What a disappointing and disingenuous piece. To take an egregious example, the article points out that 90% of fires aren’t caused by electrical equipment, but f

What a disappointing and disingenuous piece. To take an egregious example, the article points out that 90% of fires aren’t caused by electrical equipment, but fails to mention that the most destructive ones have been. As for the idea of homeowners in fire prone regions shouldering all of the risk, is that reasonable when the frequency and magnitude of the fires appears to be changing so significantly? (I’m not sure, but I think areas of risk have also expanded significantly.). There are also huge externalities: it’s not just homeowners’ problem when smoke blankets regions housing millions of people hundreds of miles away from the fire.