4 ms·

The Camp fire was legally PG&E's fault, and you can blame them for not maintaining their equipment and starting a fire, but you can't blame them for the magnitu

The Camp fire was legally PG&E's fault, and you can blame them for not maintaining their equipment and starting a fire, but you can't blame them for the magnitude of the fire. The Camp fire was so huge because: a) Large parts of California have fire as part of their natural ecological lifecycle. In most of the U.S., downfall wood rots, but in most of California, it's too dry so it just sits there building up until it catches on fire. b) People like to live near or in the woods, like they can in other states, so they lobby the government to suppress fires. Suppressing fires causes more buildup of downfall wood. If fires are always suppressed, the energy will simply keep building up until it can support a fire so fast and so extreme that it cannot be contained by Cal Fire. c) We're experiencing some changes in the climate, and we just got out of a huge drought that killed off a very large number of trees in California. There will always be ignition sources, whether it's a camp fire, a cigarette, power lines, an arsonist, a truck with a hot catalytic converter parked over dry grass, or lightning, large amounts of combustible material laying on the ground will eventually burn. If we just say the problem is poorly maintained power lines and fix all of them, or turn off the power for weeks every year, nothing will change. The fuel will still be there and eventually something will light it on fire. I highly recommend this lecture by Stephen Pyne that goes into all of this and has some extremely interesting information about the history of fire suppression in the U.S., and how the Native Americans learned how to effectively manage fire in California over centuries. http://longnow.org/seminars/02016/feb/09/fire-slow-fire-fast-fire-deep/ http://longnow.org/seminars/02016/feb/09/fire-slow-fire-fast...

eutropia 7y ago
I was so amazed when I learned that many Western coniferous trees adapted to drop their lower limbs as they grow and only keep the trunk free of extra kindling near the ground, so they can survive brush fires easily. That's one of the reasons that visibility is so nice out west in the woods! Not as many branches close to the ground where you're walking.
product50 7y ago
While PG&E is definitely at fault here, I feel California deserves this type of treatment. With the extremely stringent regulations which place PG&E at risk for massive fines/penalty for wildfires even if they take all possible precautions, this is the logical outcome of a company trying to stay afloat.
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  Sorry, if it's not PG&E it will be some guy with a cigarette, drunk campers, or lightning. The root cause of this is hotter temperatures than the area is adapted to. They're up 3 deg F over average and rising. It's killing trees with drought paired with hotter fires than the native trees evolved to tolerate. I don't mean to be gloomy but this is the just the beginning, it's getting much worse.
  - newnewpdro 7y ago
    Blaming climate change as the root cause of these fires is to completely ignore the fundamental nature of California.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
    Yeah, but that guy doesn't have the liability (judgement proof)
  - trimbo 7y ago
    Or a pyromaniac who flies here from Missouri :( https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/26/freddie-graham-missouri-starts-fires-california-bay-area/ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/26/freddie-graham-mi...
  - chrisco255 7y ago
    Droughts are nothing new to California. The worst droughts were in the 30s, 70s and 80s: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-retrospective-20150413-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-re... But also, there's fossil evidence of 200 year droughts in California: https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-pa...
  - abstractbarista 7y ago
    Is it though? That area is naturally a bundle of kindling. It's part of the lifecycle to burn, flourish, then burn again. It's us grumpy humans who moved in and sought to control it who are the problem. If you live there, your infrastructure should be impervious to fire. Nothing less. Let it burn!
baybal2 7y ago
> b) People like to live near or in the woods, like they can in other states, so they lobby the government to suppress fires Bringing you constructive criticism here: American states seem to have building and zoning codes regulating everything imaginable, but they let you build a residential in the woods without a fire safety zone...
- cameldrv 7y ago
  Ok, not sure what you mean by constructive criticism -- I didn't make these laws, I'm just trying to describe the incentives and dynamics. It's very pleasant to live in the woods, and in many places, this is relatively safe because downfall wood rots. It's not safe in California. The Native Americans knew this and didn't live in the woods. You can either say that people have to accept that their house will burn down periodically or prevent them from building it there. Unfortunately it is very difficult politically to tell someone that their house needs to burn even if they theoretically agreed to that at some point in the past.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    What about mandating a 1km fire safety zones? The few states in US that have a recommendation on that put safety zones of just 150m or less
    - cameldrv 7y ago
      Why 1km?
      - baybal2 7y ago
        Quite sane norm, given that firestorm can leap 500 metres and give instant radiation burns at a substantial distance too. Poisoning is also a big threat. Look at norms in other countries with hot and dry woodlands
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Depending on the characteristics of specific fires and locations, that might be too much, not enough, or simply the wrong tactic. In the Camp and other recent fires, most structure losses were precipitated by blown embers, rather than direct exposure to a flame wall. In many places, the ember plume resembled a rain or constant stream, rather than individual embers or firebrands floating through the air, and any point of purchase or entry (dead leaves, brush near the house, exposed eaves, raised wooden decks or stairs) were potential ignition points. Embers entering into attics through eves seem to be a particularly pronounced factor. A firebreak of ~100m is sufficient for most instances, if construction is fire-aware and flammable litter is kept to a minimum. Features such as sprinklers can also help -- even a small amount of water will keep surfaces below ignition point. (Though there can still be other heat and smoke damage to property and possessions.) What's increasingly occurring in California is a merging of wild and urban fires as occurred in Ventura, Paradise, Sonoma, Santa Rosa, Glen Ellen, and Redding in recent years. These are major conflagrations not at the urban-forest interface, but well within urban zones. Fire safety zones enough are proving insufficient in such cases.
dredmorbius 7y ago
The ease of ignition for wildfires in California really cannot be overstated. In recent years, as you note, catalytic converters, power lines, welding equipment, cigarettes, mower blades, flat tires (rim scraping on asphalt), hammers, and broken glass have all started major fires. A Redding fire a few years ago was started by a man mowing his property -- the steel mower blade struck a rock and ignited a major blaze. Which is incredible enough, but the fact is that this risk was known, mowing at that time was prohibited, and he was prosecuted and convicted. The fuel load is so increadibly dry, and "red flag" conditions, with high heat, low humidity, and gusty and often unpredictable winds, that any point of ignition can and will set off a blaze. Attempting to remove all points of ignition simply isn't sufficient or possible, though it may help in some cases. A few cases and ignition causes mentioned here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/us/california-wildfires-human-causes-arson.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/us/california-wildfires-h...

eutropia 7y ago

I was so amazed when I learned that many Western coniferous trees adapted to drop their lower limbs as they grow and only keep the trunk free of extra kindling near the ground, so they can survive brush fires easily. That's one of the reasons that visibility is so nice out west in the woods! Not as many branches close to the ground where you're walking.

product50 7y ago

While PG&E is definitely at fault here, I feel California deserves this type of treatment. With the extremely stringent regulations which place PG&E at risk for massive fines/penalty for wildfires even if they take all possible precautions, this is the logical outcome of a company trying to stay afloat.

throwaway5752 7y ago
Sorry, if it's not PG&E it will be some guy with a cigarette, drunk campers, or lightning. The root cause of this is hotter temperatures than the area is adapted to. They're up 3 deg F over average and rising. It's killing trees with drought paired with hotter fires than the native trees evolved to tolerate. I don't mean to be gloomy but this is the just the beginning, it's getting much worse.
- newnewpdro 7y ago
  Blaming climate change as the root cause of these fires is to completely ignore the fundamental nature of California.
- WrtCdEvrydy 7y ago
  Yeah, but that guy doesn't have the liability (judgement proof)
- trimbo 7y ago
  Or a pyromaniac who flies here from Missouri :( https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/26/freddie-graham-missouri-starts-fires-california-bay-area/ https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2019/09/26/freddie-graham-mi...
- chrisco255 7y ago
  Droughts are nothing new to California. The worst droughts were in the 30s, 70s and 80s: https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-retrospective-20150413-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-california-re... But also, there's fossil evidence of 200 year droughts in California: https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-pa...
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  Is it though? That area is naturally a bundle of kindling. It's part of the lifecycle to burn, flourish, then burn again. It's us grumpy humans who moved in and sought to control it who are the problem. If you live there, your infrastructure should be impervious to fire. Nothing less. Let it burn!

baybal2 7y ago

> b) People like to live near or in the woods, like they can in other states, so they lobby the government to suppress fires Bringing you constructive criticism here: American states seem to have building and zoning codes regulating everything imaginable, but they let you build a residential in the woods without a fire safety zone...

cameldrv 7y ago
Ok, not sure what you mean by constructive criticism -- I didn't make these laws, I'm just trying to describe the incentives and dynamics. It's very pleasant to live in the woods, and in many places, this is relatively safe because downfall wood rots. It's not safe in California. The Native Americans knew this and didn't live in the woods. You can either say that people have to accept that their house will burn down periodically or prevent them from building it there. Unfortunately it is very difficult politically to tell someone that their house needs to burn even if they theoretically agreed to that at some point in the past.
- baybal2 7y ago
  What about mandating a 1km fire safety zones? The few states in US that have a recommendation on that put safety zones of just 150m or less
  - cameldrv 7y ago
    Why 1km?
    - baybal2 7y ago
      Quite sane norm, given that firestorm can leap 500 metres and give instant radiation burns at a substantial distance too. Poisoning is also a big threat. Look at norms in other countries with hot and dry woodlands
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    Depending on the characteristics of specific fires and locations, that might be too much, not enough, or simply the wrong tactic. In the Camp and other recent fires, most structure losses were precipitated by blown embers, rather than direct exposure to a flame wall. In many places, the ember plume resembled a rain or constant stream, rather than individual embers or firebrands floating through the air, and any point of purchase or entry (dead leaves, brush near the house, exposed eaves, raised wooden decks or stairs) were potential ignition points. Embers entering into attics through eves seem to be a particularly pronounced factor. A firebreak of ~100m is sufficient for most instances, if construction is fire-aware and flammable litter is kept to a minimum. Features such as sprinklers can also help -- even a small amount of water will keep surfaces below ignition point. (Though there can still be other heat and smoke damage to property and possessions.) What's increasingly occurring in California is a merging of wild and urban fires as occurred in Ventura, Paradise, Sonoma, Santa Rosa, Glen Ellen, and Redding in recent years. These are major conflagrations not at the urban-forest interface, but well within urban zones. Fire safety zones enough are proving insufficient in such cases.

dredmorbius 7y ago

The ease of ignition for wildfires in California really cannot be overstated. In recent years, as you note, catalytic converters, power lines, welding equipment, cigarettes, mower blades, flat tires (rim scraping on asphalt), hammers, and broken glass have all started major fires. A Redding fire a few years ago was started by a man mowing his property -- the steel mower blade struck a rock and ignited a major blaze. Which is incredible enough, but the fact is that this risk was known, mowing at that time was prohibited, and he was prosecuted and convicted. The fuel load is so increadibly dry, and "red flag" conditions, with high heat, low humidity, and gusty and often unpredictable winds, that any point of ignition can and will set off a blaze. Attempting to remove all points of ignition simply isn't sufficient or possible, though it may help in some cases. A few cases and ignition causes mentioned here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/us/california-wildfires-human-causes-arson.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/20/us/california-wildfires-h...