Not sure what more they could have done. A drought during rainy season, a quick response to clear dry vegetation/trees is clearing vegetation that could rebound if it rains soon.
From climate statistics of 2024, record monthly rainfalls over 24 hours were 52% higher than average, and record low rainfalls 38% higher than average, globally. 2023 was bad too. These stats, in a non global warming world, would drop each year as the bar is higher each year. Costs of disasters are growing exceptionally.
As bad as the current global warming impact is on just the US’s sustainability from disaster/insurance spending, calls for subsidized insurance doesn’t help. It just shifts burden to tax payers/debt, and like FEMA’s historically cheap flood insurance, encourages rebuiliding where it is risky. Neither does “Insurance reform” that prevents victims from making successful claims (as in Florida).
We may already have reached a point where climate disasters cost more than the profit potential of oil industry. Certainly more than their tax payments. As more of the US is destroyed, remaining housing scarcity means higher insurance coverage. Autos artificially protected means higher prices and insurance costs. (oil) “energy dominance” policies is climate terrorism to ensure a worse outcome.
One simple “helpfulness” in rebuilding is metal roofs that last 50 years and can support solar for that long too. They are fire proof. Less forest, with utility/community solar, becomes necessary from just an insurance perspective. Also related to forest fire problem, CA electricity rates are sky high because somehow utility negligence for past fires has to be paid by state wide rate payers instead of shareholders. CA governance that is captured by utilities and insurance, fail to help CA progress and resilience.
Short term, there’s really not much they could have done better. These were extreme conditions and they were bound to cause fire to a large extent in the current context of peri-urban development and forest mismanagement.
Long term, things could have been different but it would require major political and social changes in how we build cities and how we manage our wildlands. Happy to go into more detail if you are curious.
Destroying and rebuilding homes (AFAIU, most destroyed were over 60 years old) is a tough option. Really, removing forest for solar is the best, only practical, solution. This should be global adaptation to high value forest homes/communities, because drought risk is everywhere.
Not sure what more they could have done. A drought during rainy season, a quick response to clear dry vegetation/trees is clearing vegetation that could rebound if it rains soon.
From climate statistics of 2024, record monthly rainfalls over 24 hours were 52% higher than average, and record low rainfalls 38% higher than average, globally. 2023 was bad too. These stats, in a non global warming world, would drop each year as the bar is higher each year. Costs of disasters are growing exceptionally.
As bad as the current global warming impact is on just the US’s sustainability from disaster/insurance spending, calls for subsidized insurance doesn’t help. It just shifts burden to tax payers/debt, and like FEMA’s historically cheap flood insurance, encourages rebuiliding where it is risky. Neither does “Insurance reform” that prevents victims from making successful claims (as in Florida).
We may already have reached a point where climate disasters cost more than the profit potential of oil industry. Certainly more than their tax payments. As more of the US is destroyed, remaining housing scarcity means higher insurance coverage. Autos artificially protected means higher prices and insurance costs. (oil) “energy dominance” policies is climate terrorism to ensure a worse outcome.
One simple “helpfulness” in rebuilding is metal roofs that last 50 years and can support solar for that long too. They are fire proof. Less forest, with utility/community solar, becomes necessary from just an insurance perspective. Also related to forest fire problem, CA electricity rates are sky high because somehow utility negligence for past fires has to be paid by state wide rate payers instead of shareholders. CA governance that is captured by utilities and insurance, fail to help CA progress and resilience.
Short term, there’s really not much they could have done better. These were extreme conditions and they were bound to cause fire to a large extent in the current context of peri-urban development and forest mismanagement.
Long term, things could have been different but it would require major political and social changes in how we build cities and how we manage our wildlands. Happy to go into more detail if you are curious.
Destroying and rebuilding homes (AFAIU, most destroyed were over 60 years old) is a tough option. Really, removing forest for solar is the best, only practical, solution. This should be global adaptation to high value forest homes/communities, because drought risk is everywhere.