billclerico

I sat down with Paul Graham and Jessica Livingston to discuss resilience and building things that endure at their home in Palo Alto.

Thanks aberman! Here in the comments if I can answer any questions.

Probably the most effective thing we could do is re-imagine Smokey Bear from a "put out your campfire" mascot to a spokesperson for effective forest management & prescribed fire.

congrats!!

I’m a VC specializing in startups addressing wildfire. If I can be helpful to anyone thinking about this problem, I’m bill at convectivecapital.com

important tool for landscape management

I think it's a false assumption that when something burns in a high severity fire, it returns to a healthy state afterwards. Historically, natural fire was low severity because it was high frequency, burning through once a decade (or even more frequently). This left large trees and soil intact, and so dense regrowth was limited, since there was still shade.

With high severity fire, two things can happen. Trees can be totally wiped out (called a stand-replacing fire) which causes extremely dense, brushy regrowth (prone to another high severity fire). Or in really bad conditions, the soil can be damage so no regrowth happens, causing strange moonscape-like forests that are completely dead. This affects watersheds, causes mudslides, etc. Neither is good.

If we could burn large swaths of landscape with low severity fire, that would be a huge step in the right direction but is extremely difficult. We are treating only a small fraction of the acreage in that manner.

Note: This varies from landscape to landscape but is directionally correct. For example, in some climates, stand-replacing fires are healthy and normal. But in most climates, bad.

One thing I find frustrating in the discussion of wildfire is that it frequently dumbs down to one thing vs another, usually "We must treat the landscape with thinning and prescribed fire" vs "We need better firefighting resources and equipment". This is a false choice and we need both.

The principle of Defense in Depth in infosec is illustrative. No one would debate whether or not you need secure passwords vs role-based permissions. You obviously need both and they reinforce each other.

The same is true in fire. To end megafires, we need: 1) Landscape Management 2) Community Resilience 3) Fast & aggressive suppression

Better technology can help play a role at all three levels.

Pano will have a great business even if megafires are ended, since fire will always be a part of the landscape. One of their major usecases is monitoring controlled burns.

There are plenty of economic models that can support cures to recurrent issues. For example, internal sprinklers & smoke detectors have dramatically improved survivability of structure fires, but that "cure" supports a whole industry of sprinkler and alarm system companies.

Most experts agree that 3 things are required to end megafires: Landscape management, community resilience and fast & aggressive suppression. It's a layered approach - similar to infosec models. No one layer is an effective solution.

Some of the examples in the article are focused on suppression (since that is a bit easier to grasp) - but there are some really exciting examples that exist outside of that. BurnBot, for example, is a robotic device that helps make fuel management more efficient. Overstory uses satellite imagery to help utilities prioritize line trimming and avoid ignitions.

Disclaimer: I am mentioned in the article as a Firetech investor