10/22   So what's the carbon footprint of the fires?
        \_ Trees -> fire -> carbon footprint. Therefore, we should
           wage a pre-emptive war on trees.
           \_ I heard California has a fire problem precisely because of a
              long standing braindead policy of no preemptive fires. -- ilyas
              \_ Your FUCKING brillian ilyas, can I have your baby?
                 \_ You can have my baby in exchange for your technology
                    used to impregnate idiot male motd trolls. -- ilyas
                 \_ Hey Smokey, he's right.
              \_ I hadn't thought about that, but good point. -op
              \_ I thought people stopped doing that in 1995.
              \_ which shows that preemptive wars are sometimes the solution
                 \_ Please report to the preemptive herd-cull center
                    immediately.
              \_ peaceniks do not allow firemen to cull dead or dying trees
        \_ If you believe the 'zero carbon footprint' argument of the biofuel
           proponents, then burning forests are net zero too, as they're not
           putting carbon into the environment that wasn't there in the first
           place.  Trees will grow to replace them, taking that carbon right
           back out.  It is carbon dug out of the ground (coal, oil, gas)
           that is the cause of the 'greenhouse gas problem'.