Current firefighting techniques allow fires to take their course in unpopulated areas. Since we are a fire safe community we all have defencable space. The son of the folks at the top of the hill is a wildfire fighter. We know the risks and minimize them. Hell a couple of Teslas burned up and the fire was contained. Due to their batteries it probably took longer to put out than anything that grows around here.
You pretend like insurance companies know best, and ‘market forces’ are these perfect righting forces. I call bullshit.
You pretend like insurance companies know best, and ‘market forces’ are these perfect righting forces. I call bullshit.
I pretend nothing. You’re taking this too personally - I don’t care about you and your situation.
Of course they will make mistakes, nothing is perfect. But there will also be many people moving into high-risk areas and forcing others to risk lives and spend money to save them when there is a fire. The same thing happens with floods due to the FEMA flood insurance program. You see homes being destroyed and re-built in flood-risk areas that should simply be moved to a better location instead.
I see PG&E mentioned a lot, but as an outsider, I have to ask, are they just being used as a scapegoat? If you have a tinder-dry forest, yes, the most likely spark is going to be from a faulty electrical line. But sooner or later, that forest is going to burn. If not by an electric wire, then by a lightning strike, random static discharge, sparks from a bit of metal dragging on a car, or some random idiot with a cigarette butt.
I’m honestly curious if there has been any kind of study on this. Do acres near PG&E lines statistically burn at higher rates than those not nearby these lines?
Current firefighting techniques allow fires to take their course in unpopulated areas. Since we are a fire safe community we all have defencable space. The son of the folks at the top of the hill is a wildfire fighter. We know the risks and minimize them. Hell a couple of Teslas burned up and the fire was contained. Due to their batteries it probably took longer to put out than anything that grows around here.
You pretend like insurance companies know best, and ‘market forces’ are these perfect righting forces. I call bullshit.
I pretend nothing. You’re taking this too personally - I don’t care about you and your situation.
Of course they will make mistakes, nothing is perfect. But there will also be many people moving into high-risk areas and forcing others to risk lives and spend money to save them when there is a fire. The same thing happens with floods due to the FEMA flood insurance program. You see homes being destroyed and re-built in flood-risk areas that should simply be moved to a better location instead.
Difference is that, as was already stated, PG&E are the major cause of a lot of the fires that result in places being deemed as high risk.
This isn’t the same thing as hurricanes: humans can absolutely help stop fires from being the issue that they are
Living up to that bootlicker tag I gave you
I see PG&E mentioned a lot, but as an outsider, I have to ask, are they just being used as a scapegoat? If you have a tinder-dry forest, yes, the most likely spark is going to be from a faulty electrical line. But sooner or later, that forest is going to burn. If not by an electric wire, then by a lightning strike, random static discharge, sparks from a bit of metal dragging on a car, or some random idiot with a cigarette butt.
I’m honestly curious if there has been any kind of study on this. Do acres near PG&E lines statistically burn at higher rates than those not nearby these lines?