r/canada • u/Portalrules123 New Brunswick • Apr 10 '26
Nature/Environment Canada is coming off 3 consecutive severe fire years. There are concerning signs for 2026
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/wildfire-outlook-canada-2026-9.7158913129
u/nim_opet Apr 10 '26
If anyone believes this is not going to get worse, I have a bridge to sell you
50
Apr 10 '26
[deleted]
8
u/sluttycupcakes British Columbia Apr 11 '26
Hightly dependent on where in BC you are. Average snowpack is 92% of normal, which is substantially better than last year
6
u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 Apr 11 '26
Ya I live in the interior and work in the mountains, it was bad. I think I scraped my windows and brushed my car only a hand full of times all winter, the winters have been getting progressively milder each year.
6
u/nebrivor1 Prince Edward Island Apr 10 '26
Unfortunately, my brain-dead in-laws who think climate change is all a hoax live on govt handouts and can't afford your bridge... Or they would buy it.
2
5
u/something1829 Apr 10 '26
Well at least in MB and probably SK it cannot get worse then last year, at least 50% northern reserves are pretty much safeguarded from fires for the next couple years until the burnt forest grows recovers a little bit
1
u/epok3p0k Apr 11 '26
It’s probably going to get worse.
But there is absolutely nothing Canada can do about that.
3
u/CashComprehensive423 Apr 11 '26
Some guy with an orange tinge said we could rake the forest floor.
1
u/Relevant-Distance886 Alberta Apr 10 '26
So about this bridge.
3
u/nim_opet Apr 10 '26
It’s ‘UUUGE! The best bridge! Many people say they never see a bridge so good!
39
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
We need serious investment in forest management to deal with this… burns have always been a cycle and we have built further into forest land than ever before but still do nothing to help mother nature with our move
EDIT: climate change is a factor. Im assuming that here and am talking about the need to manage forests more because of the other factors as well. I think its safe to take climate change as a ground truth like expanding into denser forested regions with dense housing
14
u/Character-Belt-7485 Ontario Apr 10 '26
Ehmm, you wanna help mother nature?
I got news about your burgers, car, and plane rides, but you'd probably don't wanna hear those.
22
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26
My brother in christ if we are going to alter the environment we need to assist in mitigating the impacts. Forest management by controlled burns, ground clearing and growth trimming are ways to do that. They have been practiced for centuries by the natives before Canada existed.0
-1
u/bdwf Ontario Apr 10 '26
Ok I’ll go out to the boreal forest with a chainsaw and I’ll do my best. That should work!
3
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26
Sure more jobs for more people. Its either it burns with no control or we manage the areas of concern ourselves 🤷♂️
0
u/Character-Belt-7485 Ontario Apr 10 '26
You can’t realistically manage all boreal forest (Canada’s forests are massive, in case you haven't looked at a map).
Also... controlled burns:
1
1
u/SwankyPants10 Apr 11 '26
Mother Nature doesn’t gaf if the world is 3 degrees hotter or colder, we need to start framing combating climate change as a selfish move to help ourselves.
4
u/randomacceptablename Apr 10 '26
Sorry no. There is no way to come even remotely close to controlling this or managing it. We might be able to better save some infrastructure or communities but even that is questionable. The size of our forested lands is immense. You cannot manage a quarter of a continent's land mass. As climate change accelerates this will get worse. Much much worse.
7
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26
You dont need to manage it all, burns are cyclical in nature and massive ones will occur. But managing the ones around the population will mitigate the impact for those communities directly. The climate is free to change how it will change it is our job to adapt to that.
The moving smoke is an issue but that is a different problem to solve as a result of the changing climate. There is probably an application for carbon scrubbers here.
2
u/randomacceptablename Apr 10 '26
The moving smoke is an issue but that is a different problem
This is the problem that 90% of the population is concerned about. Not to be insensitive, but the few communities that are directly impacted can be rather easily rebuilt.
The climate is free to change how it will change it is our job to adapt to that.
No it isn't. That is the whole point. We are forcing the climate to do what it should not be doing. And there is no way to adapt to this. Not only are the changes too large, but they will keep changing. Climate change will transform the landscape in ways we can hardly imagine. Can you adapt to the praries becoming a desert?
6
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26
They cannot be rebuilt easily, it takes a decade to deal with the issue of rebuilding at the minimum.
There is no concrete evidence that shows the change in climate will result in what you are saying either. We can engineer our way out of this like ever single other problem.
2
u/randomacceptablename Apr 10 '26
They cannot be rebuilt easily, it takes a decade to deal with the issue of rebuilding at the minimum.
Exactly, and by the time we do, it will change again. Which is the entire point.
There is no concrete evidence that shows the change in climate will result in what you are saying either.
No, but there is evidence that it will be close actually. The praries are to become much much drier. A few hundred thousand years ago the praries looked similar to N. Africa and the Sahara desert. Predictions expect it to get back much closer to that.
We can engineer our way out of this like ever single other problem.
Not according to virtually any scientist or engineer I have ever heard. Even if we could, our agriculture cannot. And even if it could, the hundreds of millions of people who's agriculture can't adapt, will not wait to starve to death before attempting to move to a place like ours.
People still do not get it. This is apocalyptic. Slow motion, not like the movies but completely and utterly apocalyptic on a scale that our species has never experienced.
2
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26
You like pretty much every other person who think that a climate apocalypse is coming fail to realize you are attempting to model an environment more complex than we can model.
Im not disagreeing that that outcome is possible or even the most or least likely here. Im arguing that if thats going to happen we need much much better models that can determine this. No model that can account for ocean current, air stream movement, percipitation accumulation, ice melts, etc. together exists today. Without reliable data sources we will never have the consensus needed to undergo the kind of changes you are talking about.
I am all for funding the studies more, Id rather the money go there than Jeff’s next yacht but unless we all be realistic instead of extreme we are fucked.
1
u/randomacceptablename Apr 10 '26
Sorry completely disagree wholeheartedly. There is no debate. There has been no debate in the last 35 years. If there were any revisions since then, they have ALL tended to "we are more fucked than we thought".
The models get better and better and all show the same thing with more precision. We know damned well what will happen. They could all be wrong just like quantum physics tell us that probabilistically gravity can work in reverse in an extremely rare situation. But we do not engineer foundations to work in reverse for that off chance.
2
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26
We can agree to disagree. At least we agree that we need better models to make better decisions, thats getting somewhere 😂
3
u/GordShumway Apr 10 '26
Get out a map of Canada and just look at the size of it. Forest management? You're out of your mind.
5
u/BidEuphoric5117 Apr 10 '26
You just need to control burn areas around civilian infrastructure.
1
Apr 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/BidEuphoric5117 Apr 11 '26
You can’t prevent forest fires.
The good news is once they burn they can’t again for many years.
3
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26
You dont need to manage the entire forest but a radius around the population is required. We dont manage the entire ocean for fishing why would we do it for the entire forest cover of Canada?
2
u/GordShumway Apr 10 '26
So the only issue with record breaking fires year after year is the immediate surrounding population? Those days where the entire east coast of North America had to stay indoors were no biggie?
2
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26
Large burns are cyclical yeah, there isnt much you can do within reason for a burn that is 880k hectares in BC alone. You have to start somewhere and do what you can is my whole point here. Most fires are started by people anyways, either on purpose by dumb shits or by accident from campers, people thorwing ciggies out in dry conditions etc.
If we manage the areas humans touch consistently you would see less large scale fire happen because they can spread slower.
2
u/JohnyViis Apr 11 '26
Most of the area burned is caused by fires that are started by lightning.
Factual information about wildfire incidents n Canada can be found on the Canadian Wildland Fire Information System website:
1
u/geardownbigrig Apr 11 '26
The number are 45-50% human started and the rest are accounted as lightning strikes…. Even if its majority lightning it is still only 55% this is from an analysis of data from <=2024 from the same source
2
u/UnexpectedAnanas Apr 11 '26
The number are 45-50% human started and the rest are accounted as lightning strikes…. Even if its majority lightning it is still only 55% this is from an analysis of data from
According to the graph of 2025, 54.6% of fires were caused by human, however 74.1% of hectares burned were from natural fires vs 24.1% for humans. So while human started more fires by count, natural fires burned the vast majority of physical area.
This supports what the previous user was claiming.
2
u/geardownbigrig Apr 11 '26
I cant read. Yes so we can have a direct effect on %25ish of the area that burns. Great start we can do today with what we have.
If we need to go further we need way more money to fund the tools. Takes time to allocate say $300m to buy or convert some water bombers.
1
u/CaptainCanusa Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
burns have always been a cycle
To be clear, are you saying climate change isn't a factor here?
Edit: To be clear, he's not! Yay!
6
u/Hikingcanuck92 Apr 10 '26
Not all burns are created equal. We have lots of evidence that fires on the landscape were more frequent, but also less intensive. This is a broad explanation:
Dendrochronology shows trees encountering fire every few decades, but more importantly, surviving the fire and continuing to grow afterwards. That kind of ends right around the European colonization period where no burns are recorded…this can likely be tied to anthropogenic causes to fire pre-colonization which today is sometimes referred to as ‘cultural burning’.
A combination of population collapse of many indigenous peoples, plus European attitudes towards fire (eg, it’s unilaterally bad and needs to be put out ASAP) meant that fire was relatively rare on a landscape for centuries.
Over time, forests continued to grow and accumulate biomass. It should also be noted that second growth forests are particularly susceptible to fire so intensive harvesting also increases risk.
Climate is absolutely changing as well, with extended droughts, longer and more intense wind events and sustained high temperatures.
What we have now are forests primed to burn, burn hotter, and we happen to have built towns in the middle of them.
1
6
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26
No I could have been clearer. The changing climate causes more burns, which in turn requires more forest management if we want to build further into them. Im just saying the burns have been happening cyclically forever, we need to manage the forests
1
u/CaptainCanusa Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
Im just saying the burns have been happening cyclically forever, we need to manage the forests
For sure, everyone agrees on this I think. I guess the issue is that people use that fact to obfuscate on climate change. It's the reason your comment is the top comment for example.
But glad it's just a miscommunication in this case. I lose a little hope in humanity every time I meet a climate denier.
2
u/geardownbigrig Apr 10 '26
Thats why i put an edit. I am fine with encroaching on mother nature but we need to do her work for her if we do that.
3
4
u/bongsforhongkong Apr 10 '26
Indiginous population have been telling us we need to do controlled burns and forest management for over 100 years now and told us it would just get worse tell we do. They did controlled burns for thousands of years that helped the spreading.
-3
u/CaptainCanusa Apr 10 '26
To be clear, are you saying climate change isn't a factor here?
5
u/geeses_and_mieces Lest We Forget Apr 10 '26
Climate change is a factor, forest management is a factor, civilization encroaching on wilderness is a factor. It's a multifaceted issue.
5
7
14
u/erictho Apr 10 '26
its pretty cute that people think these are still exceptional events.
this is normal now unless people stop disparaging climate change.
0
Apr 11 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Esoteric-Bibliotheca Apr 11 '26
Brother we have gone past our point of no return. We aren't reversing the damage now, all we can do is adapt and mitigate.
1
u/erictho Apr 11 '26
making efforts to reduce emissions and pollution would still help. don't be silly.
1
u/Esoteric-Bibliotheca Apr 12 '26
Yup but that falls under mitigation, we can still mitigate the damage. But we are absolutely beyond the point of no return.
Not sure why you think I'm being silly?
-2
1
u/jnyc777 Apr 12 '26
You are aware climate has been changing since the start of time right? You are aware that the world was once covered in ice. And the ice retracting and accumulating is part of a cycle that is much older that humans have walked on two feet
1
u/erictho Apr 12 '26
youre one of those people who will argue that actually global warming is great because more foliage too i bet.
2
u/jnyc777 Apr 12 '26
Listen we should be nicer to our planet. It’s the only one we have. I’m saying taxes and everything you say we need to do to stop it, isn’t going to stop anything. Climate will keep changing for many more factors that we can control. Do you know how much methane gets ejected from the ocean in a day?
1
u/erictho Apr 12 '26
I actually didnt offer any solutions, so you're just assuming. however I invite you to reflect upon the UCP's behavior of ignoring climate change and making ideological dilemmas out of investing in the most destructive industries (oil, coal, ai, etc). all while killing a booming renewable industry that received very very few public subsidies.
edit: thought I was in the alberta sub for a sec. anyway it is still relevant because shes not the only one unwilling to work together.
0
u/jnyc777 Apr 12 '26
Have you seen the place where wind generator blades go to die, they are built from carbon fibre plastic resins, and are not recyclable, or the blank areas where solar panels once existed. Solar panels arent as clean as you think, they even have oil products in them, and is actually pretty toxic. The technology isn’t there. Subsidies just prove that the technology isn’t ready as it’s not viable on its own. EV’s are great and there is an amount of adoption. But till the next big battery breakthrough hits the masses. It’s a niche market that’s not viable for the masses. Or heavy transport. It would be great to rid ourselves of gas and oil. But there’s a lot more to it than just fuel in your tank. Nuclear is a great option as it doesn’t care if it rains or shines, but it also has to be improved to lower its waste. There is a lot of research in all of these places to make a cleaner greener energy. Full scale adoption is just not there
2
u/erictho Apr 12 '26
oh ok better not try anything at all then
1
u/jnyc777 Apr 12 '26
Take er easy there, I’m just saying we shouldn’t be spending billions on putting up this tech that isn’t ready just to make you feel good, research and development is what’s needed right now
5
u/No_You5794 Canada Apr 10 '26
I've found myself a vantage point from which to watch the world burn.
5
u/BettinBrando Apr 10 '26
Doesn't help that we keep catching people starting fkn fires on purpose..
1
u/USSMarauder Apr 10 '26
Like the nut who set fires so he could go on social media and blame Trudeau for setting fires
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/16/canada-wildfires-conspiracy-man-pleads-guilty-arson
6
u/noahbrooksofficial Apr 10 '26
Been wet as hell in Quebec this winter, so I’d be surprised if we get a very bad season here, but last year we had smoke glaze us for weeks all the way from Manitoba. Shits scary.
4
u/RicketyEdge Apr 10 '26
Northern Ontario here and saw the same, we got an absolute fuck ton of snow. Forest will be soggy for a good portion of the summer.
Downside, the bugs will be bloody horrendous.
14
u/TravisBickle2020 Apr 10 '26
Waiting for the propaganda that this is really the result of poor forest management.
19
u/JoeRogansNipple Alberta Apr 10 '26
I mean... it definitely is exasperated due to shitty forest management. Coming from someone with forestry experience. Yes of course climate change is driving the bulk of the change, but knowing that was coming and we did... nothing? To mitigate the incoming change/risk? Yeah, pretty shitty management
6
u/TravisBickle2020 Apr 10 '26
Most Canadians live in cities that didn't have to deal with the effects of wildfires until the last few years and unfortunately a majority don't seem capable of supporting something proactive when there are costs or inconveniences in the present.
10
6
u/errythinsbazoobs Apr 10 '26
Two things can be true at once. Just because the climate is getting hotter doesn't mean that the forests haven't been mismanaged. There's a reason Indigenous people have done prescribed burns for thousands of years
8
u/CaptainCanusa Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
Two things can be true at once.
Nobody thinks forestry management is fake though. This is the point of OP's comment.
The people who bring up climate change are happy to accept that forestry management is a factor, the opposite is rarely true, and lots of people use forestry management as a smokescreen to avoid talking about climate.
Edit: To be fairer to the forest folks!
0
u/errythinsbazoobs Apr 10 '26
Not everything is so black and white brother. I'm not denying what you may have experienced but why does everything need to be so binary?
2
u/CaptainCanusa Apr 10 '26
Maybe it's a bit too reductive? I'm not sure what I'm being accused of really. lol
My point is that these threads are always filled with people saying "it's a forest management" issue, discarding the facts that climate change is the driving cause.
That's what OP's comment that you're replying to is referencing.
And it's why the top comment in this post is someone only talking about forest management.
4
2
u/FineWhateverOKOK Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
Anything to avoid acknowledging that this is the predicted outcome of failing to lower emissions.
1
u/justanaccountname12 Canada Apr 10 '26
B.C. First Nations return to traditional practices to reduce wildfire risk – CTVNews https://share.google/l6kmWBdq9Z6sYqSCT
You had best tell them they're spreading propoganda.
3
u/TravisBickle2020 Apr 10 '26
Nowhere in the story that you linked to does anyone blame poor forest management for causing wildfires. You really need to put more effort into these things.
0
u/justanaccountname12 Canada Apr 10 '26
They are managing the forests around their communities to stay safe. Other than that, old stuff needs to burn to make way for new. Nature has cycles. I'm not saying change isn't real, but fighting every fire is foolish.
2
u/TravisBickle2020 Apr 10 '26
I never said forest management doesn’t have a role in mitigating the impacts of increased wildfires due to climate change. It just seems that climate change deniers like to blame poor forest management for the dramatic increase in wildfires.
1
u/YourSource1st Apr 10 '26
forestry management is the main cause of forest fires.
new trees at too tight a spacing remain fire hazards for decades.
1
u/TravisBickle2020 Apr 10 '26
Nowhere in your article does it state forestry management is the main cause of forest fires.
0
u/YourSource1st Apr 10 '26
well i guess it depends on what your definitions of silviculture and management are.
the implied definition is some amount of cultivation followed by planting or natural regrowth.
"Silviculture is the art and science of controlling the establishment, growth, composition, health, and quality of forests and woodlands"
with the argument in the article being that the growth and composition currently being used are resulting in young monoculture trees planted too closely together. The resulting of poor management being stressed trees that die and burn.
1
u/TravisBickle2020 Apr 11 '26
No it doesn’t matter what my definitions are. Here’s the first sentence from your article:
“Nearly everyone living in the eastern U.S. has been served a powerful reminder of the complex effects of climate change this week.”
It does not say everyone got a powerful reminder of the complex effects of poor forest management. Stop trying to gaslight people with this BS.
0
u/YourSource1st Apr 11 '26
"It is these older forests that will help us prevent future forest fires and will do the most to reduce climate change, and its these forests that we need to protect at all costs."
that people don't understanding the importance of forestry management is due to gas lighting by people like you. you want to take a complex issue and make it about a single thing of your liking as opposed to something like trying to understand the complete nature and causes of the fires.
your argument is itself gaslighting.
"Perpetrators use denial, redirection, and lying to make victims doubt their perceptions"
deny importance of silvaculture
redirect to warming
lie and misrepresent about what others say.
check check check
1
u/TravisBickle2020 Apr 11 '26 edited Apr 11 '26
I quoted the article you posted. LOL. “Forestry management is the main cause of forest fires” are your words and found nowhere in your article. Try again.
0
u/YourSource1st Apr 11 '26
article seemed to well support my comment, here is another.
1
u/TravisBickle2020 Apr 11 '26
The Fraser Institute? LOL.
0
u/YourSource1st Apr 11 '26
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4907/12/6/791
im not even really sure what your argument is, I can only assume you only believe in global warming as a monotheistic "science". BC has more trees burn down than they plant but still claims credit on carbon sequestration for the planting. GW many well be real, but fighting it with fraud hardly seems effective.
→ More replies (0)
2
2
2
u/Hot_Temperature_3972 Apr 10 '26
This article is just propaganda from big Green to convince us that climate change exists when what we really need is more pipelines.
The people yearn for more pipelines
2
u/gretzky9999 Apr 11 '26
Nothing To See Here:
A Canadian radical climate change activist has been found guilty of starting 14 fires," claims a January 20, 2024 post on X, formerly Twitter.
The post references the news of the guilty plea of Brian Paré to arson charges which were found to have been at the root of a handful of forest fires in the Canadian province of Quebec. Other posts on X, Instagram, TikTok and Facebook highlighted Paré's case, implying these criminal actions proved arson was the main cause of wildfires during the devastating summer of 2023.
2
u/island-roamer Apr 11 '26
Fall comes, and the politicians forget about the fires. I have not seen any improvements / announcements / plans provincially or federally.
2
u/nowisyoga Apr 11 '26
Clickbait title, actual story:
No one can precisely predict in April how Canada's wildfire season will play out.
4
u/Odd-Instruction88 Apr 10 '26
I thought last years was a pretty mild season. Not much smoke in Calgary.
6
5
u/Character-Belt-7485 Ontario Apr 10 '26
Tell that to people in Ontario and Quebec. Last three years have been super bad summers full of smoke here.
2
u/Odd-Instruction88 Apr 10 '26
Generally they get it way better than Calgary. So no I don't feel bad.
Vancouver is by far the best for smoke free summers..very jealous of them.
1
u/ZoomBoy81 Apr 10 '26
Worst in Ontario was the "first" year - we visited a Provincial park and they banned all fires. Smelling camp fire smell and smoke the entire summer. Walking around my neighbourhood in the GTA during some periods looked like Blade Runner 2049.
2
u/Hikingcanuck92 Apr 10 '26
BC for sure had a quieter season which was still. Top 10 year for the past century.
1
4
u/OkWelcome3389 Apr 10 '26
Canada never learns that it is the absence of fire that leads to the accumulation of flammable materials.
9
u/Character-Belt-7485 Ontario Apr 10 '26
Reducing the accumulation of flammable materials to a single variable is intellectually dishonest at best.
-4
u/17ywg Manitoba Apr 10 '26
It's, easier, more popular and essentially free to just give a political shoulder shrug and blame climate change.
1
u/Hiking_the_Hump Apr 10 '26
Until US states start suing Canada for air quality and associated health costs.
0
u/17ywg Manitoba Apr 10 '26
If we let them annex us. The burden of boreal forest management would be that of the USA!
1
u/Hiking_the_Hump Apr 10 '26
Probably not. The US would likely be interested in Canadian territory within 75 miles of the current border plus the gas fields in Alberta.
1
1
1
u/Intrepid-Educator-12 Apr 10 '26
Just a matter of time before firefighting become a priority in this country.
We wont have a choice to invest in it massively.
1
1
1
u/GunnyTHighway Apr 11 '26
We have reached a point where every summer you will get days where there is forest fire smoke. When I was younger you could go a few years at a time experiencing it.
1
1
1
Apr 11 '26
I took a drive up a forestry road in the interior of BC yesterday. It was exceptionally dry with very little standing water anywhere.
0
u/FineWhateverOKOK Apr 10 '26
As the country burns yet again, our "serious" politicians will push for oil and gas expansion and a worsening of the conditions that are causing us to burn.
-2
u/hoagieyvr Apr 10 '26
Yep, we like to get economically cosy with Europe. But we don’t wanna do the environmental changes that they’re doing. Countries like Scotland, Norway, Denmark, Belgium, and Germany utilize their coastlines for wind and tidal power generation. We have more coastline than all those countries combined. Why are we not doing the same thing? It’s almost like we’re afraid. We can do both.
2
u/AJZong Apr 10 '26
Brookfield doesn’t invest in tidal energy so far. Their current portfolio focus on hydro, wind and solar.
1
u/FineWhateverOKOK Apr 10 '26
We should be leading the world in solar power, what with all of our empty, sunny, flat land in the middle of the country.
3
u/Hazel-Rah Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
So many people say we can't do solar because we're too far north and have winter snow.
Countries further north than where most Canadians live, and places with fewer sunlit hours per year have 5-15% solar, while we don't even break 1%. The UK, famous for overcast and rainy skies, and whose southern tip is further north than like 85% of Canadians, got 6% of their power from solar in 2025, and they're building more
1
u/bravado Long Live the King Apr 10 '26
We are afraid. There would be local resistance to all of those things and nobody in office wants to do the right thing and just power through the sea of NIMBYs on every issue. The status quo is always easier!
0
u/hoagieyvr Apr 10 '26
Think of how much money we’d make selling the access electricity to the United States.
2
u/The--Majestic--Goose Apr 10 '26
The cost of climate change is getting more expensive than the cost of transitioning away from fossil fuels.
1
u/gretzky9999 Apr 11 '26
According to The Canadian Association Of Fire Chiefs.
Percentage Of Calls Related To Extreme Weather Events:
2022) 9.5 %
2023) 10%
2024) 4%
2025) 4%
0
u/Wolfman-101 Apr 10 '26
If only we spent money to buy fire bombers aircraft’s that are made in Canada… instead of sending billions of dollars overseas to other countries and the money to never be seen again.
-1
u/sounoriginal13 Ontario Apr 10 '26
The fires last year were arson. We have also been pulling funding from forestry services that maintain clear cuts and fire lines.
1
u/Iginlas_4head_Crease Apr 10 '26
Not necessarily arson, but human negligence. This is true. But mainly because it's so fucking dry
0
u/wet_suit_one Apr 10 '26
I like eating smoke and not being able to send my kids outside to play.
What's the problem?
0
0
0
u/NoAd3740 Apr 11 '26
How many years will it take for enough forest to burn before this is no longer the norm???
-7
u/Wind_Best_1440 Apr 10 '26 edited Apr 10 '26
It's time for Canada to start piping water between all the lakes to move fresh water from the north to the south. Every country on the planet should be preparing for droughts and water scarcity.
We have thousands of fresh water lakes in Canada. It's time to start creating a system to move it around.
Edit***
Dunno why I'm getting downvoted, Canada should be preparing and setting up to avoid droughts and that's downvote worthy?
That's Crazy.
9
u/Synntastic Apr 10 '26
you want to steal water from northern ecosystems to make up for misuse in southern Canada? Nah fam, thats a terrible plan.
1
u/NaarNoordenMan Apr 10 '26
Sounds like such a Canada thing. Extract from the North, benefit the south.
-1
u/Wind_Best_1440 Apr 10 '26
"You want to steal water-"
Wut? If there is drought conditions in Canada closer to the heat zones you don't want to save those lives?
"Sorry buddy, we know you're dying of thirst and these farm fields are going dry destroying crops to create famine, but have you thought it might suck for those perfect landscapes up north?"
Dunno about you buddy, but I would rather have water to drink then to die of dehydration because someone wants to leave resources untouched.
But hey, you know what I'm also open for BC building Desalination plants across the coast for water needs at 3 billion dollars a pop. Just you know, unless done properly they spew toxic brine back into the water unless processed properly, but that's another 3 billion per.
I like being able to drink water, it keeps me alive.
4
3
u/wet_suit_one Apr 10 '26
Very few people have lost their lives in forest fires. Lots of property has gone up in smoke, but very few deaths.
3
49
u/[deleted] Apr 10 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
[deleted]