NY Times: Hawaii Fire Fueled By Non-Native Plants

I guess now that the Doom-mongering over the catastrophic fires in Maui were all caused by anthropogenic climate change has been made (and they were made immediately and without any scientific proof), the reality can be written

How Invasive Plants Caused the Maui Fires to Rage

When Hawaii’s last sugar cane plantation shut down in Maui in 2016, it marked the end of an era when sugar reigned supreme in the archipelago’s economy. But the last harvest at the 36,000-acre plantation underscored another pivotal shift: the relentless spread of extremely flammable, nonnative grasses on idled lands where cash crops once flourished.

Varieties like guinea grass, molasses grass and buffel grass — which originated in Africa and were introduced to Hawaii as livestock forage — now occupy nearly a quarter of Hawaii’s landmass. Fast growing when it rains and drought resistant when lands are parched, such grasses are fueling wildfires across Hawaii, including the blaze that claimed at least 93 lives in Maui last week.

“These grasses are highly aggressive, grow very fast and are highly flammable,” said Melissa Chimera, whose grandmother lived on the Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company’s plantation in Maui after emigrating from the Philippines. “That’s a recipe for fires that are a lot larger and a lot more destructive,” added Ms. Chimera, who now coordinates the Pacific Fire Exchange, a Hawaii-based project sharing fire science among Pacific island governments.

Obviously, the Times goes on to yammer about warming temperatures, which is entirely expected during a Holocene warm period, and that the “dry seasons” are lasting longer. The very fact is, there are dry seasons. And something set the fires off. There was no lightening at the time. I did make the mistake of diving down the rabbit hole in viewing the conspiracy theories of things like DEW (directed energy weapons), bombs, how this is all a land grab. The land grab one is really gaining traction, because the Elites have been trying to buy the area, the government does have plans, and now there are reports about the land being toxic for a long time, meaning the citizens won’t be coming back. Things like why there were no warning sirens and that the water ran out of the fire control systems.

Biden was on vacation for 14 days, came back Tuesday, immediately flew to New Mexico, then Arizona, then Utah, came back to D.C. late Thursday, then back to the beach late Friday. Imagine how the media would respond if this was Trump, or any Republican.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “NY Times: Hawaii Fire Fueled By Non-Native Plants”

  1. CarolAnn says:

    How about that illegal alien plants burned down Hawaii. Those damned illegals are gonna kill us all sooner or later

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    While the Times yammers on about non-native grasses they also add:

    The islands have long had arid stretches of lava fields and drier grasslands, with rainfall varying from one side of an island to the other. But in recent years, the state has also seen long-term declines in average annual rainfall, thinner cloud cover and drought induced by climbing temperatures.

    Is it possible that both non-native plants and global warming contribute?

  3. Bunkerville says:

    Have to get back to the candy shack for a “pick me up” for Pops and Hunter.

  4. H says:

    No doubt our elites fueled with their generous tax cuts signed into law by exPresident Trump WILL be hoping to turn a fat profit from this disaster. Capitalism is all about profits and shareholder value.
    There is already one Trump branded hotel in Hawaii maybe this would be a fabulous place for a yuge tower?

    • L'Roy White says:

      Man, you really hate capitalism don’t you? And you really hate people that make money especially if their last name is Trump. Or is that just your way of weaseling his name into every conversation with your Trump derangement syndrome?

      Why not just start each comment with the word TRUMP and then go on with what you wanna say about everything else? That would be a lot easier on you and it would be a lot easier on us so we wouldn’t have to listen to your BS about trump every time.

      Man I hope he runs again and wins just to drive you out of your freaking mind.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Although the benefit of capitalism outweighs the harm, that doesn’t imply we can’t make society more fair, does it?

        • CarolAnn says:

          Society is fair when everybody has the same opportunities. You don’t wanna make society fair you wanna make everybody’s outcome equal there’s a big difference. For some reason you left us find that hard to understand that since everybody is an individual and a role different everybody’s outcomes gonna be different.

    • Jl says:

      Our same old Johnny-“elites with generous tax cuts…”. The top rate went from 39% all the way down to…hold your breath, Johnny, to 37%! Most of the other brackets received approximately the same “generous” 2% cut. The 35% bracket stayed the same. Are you finally off your “trillions of permanent tax cuts for elites”? You never did come up with any proof of that, which isn’t surprising seeing as it wasn’t true

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Only the corporate tax cuts are permanent. The individual rate cuts expire the end of 2025. Sucks to be an individual!!

        Jill with more fun with percentages! 2% of $1,000,000 income is much more than 2% of $40,000!!

        Samantha Jacoby, Senior Tax Legal Analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities testifying to Congress:

        Permanently extending the cuts would benefit households in the top 1 percent more than twice as much as those in the bottom 60 percent as a share of their incomes — providing a roughly $41,000 annual tax cut for the top 1 percent compared to $500 for households in the bottom 60 percent, on average — at a cost of around $300 billion per year. This would be on top of the large benefits high-income households will continue to receive from the 2017 tax law’s permanent provisions.

        The George W. Bush and Fat Donnie tax cuts rewarded the wealthy, increased the debt and did little for the working class. So why do it?

        • Jl says:

          “2% of 1,000,000 is much more than 2% of 40,000.” And 37% of 1,000,000 is much more than 12% (tax rate of those making 40,00) of 40,000. Your point?
          You then proceed to quote something that hasn’t happened-but thanks for the irreverence.
          I love how you guys only look at one side of the equation. A 2% cut from a 1 million dollar salary is more than a 2% cut from a 40,000 salary, yes. . And a 2% raise in taxes on 1 million is much more than a 2% raise on 40,000. Again, your point?
          But the best-“rewarded the wealthy”. That would be like complaining that when, say, the price of gas goes down (tax cut) you don’t like it because it rewards those who drive a lot more than it rewards those who drive very little. Of course it rewards them more-that’s because they more tax to begin with. Duh! Again, you guys whine at an income tax system that’s one of the most progressive in the world.
          Libs and basic economics just don’t mix…

  5. david7134 says:

    Looks like the typical liberal idea of not clearing out the undergrowth in land and suddenly have very severe fires.

Pirate's Cove