
Fire season is upon us. This new transit technology can give California the upper hand
As of Sunday, the Madre Fire in San Luis Obispo County has burned nearly 81,000 acres and injured one firefighter.
Thankfully, technology is opening new paths for putting out wildfires such as this one affordably, safely and with huge cuts to carbon emissions.
Recent advances in aeronautics, satellite and electric vehicle technologies have converged to allow low-cost, quiet, electric, emission-free, pilotless sky taxis to carry people and goods between tiny 3-acre airparks.
Such sky taxis are also capable of effectively fighting wildfires. And they can and should be deployed in California.
A research project I conducted as a senior fellow at UC Berkeley's Institute of Transportation Studies for the Sustainable Aviation Foundation, where I serve as president, found that squadrons of sky taxis can be converted to serve as fire-dousing robotic aircraft that I call eTankers. When auto-dispatched, these eTankers would compose a bucket brigade aerial-spray can that could potentially drop 20 times more liquid per hour than our present air tankers.
Each of Cal Fire's human-piloted large air tankers costs about $24 million, and they cannot fly at night or in smoke. Pilotless, electric mass-produced eTankers would cost less and carry no flammable fuel. These eTankers could fly at night in high winds and through heavy smoke while pinpointing their drop locations using their onboard flame-hunting cameras. Arriving on-scene, they could drop their loads of flame-dousing liquid from a low height.
In a UCLA-led study published in the journal Environmental Pollution in October 2022 by authors Michael Jerrett, Amir S. Jina and Miriam E. Marlier found that 'all carbon emission reductions achieved by all California environmental programs between 2003 and 2019 were offset by the carbon dioxide emissions from California wildfires in 2020 alone — by a factor of two.'
The emissions, losses and damages from wildfires recur each year in California, resulting in tens of billions in direct costs. This does not even include the costs of ecosystem damage, horrendous losses of human life, chronic pulmonary diseases, toxic run-offs and air quality degradation.
This could all explain why 2023 and 2024 were the hottest years on record, and why climate models cannot explain the steep rise in global carbon emissions. It could be because the forfeiture of carbon capture due to wildfires accumulates. After a wildfire, it takes over 20 years for a burned forest and four years for burned grasslands to recover 50% of their original photosynthetic capacity. A a result, the loss of carbon capture increases every year.
Fighting wildfires with autonomous aerial firefighting could help turn that around.
But how to pay for such a system? A state fire tax? Parcel tax? Sales tax? A state ballot proposition? Utility surcharges? Bonds?
All likely unpopular.
But Californians are, indirectly, already paying dearly each year for wildfire damage. For example, since 2019, the annual budget for Cal Fire rose from $2 billion to $3.8 billion, and its staffing increased from 5,829 to 10,741.
Yet mega-fires like those earlier this year in Los Angeles County continue to happen. Fire devastation during the past decade has substantially raised insurance premiums for California homeowners by an average of $679 per year. Moreover, the California Public Utilities Commission authorized the three largest utilities in the state to collect an additional $27 billion from 2019 to 2023 for wildfire prevention and insurance costs, which on average added another $572 cost per year, per ratepayer. California homeowners are burdened with an annual cost increase of $1,251 due to wildfires.
Developing a statewide pilotless transit/cargo system could potentially earn significant profits for an operating entity while removing car traffic from our state's gridlocked freeways. Such profit could pay for building and maintaining an autonomous aerial firefighting system that could repurpose sky taxis as eTankers.
By removing fossil-fueled cars from our highways, we could also cut California's annual carbon emissions and save our state billions of dollars by reducing the need to build more roads, rail, tunnels and bridges.
The Global Carbon Project's latest data show continuation of the pathetically insufficient progress in cutting global fossil fuel use. This urgently compels us to find alternative and effective ways to cut emissions.
As a technological remedy for the climate crisis, wildfires, emergency services, surface gridlock, toxic runoffs and untenable infrastructure costs, creating a multifaceted pilotless flight network could reenergize growth and create jobs in California's aerospace and tech sectors, save hundreds of billions of dollars and many lives.
The obvious and urgent need should implore Gov. Gavin Newsom to make this a signature moonshot project for California.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Epoch Times
9 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Judge Declines to Block National Science Foundation From Ending DEI-Related Grants
A federal judge on Aug. 1 declined a request from 16 states to block the National Science Foundation (NSF) from terminating research funding awarded to universities for diversity-related projects. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by 16 Democratic-led states seeking a preliminary injunction to block the implementation of NSF's priority directive that halted funding for projects aimed at increasing minority participation in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields.

21 hours ago
Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
NEW YORK -- The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut. In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF's actions were counter to the agency's mandate. The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses 'violate the law and jeopardize America's longstanding global leadership in STEM.' Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut. In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more. Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science. A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to 'create opportunities for all Americans everywhere' and 'not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.' The plaintiff states are trying to 'substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing. The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. The states are reviewing the decision, according to spokespeople from the New York and Hawaii attorney general offices. The National Science Foundation declined to comment. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.


San Francisco Chronicle
a day ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Judge allows the National Science Foundation to withhold hundreds of millions of research dollars
NEW YORK (AP) — The National Science Foundation can continue to withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from researchers in several states until litigation aimed at restoring it plays out, a federal court ruled Friday. U.S. District Judge John Cronan in New York declined to force the NSF to restart payments immediately, while the case is still being decided, as requested by the sixteen Democrat-led states who brought the suit, including New York, Hawaii, California, Colorado and Connecticut. In his ruling, Cronan said he would not grant the preliminary injunction in part because it may be that another court, the Court of Federal Claims, has jurisdiction over what is essentially a case about money. He also said the states failed to show that NSF's actions were counter to the agency's mandate. The lawsuit filed in May alleges that the National Science Foundation's new grant-funding priorities as well as a cap on what's known as indirect research expenses 'violate the law and jeopardize America's longstanding global leadership in STEM.' Another district court had already blocked the the cap on indirect costs — administrative expenses that allow research to get done like paying support staff and maintaining equipment. This injunction had been requested to restore funding to the grants that were cut. In April, the NSF announced a new set of priorities and began axing hundreds of grants for research focused on things like misinformation and diversity, equity and inclusion. Researchers who lost funding also were studying artificial intelligence, post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans, STEM education for K-12 students and more. Researchers were not given a specific explanation for why their grants were canceled, attorney Colleen Faherty, representing the state of New York, said during last month's hearing. Instead, they received boilerplate language stating that their work 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities." NSF has long been directed by Congress to encourage underrepresented groups like women and people with disabilities to participate in STEM. According to the lawsuit, the science foundation's funding cuts already halted efforts to train the next generation of scientists in fields like computer science, math and environmental science. A lawyer for the NSF said at the hearing that the agency has the authority to fund whatever research it deems necessary — and has since its inception in 1950. In the court filing, the government also argued that its current priorities were to 'create opportunities for all Americans everywhere' and 'not preference some groups at the expense of others, or directly/indirectly exclude individuals or groups.' The plaintiff states are trying to 'substitute their own judgement for the judgement of the agency," Adam Gitlin, an attorney for the NSF, said during the hearing. The science foundation is still funding some projects related to expanding representation in STEM, Cronan wrote in his ruling. Per the lawsuit filed in May, for example, the University of Northern Colorado lost funding for only one of its nine programs focused on increasing participation of underrepresented groups in STEM fields. ___