition, the Auto Fire, has burned through 56 acres and is zero percent contained.

The Auto Fire is between Ventura and Oxnard I think?
To the west of Malibu/Palisades if you follow the shoreline.
Hopefully it stays small.
 
What are the conditions?

Based on what they’ve hinted at it looks like they want much looser environmental regulations in the state. They keep coming back to bad water/forest/air laws. A couple have mentioned local leadership being gutted by “DEI” but that’s more nebulous probably in terms of what policy they could extract .
 
The fires have finally stopped growing. :D




The Auto Fire is between Ventura and Oxnard I think?
To the west of Malibu/Palisades if you follow the shoreline.
Hopefully it stays small.
Probably stating the obvious, but even a small percentage of containment from my observations over the years is a huge sign that the situation is turning. The other day one of the fires was at around 6% it seems that the level of containment grows exponentially as more time passes and the weather cooperates. I live around 100 + miles from the current fires and the Santa Ana conditions here are mild I would not even call it a Santa Ana its just a bit warm and occasionally breezy, I know the wind speed is typically higher in mountainous regions but I think the wind event in the fire stricken region are not as bad as they feared they would be. Its going to improve over the next couple of days and much more so once the winds shift from offshore to onshore, the additional humidity from the onshore winds will give the fire fighters some breathing room.
 
After a couple weeks, the fires are mostly contained now.

However, another giant fire has started up about 30 to 40 miles north of Pacific Palisades.



They are fighting the new fire hard on the south side so Santa Clarita doesn't burn down.
 

Climate change made LA fires worse, scientists say​

Climate change was a major factor behind the hot, dry weather that gave rise to the devastating LA fires, a scientific study has confirmed.

It made those weather conditions about 35% more likely, according to World Weather Attribution - globally recognised for their studies linking extreme weather to climate change.

The authors noted that the LA wildfire season is getting longer while the rains that normally put out the blazes have reduced.

The scientists highlight that these wildfires are highly complex with multiple factors playing a role, but they are confident that a warming climate is making LA more prone to intense fire events.

"Climate change increased the risk of the devastating LA wildfires," said Dr Clair Barnes, from Imperial College London, the study's lead author.

"Drought conditions are more frequently pushing into winter, increasing the chance a fire will break out during strong Santa Ana winds that can turn small ignitions into deadly infernos."

The Santa Ana winds are strong and gusty east or north-easterly winds that blow from inland California towards the coast.

Around 30 people have died and more than 10,000 homes have been destroyed in the fast-spreading, destructive fires that broke out in early January.

This new study looks at what are termed the fire-prone conditions that can lead to dangerous conflagrations.

It's been carried out by a team of researchers from World Weather Attribution (WWA), a global group that publishes rapid analyses of climate-related weather events.

They use climate models to simulate how the warming that has occurred since the middle of the 19th century is influencing heatwaves, droughts, floods and fires.

The widespread burning of coal, oil and gas in the wake of the industrial revolution has driven billions of tonnes of planet-warming gases into the atmosphere.

Acting like a blanket, these gases have driven up temperatures by around 1.2C since then.

By using climate models and statistical methods along with real world observations, the WWA group have been able to show how much of an influence climate warming has had on extreme events.

In the case of the LA fires, they found that the hot, dry conditions that drove them are expected to occur once every 17 years.

This is an increase in likelihood of around 35% compared to a world that hadn't experienced warming.

"We actually see that the models show very much the same results that the [real world] observations have," said Dr Friederike Otto, the head of World Weather Attribution.

"So there, in this combined index, we are quite confident about the result... we have actually a signal that we can say that we definitely can attribute that, also quantitatively."

The researchers also examined other important variables that can lead to wildfire including the length of the fire season.

By analysing weather observations, the scientists found that this has increased by around 23 days since the world began warming, around 1850.

The team say that this means the dry conditions and the Santa Ana winds that are crucial for the spread of fires, are increasingly overlapping.

Another key element is drought.

Dry conditions in the LA area over the October to December period are now about 2.4 times more likely than before humans starting using fossil fuels on a large scale.

The researchers are clear that climate change increased the probability of the hot, dry conditions that gave rise to the fires.

However, the authors are more cautious about the link between rising temperatures and the longer fire season or decreased rainfall, saying that the models did not show a significant connection.

Despite these reservations, the conclusion is that a warmer world increased the chances of the devastating wildfires occurring - as more fossil fuels continue to be burnt, those chances will continue to rise.

"Overall the paper finds that climate change has made the Los Angeles fires more likely despite some statistical uncertainty," said Prof Gabi Hegerl, from the University of Edinburgh, who was not part of the study team.

"This is a carefully researched result that should be taken seriously," she said in a statement.

The new work builds on research that was published while the fires were still burning fiercely.

That study linked the wildfires to what's termed "climate whiplash."

The idea is that very wet years are followed almost immediately by very dry ones, which increases the risk of fires.

This is what happened in LA, when two wet winters were followed by an extremely dry autumn and winter this year – the wet weather promoted the growth of grass and shrubs that became the fuel for the fires that took off in the gusting Santa Ana winds.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd9qy4knd8wo
 
There is a giant benefit concert being put on tomorrow called Fire Aid.

Thursday, January 30th, 2025
6-11P.M. West coast timezone.
3-8P.M. Eastern timezone.

Streaming on YouTube, Prime Video, Apple TV+, and numerous other sites.


It is so big it will take place in 2 stadiums at once.
A big stage and a giant TV in each.

Each band will play 2 to 4 songs, then alternate to the other stadium back and forth.

They will try to raise money for the parts of L.A. that burned down.

Lots of big names.

Billie Eilish, Gracie Abrams, Jelly Roll, Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, Lil Baby, Olivia Rodrigo, Peso Pluma, Rod Stewart, Stevie Wonder, Sting, Tate McRae and Earth, Wind & Fire will perform at the Intuit Dome.

Alanis Morissette, Anderson .Paak, Dawes, Graham Nash, Green Day, John Fogerty, Joni Mitchell, No Doubt, Pink, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Stephen Stills, Stevie Nicks, the Black Crowes, Dave Matthews and John Mayer will perform at the Kia Forum.

FireAid will also feature special guest appearances and surprises.
 
"FireAid will also feature special guest appearances and surprises."

John Lennon and George Harrison would be nice! But I'd settle for Mick and Keith. Maybe Graham Nash and Stephen Stills will do a duo act!
 
Republican leadership, including Trump, Mike Johnson, and others, are now stating they plan to make aid to California for the fires conditional on California immediately embracing significant far right policies. This kind of conditioning for aid is unheard of in modern American history. Disasters being weaponized by the feds was already sort of here on account of Republicans but this would be an incredible escalation of cruelty and another declaration that non Republicans are non Americans.
Voter ID is not a "far right policy."
 
Voter ID is not a "far right policy."
Have some UK-contextual opinions on that, if you don't mind:
And now let's tie it back to Trump:
I understand you may disagree with a bunch of the reasoning presented, and perhaps even some of the conclusions. But that's somewhat immaterial to what part of the political spectrum such a move appeals to. If voter ID can be argued to have a suppressive effect, forcing it in what is seen as a "liberal" state has obviously intentional consequences for voter turnout.

Tying it to disaster aid is also morally bankrupt, but that's another tangent.
 
I understand you may disagree with a bunch of the reasoning presented, and perhaps even some of the conclusions. But that's somewhat immaterial to what part of the political spectrum such a move appeals to. If voter ID can be argued to have a suppressive effect, forcing it in what is seen as a "liberal" state has obviously intentional consequences for voter turnout.

Tying it to disaster aid is also morally bankrupt, but that's another tangent.
Buddy, a California ID costs $30, and an ID is required for practically everything. It's not a voter suppressive policy unless you infantilize some people as being incapable of scraping together $30... and in California homeless people can get an ID for free, and if you're poor you can get reduced cost.

 
Buddy, a California ID costs $30, and an ID is required for practically everything. It's not a voter suppressive policy unless you infantilize some people as being incapable of scraping together $30... and in California homeless people can get an ID for free, and if you're poor you can get reduced cost.

The argument wasn't "whether people in California could afford one". The argument was "is it a far-right policy", and I feel there's sufficient evidence to at least call it right-wing, and solidly so at that.
 
The argument wasn't "whether people in California could afford one". The argument was "is it a far-right policy", and I feel there's sufficient evidence to at least call it right-wing, and solidly so at that.
So if I infantilize people and think that they are too incapable of acquiring an ID, that makes me moderate. But if I think that there's no real reason for people not to have an ID, that it's not that expensive and is so important for many functions in society that it's reasonable to expect people to have one to vote, that makes me far right. Heh.
 
So if I infantilize people and think that they are too incapable of acquiring an ID, that makes me moderate. But if I think that there's no real reason for people not to have an ID, that it's not that expensive and is so important for many functions in society that it's reasonable to expect people to have one to vote, that makes me far right. Heh.
Your opinion, and my opinion, aren't relevant to the point being made. The point being made was the political position of the policy itself.

If you want to choose to defend the policy, or attempt to insult me by claiming I'm "infantalising" others, these are things you're choosing to do. What did I do to deserve the latter? How would you react if someone tried that kind of language with your own posts?
 
*taps sign*
Your opinion, and my opinion, aren't relevant to the point being made. The point being made was the political position of the policy itself.
Continuing to misrepresent somebody's argument is something you've literally criticised others for doing to you! It really is strange.
 
*taps sign*

Continuing to misrepresent somebody's argument is something you've literally criticised others for doing to you! It really is strange.
What argument did I misrepresent? How is a policy favored by 79% of people "far right"? If that's far right, then I guess Bernie Sanders is a moderate conservative?
 
What argument did I misrepresent? How is a policy favored by 79% of people "far right"? If that's far right, then I guess Bernie Sanders is a moderate conservative?
Policy position isn't determined by the regular voters that end up supporting it. At least, that wasn't my argument, nor was I calling people in favour of it automatically far-right.

(this is, of course, assuming in good faith that voter ID is the only such policy California is being mandated to accept in exchange for aid, given that all GoodEnoughForMe said was "immediately embracing significant far right policies")
 
Top Bottom