6 ms·

The silliest thing about this is that anthropogenic forest fires have been the norm in CA for thousands of years. If they aren't started on purpose by a human t

The silliest thing about this is that anthropogenic forest fires have been the norm in CA for thousands of years. If they aren't started on purpose by a human they will eventually be started by a human accident (or the rare lightening strike). The ecosystem evolved with humans this way. The notion of liability here is absurd. http://www.californiachaparral.com/enativeamericans.html http://www.californiachaparral.com/enativeamericans.html https://phys.org/news/2017-01-anthropogenic-forest-impacted-earth-climate.html https://phys.org/news/2017-01-anthropogenic-forest-impacted-...

wil421 8y ago
The differencea is this one was probably started by power lines. Other fires were also started by campers or reckless people. None of these situations are natural.
- andrewvc 8y ago
  Please read the linked articles in my parent comment. They are natural, because humans are natural. California's vegetation has evolved to burn and quickly regrow and easily burn again due to anthropogenic fire for thousands of years. If it were not for human involvement CA might have more fire resistant species.
- akvadrako 8y ago
  The limiting factor contributing to the total amount of fire is the growth of trees. Naturally it'll happen due to lightning. If that's less often than human triggers, the fires will be bigger.
  - andrewvc 8y ago
    That's actually not necessarily the case. By creating more fires evolutionary pressure favored plants that were designed to burn, grow fast, and leave competitive seeds. BTW much of what burns in CA is not large trees but chapparal. The linked articles I included have more detail.
    - akvadrako 8y ago
      I agree that makes sense over the long term (100+ years), assuming that natural triggers are less frequent than fires put out by people.
zeristor 8y ago
Humans have only been around for 20,000 years or so, I imagine the forests were evolving fine before them.
- jaggederest 8y ago
  You drastically underestimate the rapidity of catastrophe as an evolutionary forcing function. Many or most of the trees in these areas are now not merely tolerant to, but dependent on (apparently anthropogenic) fire in order to reproduce.
- tome 8y ago
  You're off by at least a factor of 10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens#Age_and_speciation_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens#Age_and_speciatio...
  - enimodas 8y ago
    But the forests are in America, for which is he is ~correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas#Chronology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas#Chr...
    - tome 8y ago
      Ah, good point!
fredley 8y ago
Given it's a place where forest fires happen there should be liability for the town planners who decided to put settlements in the middle of what would inevitably one day become a firestorm, or allow existing settlements to grow. If you designed a building in SF, you'd be expected to make it resistant to earthquakes. When it's known that a type of natural disaster is prevalent where you're building, the liability is with those that allow inappropriate building in those places.
- tyu1000 8y ago
  Completely agree. 'Climate change' is just something thrown around now for people and their political units to abdicate responsibility for their own actions. 'Climate change' didn't force people to build housing in California forests and right on Florida beaches, local land-use, urban planning and transportation decisions did.
  - dd36 8y ago
    That’s not all climate change is.
  - PhasmaFelis 8y ago
    Who said anything about climate change?
    - reaperducer 8y ago
      The governor of California. Repeatedly. He publicly blamed the fires on climate change, not PG&E. As if climate change has made California's forests so hot that they're spontaneously combusting.
- gxigzigxigxi 8y ago
  Why not place the blame on who made the ultimatr choice to live in a place: the homeowner?
  - IshKebab 8y ago
will_brown 8y ago
That’s like saying death is natural and would occur any way, so there shouldn’t be liability if one human causes another human’s death. Sure forest fires may have occurred anyway but if someone started it either intentionally or negligently, well they should be liable for at least some of the damages.
- andrewvc 8y ago
  The difficulty people have in understanding that these fires are inevitable is why they won't stop anytime soon. People will die because of our collective inability to accept the ecology of the region. It's more like there's a crowded place with a gun pointed at the middle of the crowd. Every 30m the gun is cocked. 1-10m after that based on a random timer, it fires. If someone trips and accidentally pulls the trigger after 32m in are they liable? Maybe, but only in the smallest way. The actual problem is the gun or the people walking in front of it. It's wrong to use the word "may" for these fires. These areas have evolved to burn and will do so unless we shrink wrap each plant. Humans put the gun there, we started burning which gave rise to an ecosystem that thrived on burning and encouraged more. Then, we settled that area en masse.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    Whether or not a fire is inevitable has nothing to do with liability for starting a fire. If a poorly maintained utility truck didn’t start the fire...maybe eventually there would have been controlled burns/fires that ultimately prevented the damages that resulted from this fire. Or maybe, as you say the forest inevitably catches on fire from a natural act (act of god - a legal term of art) and forest fire burns in a less populated area and no damage is caused to people/homes...or maybe lightning starts the same fire in the same location and causes the same damages, well even then insurance exists to cover that, but otherwise there wouldn’t be liability the same as someone negligently/intentionally setting the fire. Fires can legally be acts of god, same as the law might treat a hurricane or tornado...but unlike the later humans can’t (at least not yet) cause them intentionally or negligently, obviously fires are different as they canso liability (criminal and/or civil) is appropriate for fires started intentionally or negligently.

wil421 8y ago

The differencea is this one was probably started by power lines. Other fires were also started by campers or reckless people. None of these situations are natural.

andrewvc 8y ago
Please read the linked articles in my parent comment. They are natural, because humans are natural. California's vegetation has evolved to burn and quickly regrow and easily burn again due to anthropogenic fire for thousands of years. If it were not for human involvement CA might have more fire resistant species.
akvadrako 8y ago
The limiting factor contributing to the total amount of fire is the growth of trees. Naturally it'll happen due to lightning. If that's less often than human triggers, the fires will be bigger.
- andrewvc 8y ago
  That's actually not necessarily the case. By creating more fires evolutionary pressure favored plants that were designed to burn, grow fast, and leave competitive seeds. BTW much of what burns in CA is not large trees but chapparal. The linked articles I included have more detail.
  - akvadrako 8y ago
    I agree that makes sense over the long term (100+ years), assuming that natural triggers are less frequent than fires put out by people.

zeristor 8y ago

Humans have only been around for 20,000 years or so, I imagine the forests were evolving fine before them.

jaggederest 8y ago
You drastically underestimate the rapidity of catastrophe as an evolutionary forcing function. Many or most of the trees in these areas are now not merely tolerant to, but dependent on (apparently anthropogenic) fire in order to reproduce.
tome 8y ago
You're off by at least a factor of 10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens#Age_and_speciation_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_sapiens#Age_and_speciatio...
- enimodas 8y ago
  But the forests are in America, for which is he is ~correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas#Chronology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_the_Americas#Chr...
  - tome 8y ago
    Ah, good point!

fredley 8y ago

Given it's a place where forest fires happen there should be liability for the town planners who decided to put settlements in the middle of what would inevitably one day become a firestorm, or allow existing settlements to grow. If you designed a building in SF, you'd be expected to make it resistant to earthquakes. When it's known that a type of natural disaster is prevalent where you're building, the liability is with those that allow inappropriate building in those places.

tyu1000 8y ago
Completely agree. 'Climate change' is just something thrown around now for people and their political units to abdicate responsibility for their own actions. 'Climate change' didn't force people to build housing in California forests and right on Florida beaches, local land-use, urban planning and transportation decisions did.
- dd36 8y ago
  That’s not all climate change is.
- PhasmaFelis 8y ago
  Who said anything about climate change?
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    The governor of California. Repeatedly. He publicly blamed the fires on climate change, not PG&E. As if climate change has made California's forests so hot that they're spontaneously combusting.
gxigzigxigxi 8y ago
Why not place the blame on who made the ultimatr choice to live in a place: the homeowner?
- IshKebab 8y ago

will_brown 8y ago

That’s like saying death is natural and would occur any way, so there shouldn’t be liability if one human causes another human’s death. Sure forest fires may have occurred anyway but if someone started it either intentionally or negligently, well they should be liable for at least some of the damages.

andrewvc 8y ago
The difficulty people have in understanding that these fires are inevitable is why they won't stop anytime soon. People will die because of our collective inability to accept the ecology of the region. It's more like there's a crowded place with a gun pointed at the middle of the crowd. Every 30m the gun is cocked. 1-10m after that based on a random timer, it fires. If someone trips and accidentally pulls the trigger after 32m in are they liable? Maybe, but only in the smallest way. The actual problem is the gun or the people walking in front of it. It's wrong to use the word "may" for these fires. These areas have evolved to burn and will do so unless we shrink wrap each plant. Humans put the gun there, we started burning which gave rise to an ecosystem that thrived on burning and encouraged more. Then, we settled that area en masse.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Whether or not a fire is inevitable has nothing to do with liability for starting a fire. If a poorly maintained utility truck didn’t start the fire...maybe eventually there would have been controlled burns/fires that ultimately prevented the damages that resulted from this fire. Or maybe, as you say the forest inevitably catches on fire from a natural act (act of god - a legal term of art) and forest fire burns in a less populated area and no damage is caused to people/homes...or maybe lightning starts the same fire in the same location and causes the same damages, well even then insurance exists to cover that, but otherwise there wouldn’t be liability the same as someone negligently/intentionally setting the fire. Fires can legally be acts of god, same as the law might treat a hurricane or tornado...but unlike the later humans can’t (at least not yet) cause them intentionally or negligently, obviously fires are different as they canso liability (criminal and/or civil) is appropriate for fires started intentionally or negligently.