5 ms·

The real philosophy is in the budget.

culi 2y ago
Bad philosophy. Less prescribed burns mean more uncontrollable wildfires which means in the long term costs are even higher. Prescribed burns are expensive now because we haven't done them for so long. California banned the indigenous practice of cultural burns before it was even a state! But the more we work on restoring this practice the cheaper it'll be for everyone in the long term
- zo1 2y ago
  Enshittification strikes again. In this case, fees and costs go down by virtue of being pushed out into the future as even higher costs as a result of lack of fees being paid now. Someone should make an encyclopedia or reference doc detailing all the different and specific ways Enshittification manifests. Bonus points if they tie it into Socialism/Communism because I'd bet there is a high degree of overlap between the two in terms of failure modes.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    amazing mental gymnastics, describing how western-markets-failure-mode is directly tied to fictional-enemy-politics . More seriously, maybe systems on a large scale are susceptible? we see evidence of this here?
    - deprecative 2y ago
      It's capitalism. This is not complicated. This is a direct result of starve the beast ideology depriving agencies of funding.
      - tekknik 2y ago
        I slightly grow tired of saying this, but also not. It’s not capitalism, it’s focusing resources on the wrong projects. Homeless people have drugs, but half the state is on fire.
  - culi 2y ago
    This comment is particularly funny because the neologism "enshittification" was coined by an outspoken anti-capitalist AS a criticism of capitalism
    - tekknik 2y ago
      Yes, redirection is a thing. We’re all quite well aware of it.
doctorpangloss 2y ago
Trees and empty land cost nothing. But: CA Insurance Claims USFS Wildfire Year and Settlements Management Budget 2018 $13.6 billion $2.5 billion 2019 $2.8 billion $2.4 billion 2020 $3.5 billion $2.35 billion 2021 $4.75 billion $2.4 billion 2022 (unknown) $2.65 billion 2023 (unknown) $2.97 billion The expensive part of forest fires is paying back homeowners who lost their homes in places guaranteed to be lit on fire, at prices for homes as though the fires didn't exist. The way we chose to do this is by saying it was PG&E's fault, and in exchange, PG&E gets to recoup those payments via permanently higher rates. It is a little complicated, but it isn't that complicated. The simple question is, should the government pay a safe home's price for a burnt down home?
- deepsun 2y ago
  No. Let owners exercise owner's responsibility (e.g. insurance, and if insurance is too expensive -- well, the risk is too high). PS: I heard the thing California does, however, is putting a cap on insurance premiums, so insurers just avoid some regions, and owners cannot find insurance to buy. It's kinda the same thing -- owner's responsibility.
  - xenadu02 2y ago
    AFAIK in CA insurance rates must be set based on historical trends not anticipated future losses or reinsurance prices. It is easy to imagine why - insurance companies love to play financial games when they can. Historical data is lagging by nature and the reinsurance market predicts large fires will continue thus the insurers get hit from both sides. Note that a lot of the property insurance regulation stems from a 1988 voter proposition. I suppose it has worked fine from then until now but the CA drought and greatly increased fire risk was an unexpected shock. FWIW I would guess that we won't see extreme fire events for some time going forward - probably not until a "big drought" comes back to CA 30-40 years from now. The reinsurance market will settle down and mutual insurance companies will end up issuing refunds eventually.
  - doctorpangloss 2y ago

culi 2y ago

Bad philosophy. Less prescribed burns mean more uncontrollable wildfires which means in the long term costs are even higher. Prescribed burns are expensive now because we haven't done them for so long. California banned the indigenous practice of cultural burns before it was even a state! But the more we work on restoring this practice the cheaper it'll be for everyone in the long term

zo1 2y ago
Enshittification strikes again. In this case, fees and costs go down by virtue of being pushed out into the future as even higher costs as a result of lack of fees being paid now. Someone should make an encyclopedia or reference doc detailing all the different and specific ways Enshittification manifests. Bonus points if they tie it into Socialism/Communism because I'd bet there is a high degree of overlap between the two in terms of failure modes.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  amazing mental gymnastics, describing how western-markets-failure-mode is directly tied to fictional-enemy-politics . More seriously, maybe systems on a large scale are susceptible? we see evidence of this here?
  - deprecative 2y ago
    It's capitalism. This is not complicated. This is a direct result of starve the beast ideology depriving agencies of funding.
    - tekknik 2y ago
      I slightly grow tired of saying this, but also not. It’s not capitalism, it’s focusing resources on the wrong projects. Homeless people have drugs, but half the state is on fire.
- culi 2y ago
  This comment is particularly funny because the neologism "enshittification" was coined by an outspoken anti-capitalist AS a criticism of capitalism
  - tekknik 2y ago
    Yes, redirection is a thing. We’re all quite well aware of it.

doctorpangloss 2y ago

Trees and empty land cost nothing. But: CA Insurance Claims USFS Wildfire Year and Settlements Management Budget 2018 $13.6 billion $2.5 billion 2019 $2.8 billion $2.4 billion 2020 $3.5 billion $2.35 billion 2021 $4.75 billion $2.4 billion 2022 (unknown) $2.65 billion 2023 (unknown) $2.97 billion The expensive part of forest fires is paying back homeowners who lost their homes in places guaranteed to be lit on fire, at prices for homes as though the fires didn't exist. The way we chose to do this is by saying it was PG&E's fault, and in exchange, PG&E gets to recoup those payments via permanently higher rates. It is a little complicated, but it isn't that complicated. The simple question is, should the government pay a safe home's price for a burnt down home?

deepsun 2y ago
No. Let owners exercise owner's responsibility (e.g. insurance, and if insurance is too expensive -- well, the risk is too high). PS: I heard the thing California does, however, is putting a cap on insurance premiums, so insurers just avoid some regions, and owners cannot find insurance to buy. It's kinda the same thing -- owner's responsibility.
- xenadu02 2y ago
  AFAIK in CA insurance rates must be set based on historical trends not anticipated future losses or reinsurance prices. It is easy to imagine why - insurance companies love to play financial games when they can. Historical data is lagging by nature and the reinsurance market predicts large fires will continue thus the insurers get hit from both sides. Note that a lot of the property insurance regulation stems from a 1988 voter proposition. I suppose it has worked fine from then until now but the CA drought and greatly increased fire risk was an unexpected shock. FWIW I would guess that we won't see extreme fire events for some time going forward - probably not until a "big drought" comes back to CA 30-40 years from now. The reinsurance market will settle down and mutual insurance companies will end up issuing refunds eventually.
- doctorpangloss 2y ago