Where's an Environmentalist when you need one

[C-Mag]

We should eat meat from animals that doesn't graze on farmable land or eat farm crops. More chicken, goat, lamb rabbit pork and game meat. Feed the chicken insects bread from waste instead of corn and let goats and sheep graze on rocky ground and other places we don't use for farming. Cows like it in forests and wetlands as well.
We should take better care of our food waste and give it to the pigs. That's what they're for.
It will be more expensive meat but it will be sustainable and it will taste better.
We don't need to eat as much meat as we do but we don't need to give it up completely either.

Can you claim to be sustainable or support sustainable living if you aren't raising a considerable portion of your own food ?

[Hastur]

We should eat meat from animals that doesn't graze on farmable land or eat farm crops. More chicken, goat, lamb rabbit pork and game meat. Feed the chicken insects bread from waste instead of corn and let goats and sheep graze on rocky ground and other places we don't use for farming. Cows like it in forests and wetlands as well.
We should take better care of our food waste and give it to the pigs. That's what they're for.
It will be more expensive meat but it will be sustainable and it will taste better.
We don't need to eat as much meat as we do but we don't need to give it up completely either.

Can you claim to be sustainable or support sustainable living if you aren't raising a considerable portion of your own food ?

Yes
You might provide essential services to someone raising food. Everyone does what they are the best at.

[C-Mag]

We should eat meat from animals that doesn't graze on farmable land or eat farm crops. More chicken, goat, lamb rabbit pork and game meat. Feed the chicken insects bread from waste instead of corn and let goats and sheep graze on rocky ground and other places we don't use for farming. Cows like it in forests and wetlands as well.
We should take better care of our food waste and give it to the pigs. That's what they're for.
It will be more expensive meat but it will be sustainable and it will taste better.
We don't need to eat as much meat as we do but we don't need to give it up completely either.

Can you claim to be sustainable or support sustainable living if you aren't raising a considerable portion of your own food ?

Yes
You might provide essential services to someone raising food. Everyone does what they are the best at.

Fair enough.
My comment is reference to our Coastal Elites who live lavish lifestyles and claim to be sustainable.

What you outlined on food production is exactly 3rd world country subsistence farming

[PartyOf5]

I could put this in the why no one trusts the media thread, but it fits here too.

Before Trump was POTUS, California had numerous forest fires. One of the main reasons we heard about in the media was the lack of clearing out dead brush because the environmentalists found ways slow down the process.

Jump to today and we have more out of control wildfires in CA. The POTUS points out what was already established ( and widely agreed upon) knowledge, that the lack of clearing is making these worse. Because Trump said it the media now makes it their daily mission to try and shame and ridicule him for saying it.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I could put this in the why no one trusts the media thread, but it fits here too.

Before Trump was POTUS, California had numerous forest fires. One of the main reasons we heard about in the media was the lack of clearing out dead brush because the environmentalists found ways slow down the process.

Jump to today and we have more out of control wildfires in CA. The POTUS points out what was already established ( and widely agreed upon) knowledge, that the lack of clearing is making these worse. Because Trump said it the media now makes it their daily mission to try and shame and ridicule him for saying it.

He’s right, but how would this realistically be done? Huge government teams of brush-clearers sweeping millions of acres of forest?

The only way to do it would be controlled burns, that probably wouldn’t stay controlled.

That’s too much risk for beurocrats to stomach.

[Speaker to Animals]

Fire of any kind is really bad news when you don't clear it out first.

[heydaralon]

I am visiting Paradise California for Christmas so I'm concerned this might have an effect on our travel plans.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I am visiting Paradise California for Christmas so I'm concerned this might have an effect on our travel plans.

It’s not there anymore.

[heydaralon]

I am visiting Paradise California for Christmas so I'm concerned this might have an effect on our travel plans.

It’s not there anymore.

Well, Christmas is over a month away. They can probably get a lot of that fire stuff sorted out by then. Clear a few trees off the road, and sweep up a little ash, and its not too bad I wouldn't think.

[JohnDonne]

If one wishes to live near or in a forest can one expect that the natural cycles will halt indefinitely on their behalf?

Government has been doing back burns, logging, clear-cutting, and annual brush clearing for a long time. There is less forest on Earth than any time in human history. There are half as many trees as there were since the dawn of humanity, no less than an astonishing fact. Year after year we brush roads, create containment lines, contingency lines, run dozers through the woods, burn slash piles and initiate prescribed burns in the winter, yet the same areas burn over and over again. And every year the fire season seems to get longer, hotter, drier.

Perhaps it is not the trees, but the droughts and rising temperatures that are responsible for increased fire activity. In any case firefighters call it "job security."

It is well known within the fire industry that Federal focus has shifted in recent years from initial attack suppression to "big box" theory, i.e. enclose the fire in a large containment areas and burn everything. Many crews, including the elite suppression agencies are getting less experience at hotline than previous seasons. Is this a good thing? In some ways, yes, many of these areas would have burned in years past if not for suppression. This frees resources to create containment lines for future seasons. Yet man's activity is brutal to the wilderness as much as the wilderness is brutal to man.

For example, I have witnessed delicate riparian areas that are otherwise protected get targeted for mastication and harvest when in proximity to a fire despite basically zero chance of burn. The wonders of nature are often sacrificed to government and private interests.

I guess what I'm saying is we're doing all the things you're claiming the environmentalists have stopped us from doing, we're doing it a lot, it's costing a lot of money. Maybe there is no solution other than to remove forests entirely in favor of human settlements, if we are not willing to bear the costs.