The Street Wall Journal
 A London Art Wall Website for Art & Social Issues
ART & ARTISTS MUSIC (Soon) SOCIETY TECHNOLOGY BOOKS THE INTERNET EARLY  PROTOTYPE SANTA CRUZ LONDON THE PUBLISHER

 

    SOCIETY

 

 

 

The Truth About Wildfires: The Human Element

 

 

 

A closer look should to be taken at wildfires that are media-linked to global warming as an estimated 80% to 95% of global wildfires are ignited by human activities rather than natural causes like lightning according to the World Health Organization .

 

 1: Common Human Causes

Debris and agricultural burning:
Clearing land or burning trash

Power lines:
Downed or arcing electrical infrastructure.

Campfires: 
Unattended or poorly extinguished recreational fires.

Equipment and vehicles:
Sparks from machinery, trains, or dragging chains.

Negligence and arson:
Discarded cigarettes and intentional acts.
(source Nationkl Park Service)

 

2: Regional Breakdown of Wildfires

United States: About 84% of wildfires are human-caused.
Mediterranean Europe: More than 90% to 95% are human-caused.
Tropics and Africa: Roughly 75% to 90% stem from human activities, heavily tied to agricultural land clearing
(source NASA Science)


 
3: Notable California Fires And Their Causes:

 

1) The current (8/2026) Washington State fire that has destroyed 600 homes.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/spokane-washington-wildfires-homes-destroyed/
Cause:  Arson

2) The 2025 Palisades Fire destroyed 6,831 structures and damaged another 973 in the Pacific Palisades and Malibu areas. In the city of Malibu alone, the mayor confirmed that nearly 600 single-family homes were among the structures destroyed. https://laedc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/LAEDC_2025-LA-Wildfires-Study_090525-UPDATE.pdf
Cause : Arson

3) The 2025 Eaton Fire, which swept through Altadena and surrounding areas destroyed a total of 6,011 homes. An additional 100 multi-family residential structures were also completely lost to the fire:   Total structures destroyed: 9,418. https://www.kcra.com/article/southern-california-edison-equipment-2025-eaton-fire-cause-los-angeles-county/73346640
Cause: SoCal Edison Power lines

4) The 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, California destroyed about 11,000 to 14,000 homes, with a total of roughly 18,700 destroyed structures overall.  Total area burned: 153,336 acres.  https://www.britannica.com/event/Camp-Fire-of-2018
Cause:  PG& Power lines

 

4: US Wildfire Arson Facts

Percentage range:  Intentionally set fires account for roughly 6% to 10% of all recorded wildfires in California, and up to 10% to 15% in specific yearly data reviews.

Total yearly counts: For example, Cal Fire reported 358 arson-caused wildland fires during the 2022 tracking period.

Arrests made: State fire law enforcement agencies typically make between 70 and 120 arson arrests each year depending on the severity of the fire season.

Broader context: While lightning and accidental human actions (like power lines or campfires) start a larger total volume of massive acreage fires, arson remains a steady criminal risk (New York Times)

 

 # # #

Comments to editor@theStreetWallJournal.com 
 

 
 
 
'NO PAYMENT' HOME EQUITY LOANS
 
hard times loans
 
THIS PREDATORY 'HARD TIMES' PRODUCT IS AN EQUITY-RETURN BASED MORTGAGE 
that will probably strip millions of homeowners of their properties.
 
A case of "We take ours at the back end - and we give it to you in the rear end"
 
The lender's 'share of your home's equity' calculation is based on the amount borrowed as a percentage of your  home's value. The lenderI will appraise your property at below its value to adjust the loan's equity percentage  -  and then the equity is doubled.   So you would be selling your equity at under 50% on the dollar.  THEN over a 10 year period and regardless of whether the property appreciates OR depreciates the sum due grows on average between 10% -19.99% a year so whatever  - and the lender can force a sale if you cannot pay back the loan.
 
Here is a calculator by one of the lenders.  https://www.jgwentworth.com/home-equity-cashout-calcul
 
 
BELOW IS HOW THIS PREDATORY LENDING WORKS
 
EG. A 10-YEAR HOME EQUITY AGREEMENT
 
Example
The lender advancing $50,000 against a property worth $600,000 represents a 8.3% equity stake in the property
BUT
The lender's appraiser values your property at $500,000
 
SO
 
Tthe percentage of equity given up increases to 10%
 
AND
 
the loan contract doubles the equity stake as a buffer
And
 
Closing costs reduce the money you receive to $45,000
 
SO
The lender now owns a 20% equity stake of a $600,000 property for $50,000
In one year
 
If you are forced by econimic reasons to sell  the property
 
and it sells for $569,251
 
And
 
The lender will receive $65,995 for their $50,000 loan
 
and you would receive  $503,256
 
 
In 10 Years the loan has to be repaid
Now the property is worth $775,829
And
The lender has a 20%
If you sell
The lender reveives $141,060 for $45,000
a profit of $96,060
And
 
If you have no other mortages,
you would receive $634,769
 
IF you do not wish to sell
 
You will have to pay the lender $141,060
 
 
 
 SO, Why is this a bad deal for the home owner?
 
Because IN YEAR 10 The lender has to be paid back
and can force a sale OF YOUR PROPERTY unless you pay them back
 
And 
Mortgage rates are currently 7%,
and a profit of $91,060 is equal to an interest rate of 11%
 
 
QED
 
 
 # # #
 
 

 

 
 
A Consumers' Guide to How the Federal Reserve Affects Credit Card Interest Payments  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
How many Americans know that the Federal Reserve is owned by the banks and NOT a government agency?

 
Established on December 23, 1913, by President Woodrow Wilson through the Federal Reserve Act , the Federal Reserve System (the Fed) was created as the U.S. central bank to ensure financial stability following the Panic of 1907. It serves as a decentralized system with 12 regional banks and a central Board of Governors, designed to create an "elastic" currency and regulate the banking system.
 
 
 
 
Below is a Current Example of How the Federal Reserve Might Act

 
AS A REACTION TO  the current Iran conflict  - at a time of great hardship for the American people - the Federal Reserve is contemplating raising interest rates to slow down inflation.  But the rise in inflation will be due to increases in the price of basics. such gasoline for all forms of transport and food that can't be controlled, 

 
So the American people will be paying more so let's look at how the credit card banks would benefit
 
 
CREDIT CARD INTEREST

 
Payments by consumers:

 
Statistic 1:  Cardholders pay annual interest of $159 Billion
 
111 million American credit card holders carry forward a monthly balance of $6.500 at an adjustable rate of 22%, each paying some $1,430 a year in interest or a total of $159 Billion
 
Statistic 2: A 25% rate increase would increase each cardholder fees by $3.58
 
When the Federal Reserve raises of lower interest rates by 25 basis points (that's .25% to most people) the impact on the majority of credit card holders in pretty minimal with average adjustment going up of down approximately $3.58.

 
Income to card issuers / banks
:

 
Statistic 3:  Banks currently net $132 Billion in excess interest (over the FederalFund rate)
 
The current Federal Funds rate is 3.75% and on a card with an interest rate of 22% the margin is approximately 18.25% or $132 Billion  (111.000.000 x $6,5000 x .1825)
 
Statistic 4:  A 25% rate increase would net the banks a further $397
 
The annual cumulative impact on the credit card companies when the Federal Reserve card companies raises or lowers the interest rate by .25% is $397 million   (111,000,000 x $3.58)
 
Statistic 5: A .5% rate increase would net the banks a further $795 million  
 
The annual cumulative impact on the credit card companies when the Federal Reserve card companies raises or lowers the interest rate by .5% is $795 million   (111,000,000 x $7.16)
 
 

 
SO, LET'S LOOK BEHIND THE CURTAIN
 

The key Federal Reserve member banks (Shareholders) are: 

JPMorgan Chase Bank, Citibank, Bank of America

 
The major credit card issuers companies.
 
Major credit card companies  that, work with the four primary card networks
—Visa, Mastercard, American Express, and Discover are led by : 
 
Chase, Citicorp, Bank of America.
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

* THE  CULTURAL VALIDITY  SPECIAL *

 
 
 
Pick a Side.
Issue 1: American Eagle in a possible case of  'It's Just the Jeans, Mam!' vs. Ralph Lauren's Black Ad.
 
Pick a Side.
Issue 2: Should only Zara Ads be Banned as 'Unhealthily' Thin Models By Government Watchdog, or None?
 
   
 
 

  An Issue with 'Protruding Collarbones' 

Zara models too thin

 

Two adverts by fashion brand Zara have been banned for featuring models who appeared "unhealthily thin".

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said shadows and a slick back bun hairstyle made one model appear "gaunt" while the pose and low cut design of a shirt in another image showed the model's "protruding" collarbones.

The watchdog ruled that the "irresponsible" adverts must not appear again in their current form and that Zara must ensure all its images were "prepared responsibly."

Zara has removed the adverts and said that both models in question had medical certification proving they were in good health when the pictures were taken.  For those not old enough to remember what society looked like when it came to both the street and advertisers a google search would provide enlightening images.

We can't help but wonder at what point will people - who used to be considered to be normal weight - be grabbed off the street, bundled into vans,  and force fed hamburgers until they need to take Ozempic to fuel the medical industrial complex's fat profits.  (source: The Street Wall Journal writers.)

 

 

 

 

But (no puns intended) this SNAG model is acceptable

are snag models too fat?
 

The boss of online clothing brand Snag has told the BBC it gets more than 100 complaints a day that the models in its adverts are "too fat".

Chief executive Brigitte Read says models of her size 4-38 clothing are frequently the target of "hateful" posts about their weight.

The brand was cited in an online debate over whether adverts showing "unhealthily fat" models should be banned after a Next advert, in which a model appeared "unhealthily thin", was banned.

The UK's advertising watchdog says it has banned ads using models who appear unhealthily underweight rather than overweight due to society's aspiration towards thinness.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) received 61 complaints about models' weight in 2024, with the vast majority being about models who appeared to be too thin.

But it only had grounds to investigate eight complaints and none were about Snag.

Catherine Thom read the BBC report about the Next advert ban and got in touch to say she found it "hypocritical to ban adverts where models appear too thin for being socially irresponsible, however when models are clearly obese we're saying it's body positivity".   
    
 
 
 
 

About the Publisher

 

Email editor@TheStreetWallJournal.com for a free subscription delivered to you mailbox
 
(c) Copyright 2026 - all rights reserved

 

# # #