Canada Smoke

[Wally World]

You don't ever quit do you.

Wow.

Sounds like the media has been blowing smoke up your butt too!

 

[zoops]

Friends in the middle/western parts of the state: Are you feeling this?

It was pretty bad yesterday in Bismarck. Ratings made it look really bad in the nw part of the state.

 

[Twitch]

It was nasty in Bismarck/Mandan….

 

[cooter00]

Williston was really bad yesterday today seems better after a little shower in the night

 

[camper]

Sounds like the media has been blowing smoke up your butt too!

The USA should sue them!!! The media this time. Suing Canada must not have worked, or did it waldo??

 

[Greenhorn]

Yes it smelled like a bonfire in Bis yesterday.

 

[SurvivalAmazon88]

Friends in the middle/western parts of the state: Are you feeling this?

it was soooo bad yesterday. Wind came through at least, rain washed most of it away. Just nasty.

 

[Lycanthrope]

From Grok/AI:
Under international law, the possibility of the United States suing Canada for damages caused by smoke pollution from forest fires involves navigating through several legal principles and precedents:

• Principle of State Responsibility: International law, particularly as articulated in the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, suggests that if a state's activities cause harm to another state, there might be grounds for responsibility. However, proving that Canada's forest fires, which are often natural or exacerbated by climate change, directly result from a breach of an international obligation can be complex.
• The Trail Smelter Arbitration: This case between the U.S. and Canada set a precedent where a state is responsible for activities within its jurisdiction causing injury in or to the territory of another state. However, this was about industrial pollution, not natural forest fires. The principle might be invoked, but its application to forest fires would likely require establishing that Canada failed in its due diligence to manage or prevent such fires, which is a high bar given the natural occurrence of wildfires.
• Transboundary Harm: The principle of not causing significant harm to another state's environment is recognized in international law, but it's generally applied to activities under direct human control, not natural phenomena like wildfires unless there's negligence in fire management.
• Climate Change Context: Given that climate change exacerbates conditions for wildfires, there's an argument that all nations share some responsibility for increased fire activity due to global warming. This complicates direct attribution of damages to one state.
• Legal Precedents and Practice: There isn't a direct precedent where one country successfully sued another for damages due to smoke from forest fires. Legal actions might be more about seeking compensation for specific, proven damages rather than broad environmental harm.
• Practical and Political Considerations: Even if legally possible, such a lawsuit would face significant hurdles:
  • Proving Causation: Demonstrating that specific fires in Canada directly caused specific damages in the U.S. with sufficient legal evidence would be challenging.
  • Diplomatic Relations: Such actions could strain diplomatic relations, potentially leading to political rather than legal resolutions.
  • International Cooperation: There might be more emphasis on international cooperation for fire management, sharing resources, and technology rather than litigation.
• X Posts Sentiment: From the X posts, there's a mix of legal opinions and public sentiment, with some believing in the legal possibility but acknowledging the complexity, while others see it as politically or legally unfeasible.

In conclusion, while there's a theoretical basis in international law for the U.S. to seek redress for damages caused by smoke from Canadian forest fires, the practical, legal, and political challenges are substantial. The U.S. would need to demonstrate that Canada's actions or inactions directly led to the damages, which might not align with the natural or climate-induced nature of forest fires. Instead, bilateral agreements or international environmental treaties might offer a more feasible path for addressing such transboundary issues.

 

[Traxion]

Friends in the middle/western parts of the state: Are you feeling this?

Who are we suing first, Montana or Wyoming? They need to get more folks out in the forests with chainsaws and rakes to handle this crap.

Skies have been red morning and night around here.

 

[Kurtr]

Shit most of idaho is on fire to.

 

[Fester]

These climate people are nuts. So hurricane season was supposed to be insane due to climate change...never/hasn't happened so therefore because they predicted it to be crazy and it didn't happen it's the cause of climate change..wtf

https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/weather/hurricane-season-atlantic-storms-climate/index.html