Fire danger in California is mostly due to terrible forest management policies - large scale blanket fire suppression and serious impediments towards logging and brush clearing.
Global warming may be what is lighting the match (sometimes - but frankly probably is only a minor influence) however the giant pile of fuel that has been growing for 100 years remains almost completely unabated.
A match thrown down in a healthy forest won’t produce a massive apocalyptic firestorm.
No matter the time of year.
Even back in the 70’s the National Park service in Yosemite knew the existing forest management practice was creating apocalyptic fire risk (and the ‘91 Yosemite fire bore that out) but until very recently, practices across the state have been unchanged.
Defacto, walk through the forests in California and the build up of brush is monumental. Along the coasts and in the Sierra Nevada. Many areas are impassible, except those that have burned recently.
If that were the case, we could let the trees be logged which I'm sure industries are scrambling to do, seems like a win-win? The fact that it hasn't happened would imply it is not the case.
Yes, a person in the inland empire using gas to get to their job far as fuck away because that’s all the house they can afford should clearly be subsidizing some coastal elite’s “I want a house on a cliff overlooking the ocean” insurance. Because fossil fuel use is the direct cause of the house’s instability.
Is there any indication that the high risk properties in California are coastal instead of rural or exurban? Presumably the risk is from fire and that’s disproportionately not going to be in highly developed communities like the coastal regions.
There is very high fire risk in the coastal hills, which contain the most expensive real estate in CA, but low risk in the adjacent urban areas closer to the water.
The exurban areas of CA are in the Central Valley, which has lower fire risk, but very high heat risk. Rural areas can have high or low fire risk, depending on where they are.
This seems like a random meme designed to avoid drawing a basic line of responsiblity between fossil fuel emissions and the costs they impose on many people. That's one discussion.
Another discussion is if you chose to connect those - then how do you distribute the costs - and some allocation picked to inflame the discussion seems to be avoid the first issue while assuming some particular lopsided distribution.
