Nugget

So, while this may have some unique elements to it from the original, this is almost definitely not a poem your brother wrote himself. It was probably an assignment, or just something he thought was cool.

Agree with the idea that we should be protecting the environment, but there are some obvious aspects in this writing/song that make it 'misleading' (if that's an appropriate term to use).

First, looking at the wrong problem. California wildfires are bad and detrimental to those who live there, but they are natural and at the rate it is going it is actually helping nature. Geography and climate-temperament plays a role because it is just a drier place that is able to grow vegetation that will later on most likely burn because of the lack of water/dry season. Most of California forests are overgrown and no life is able to live because of high canopies which block out sunlight to the floor, diseased and dying plants leaving behind dry/dead material that doesn't decompose because of the shedding of water that mostly only hits the canopies and lack of diversity in the eco-system. With the wildfires they are having now, it actually will help the forest and the people living there in the long run because with new growth there is less chance of wildfires and there will be larger attainment of water because the plants growing hold it in.
The real problem to be looking at is illegal cutting and poor farming practices. This problem is relevant in the Amazon. Large amount of forests are being cleared, both legally and illegally for farming which goes nowhere because of irrigation systems that don't work out for them and then they keep clearing the forest out contaminating bodies of water and the soil that results in fires and floods that are extreme and historic usually every couple of years which isn't natural for the area to witness.

Second, twisted-politics. They talk about Trump "turns a blind eye..."Global warming's an expensive little hoax"". For something that tries to make Trump look bad, it actually goes in his favor because when he pulled the US out of the PCA (Paris Climate Agreement) the US did better for reducing emissions than all the other nations in the PCA and the US didn't spend millions upon millions of dollars 'revamping' the economy to be 'eco-friendly' when it turned out that the PCA actually did nothing because no country met their quota for carbon emission rates while the US, which backed out of the deal, went above and beyond reducing rates.

Third, extinction of animals and plants. For there to be evolution, there must be extinction. As for how the world sees extinction today, it seems like a huge deal, but looking back at history, it really isn't that bad. There have been about 6 mass extinctions (including now) throughout the history of earth resulting in about 99.9% percent of all living organisms and there are animals and plants that are adapting right now like fish in the Hudson river which can tolerate chemical-induced waters and elephants now losing tusks as wheat can grow in the cold and produce more grain.
Creatures and plants will adapt to their condition and it is the result of Darwinism and nature.

Although humans and environmental actions do play a role in the change of the climate, nature ultimately has the upper-hand. Nature can and will find a balance. Whether it is at our expense or not, it will find a way.
There are stronger forces out there than humans.