4 ms·

When the conditions are right its extremely easy for a wildfire to start. Lightning strikes, a glass bottle in the sun, a camp fire, there's so many different w

When the conditions are right its extremely easy for a wildfire to start. Lightning strikes, a glass bottle in the sun, a camp fire, there's so many different ways it could get started. Does it really matter that it happened to be PG&E's equipment in this case? If not them, it would have happened anyway from another cause. It seems unfair to hold them liable, or at least, the extremely hostile tone in these comments seems a bit overboard. In my early teens my family moved to rural northern Idaho and my dad decided one day to burn some of the brush on our land to clean it up. Well, being from a much more suburban setting we didn't know that that's a real no-no that time of year. The fire got out of control and started burning into the trees and my mom, brothers, and I frantically fought it with hoes and buckets of water while dad tried to plow over it with the bulldozer (we didn't have a phone and this was an hour drive from a fire department). Anyway, we finally got it put out before it got into the national forest bordering our property on the east. Very very scary. A week later there was a lightning strike fire in the national forest which ended up burning several hundred acres.

thaumaturgy 8y ago
> Does it really matter that it happened to be PG&E's equipment in this case? If not them, it would have happened anyway from another cause. It seems unfair to hold them liable... Okay, so an arsonist sets off a massive wildfire. Should they not be found at fault? Surely the fire would've barely burned at all if it weren't for the conditions. Nobody disputes that conditions were a contributing factor. On the contrary, that's why it was more important than usual to prevent sources of ignition as much as possible. It wasn't a lightning strike, it wasn't a hot muffler, it wasn't arson, it was PG&E's equipment that ignited the fire that destroyed an entire community, and that equipment failure was the direct result of their chronic poor maintenance. I think the comments here are quite civilized all things considered. PG&E has a long history of poor equipment maintenance and has been the proximate cause for numerous environmental disasters. They are responsible for the deaths of over a hundred people over the last few years, the endangerment of thousands more, the displacement of tens of thousands more, and the destruction of multiple communities. No action currently being taken against them is inappropriate under the circumstances.
- packet_nerd 8y ago
  The fire could just as easily have been started by anyone. Heck, I'm pretty sure you can find similar lapses in maintenance at pretty much any company in California or the country. Any one of them could have caused the fire. Or it could just as easily started from something totally different. I just feel like the punishment should fit the crime (failing to maintain equipment) and should be fair (apply to all companies who fail to maintain their equipment). Turning them into a scapegoat just because we're out for blood doesn't sit right with me. Arson implies mal-intent and is a totally different thing. Not understanding the connection?

thaumaturgy 8y ago

> Does it really matter that it happened to be PG&E's equipment in this case? If not them, it would have happened anyway from another cause. It seems unfair to hold them liable... Okay, so an arsonist sets off a massive wildfire. Should they not be found at fault? Surely the fire would've barely burned at all if it weren't for the conditions. Nobody disputes that conditions were a contributing factor. On the contrary, that's why it was more important than usual to prevent sources of ignition as much as possible. It wasn't a lightning strike, it wasn't a hot muffler, it wasn't arson, it was PG&E's equipment that ignited the fire that destroyed an entire community, and that equipment failure was the direct result of their chronic poor maintenance. I think the comments here are quite civilized all things considered. PG&E has a long history of poor equipment maintenance and has been the proximate cause for numerous environmental disasters. They are responsible for the deaths of over a hundred people over the last few years, the endangerment of thousands more, the displacement of tens of thousands more, and the destruction of multiple communities. No action currently being taken against them is inappropriate under the circumstances.

packet_nerd 8y ago
The fire could just as easily have been started by anyone. Heck, I'm pretty sure you can find similar lapses in maintenance at pretty much any company in California or the country. Any one of them could have caused the fire. Or it could just as easily started from something totally different. I just feel like the punishment should fit the crime (failing to maintain equipment) and should be fair (apply to all companies who fail to maintain their equipment). Turning them into a scapegoat just because we're out for blood doesn't sit right with me. Arson implies mal-intent and is a totally different thing. Not understanding the connection?