The headline would make more sense if it highlighted that they are looking to help insure prescribed burns. The point being that they have wanted this for a lo

The headline would make more sense if it highlighted that they are looking to help insure prescribed burns. The point being that they have wanted this for a long time, but the risks associated with doing a burn effectively make it so that nobody will do it. All of the talk about whether or not successful controlled burns should be done are somewhat moot. Nobody is arguing against that. Pretty much they never have. The barriers seem to have always been in costs associated with containment and what happens when that goes wrong. Edit: I should add that I stated the "never have" too strongly. It was never unanimous that it was a bad idea. I would be a wrong if I said absolutely nobody ever said it was a bad idea.