• atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • Psychadelligoat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      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

      • WoodScientist@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        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?