On NBC, ABC, and CBS this weekend, Lester Holt, David Muir, and Scott Glor reported on California's 90 percent "severe-drought" status. They reported on abnormal temperatures soaring off the devil's tail.
Those admired TV anchors articulated a laundry list of pools and water playgrounds closing down because of the drought. They reported on homeowners who could not water their lawns and gardens because of empty reservoirs. The anchors reported on 12 different wildfires blazing all over the state. They interviewed dozens of homeowners picking through the rubble of their homes.
They talked about global climate destabilization causing horrific disruptions in our biosphere.
They reported everything "downstream" or after the event occurred. They never, ever reported "upstream" by interviewing the experts who study the causes of the drought, how to mitigate homes from burning and how to proactively stop the consequences of Los Angeles and San Francisco's horrifically congested and gridlocked cities.
In other words, instead of interviewing "outliers" who would solve California's problems, they evade, avoid, and ignore anyone who offers viable solutions. What's an outlier? Answer: individuals who think beyond the moment. Who think with a grasp of the future. Outliers represent those who understand how to change course toward a better "tomorrow" by implementing rational actions.
For example: if you build a home in a wildfire area, you should create a 100-yard dirt and rock berm around your house so you protect if from wildfires. Building your home in the middle of "kindling wood" forests must put you up there with the people who win the "Darwin Award" trophies. Or, you don't build in a wildfire area because you will eventually suffer a scorched house. Dah!
Another example: if you possess a finite amount of rainfall annually and your reservoirs can only hold so much water, you build a limited number of homes that can be serviced by the available water. You don't keep building more homes or enlarging cities beyond the "carrying capacity" of the area.
Try this example: if your city suffers 18-24 hours of traffic gridlock and toxic air pollution, you stabilize your city's population by passing a "Stable population policy" so everyone can drive to work without the nightmare and accidents of Los Angeles, Chicago or Atlanta. Why would you keep growing your city in order to make everyone's lives miserable in traffic and everyone breathing toxic air with every breath?