Playing with Fire. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Burn, baby, burn.

Millions of acres of forest are burning in North America.
Millions.

This website gives the most concise fire information for Alaska, the Continental USA and Canada that I can find.
http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/interactive-map

Here's a fun calculation:
Carbon dioxide, as we all know, is a greenhouse gas.
The millions of acres of burn is releasing literally tons of CO2. Not to mention that ONE healthy acre of forest absorbs, on average, 1.22 metric tons of CO2 PER YEAR (as calculated by the EPA: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html)

So, the wildfires are burning, releasing tons of CO2, then, this problem is compounded because it will take 10 years, at least, for a forest to grow to the point where it can absorb 1.22 metric tons of CO2 per year. That is, if it can grow that quickly, given the current creeping drought status.
Millions of acres of forest are burning. This means there are millions of metric tons of CO2 being released, and any forthcoming CO2 that will be emitted in the future from other sources (factories, cars, etc), that would normally be absorbed by the forest, that won't be absorbed as quickly in the next 10 years.

One of the most infuriating things about these problems is there is, seemingly, no big solution for what one can do to mitigate the effects. There are small solutions: eat less meat, drive down demand for it, so farms produce fewer animals, therefore lowering environmental impact (due to large crops to feed them, transporting them, their farts, etc); or drive your car less; use less fuel; let your yard behave more naturally; conserve water by washing your hair less, taking a shower less, laundering more efficiently, reducing the size of your lawn, etc.; grow a garden and lower impact for transporting foods; don't own a dog; plant trees; take a reusable grocery bag to the store to keep petroleum down.

Are people really willing to give up a lifestyle their accustomed to, without a guarantee it will actually work at all?
The inconsistent rhetoric of climate change, when it first came to light, I think really damaged the opportunities we had early on to begin to curb the exacerbating problem. Some people started blowing the horn before the rest of scientific community could conclusively agree to their claims. Now they are unified, but the seeds of doubt were already sown.
Not only that, the way it was presented divided people instead of unifying them.
This should be an easy issue:
"Hey, we, the scientific community have observed and discovered something really important for everyone to know. It's really good we caught this now because the effects for everyone on the planet could get pretty awful if we ignore it. This discovery, like other monumental discoveries will help us improve the world we live in! Go us for being so smart!"
But, that didn't happen when the mass media disseminated the information.
And, even if you don't "believe" in the widespread climate change, you can still agree that making the world a healthier place IS THE MORAL ISSUE, not climate change. If it were a different kind of pollution, the same moral issue is keeping/making the world a healthier place. Leave it better than you found it, right?
That's something we should do anyway because it's imperative to the future of mankind. I mean, we all live here. Except for astronauts. They live in space.

In any case. Life goes on. The sun will come up tomorrow. Maybe made more hot by all the gas in the atmosphere, but the sun will still rise. Unrelentingly.
I just hope I can greet it with the hope that people can come together and begin to resolve their differences for the betterment of the planet, and not keep sticking to their factions, ignoring the real issue.