“Some initial sparks” is a gross under-characterization by the original author. “Almost all of the millions and millions of burning embers as flying ignition s

“Some initial sparks” is a gross under-characterization by the original author. “Almost all of the millions and millions of burning embers as flying ignition sources, one the three necessary elements of the fire triad” is more accurate to my ears. Without the wildfires providing the ignition, those millions of ignition sources for urban fires simply aren’t there, until an urban conflagration starts creating them for themselves. But there is no major urban conflagration without these initial embers from wildfires…except in certain exceptional scenarios (of which the LA fires and most others cited by the author are not one). Firebombing, coordinated arson, industrial accident…. Which is why almost all urban areas in the US without a wildfire risk have had no urban conflagrations in, say, the last 100 years. Seems to me suppressing the fire triad element of sources of ignition by clearing shrubs and trees is much more economical and less disruptive than multidecade urban redevelopment. On a going forward basis, more thought could be given to newer fire-aware building, if it doesn’t take the bureaucratically clogged housing approval process in CA into full blockage. (What’s the chance of that?) This article sounds either like a grift or AI or both.