I've lived most of my life in California. I am very familiar with Southern California and have traveled through it countless times over the last 30+ years. I've enjoyed spending time in SoCal. My heart goes out to the people that have lost everything as well as the people living on the edge fearing the fires will come their way. Its terrible. Its also not a new story as we have seen this many times before, just not affecting this many people.
There are many theories and factors people are discussing online. Many IMO are missing the key issues. Regardless of how the fires started, sadly this event has only a matter of time. Been thinking about this issue for years and thought I would share my thoughts with you all. These are my opinions, I'm not an expert but I do live in the state and have paid attention to this topic since I was a kid. I've always loved the forests of California and I care about the beautiful state and its people. As I've said before, the government of California is evil. After you read this I hope you will understand why I believe this. I think Gavin Newsom is to blame for many of the issues we face but its bigger than one man. Removing him from office will not fix this problem. It is far more complex.
PG&E's Electricity Infrastructure & The Consequences of Monopolies & Price Controls
I'm not sure at this point if PG&E is at fault for starting these fires but it is at fault for many in the recent past. PG&E is the largest utility company in the state and has a monopoly over most of the state. SoCal Gas & Electric has monopoly over the rest of the state. Both are public utilities which essentially means these are more like government controlled entities than private companies. California has long used price controls on electricity. We know that doesn't work. The state has restricted to addition of new power generation my entire life. So of course PG&E has to import power from other states requiring higher rates for their customers. Due to the mismanagement of PG&E the company has not kept its infrastructure up to date. Many fires are started by shorts in power lines and equipment that is older than me. If you wanna immediately find common ground with a Californian complain about PG&E. So who is at fault? PG&E and the state government. Since PG&E is essentially a government entity I lay the blame on the state.
The problem is that most people have been programmed to believe utilities need to be controlled by government in addition to being monopolies. Its one of the most illogical beliefs to me. Since PG&E is a company people tend to just blame them instead of the politicians and the state. The result is politicians have little incentive to change things.
The Smelt, Salmon, and Water
The Smelt is a small fish that the Salmon eat. There has been a push for many years to restore the historic water ways that are a part of migration paths of the Salmon in California. California's Central Valley(North of Southern California) is a massive producer of produce and other agriculture products. The issues around water are complex and the most frustrating thing for me, a person that was born and raised in the state is how the issues are rarely discussed in rational ways considering trade-offs. Instead there are usually just two sides presented.
- The farmers need water so we need to build more water storage(dams).
- We need to restore the historic water ways of the state and the specifically the historic Salmon runs through those water ways.
I don't have a problem with either of these goals. The issue is that they are in opposition to each other. The fact is that water is needed by farmers in the Central Valley as well as people in Southern California. Southern California would not support the current population without the water from other places being funneled to that region. The farming industry of Central California would also not exist without sufficient water. Additionally the diversion of natural water flows via dams also has reduced flood risks in the state. So when you hear people talking about stealing water or SoCal doesn't have the water it needs this is a bit of context you might not hear. The state has done a terrible job managing water over the past 20 years.
The Historic and Natural Occurrence of Wild Fires
Over my lifetime I have watched as humans have build homes in areas that historically are prone to wild fires. As a kid in the government school system I was taught about forestry management. How the state and federal forestry services would clear dead brush, execute controlled burns, and cut fire lines to help prevent out of control wild fires. Even with this policy there was never a guarantee that homes could be protected but it does seem like that policy helped keep them smaller.
What many people do not understand about wild fires is that they are natural and needed. When the population of California was sparse there weren't any fire fighters putting out fires. They would just burn themselves out. The giant sequoia trees actually depend on wild fires to a certain extent. These fires would burn out the dead growth as well as smaller trees making way for only the strongest to survive.
With the massive population growth of California over the past 100 years fire fighters have began to fight this form of nature. Like many natural forces this usually only postpones the inevitable. Its a tough decision. Do you let natural do its thing or protect people. Growing up the policy was to protect people. This meant putting out fires that threatened humans and their property.
This included what I mentioned before. Logging, clearing out dead growth, controlled burns as well as other methods. In recent years the policy has shifted away from these policies and it is clear to me the results are disastrous. Once again trade-offs are rarely discussed when the government changes policy. Of course doing controlled burns affects air quality. Climate change is often mentioned as a reason to suspend controlled burns but it is clear to me that's just kicking the can down the road. The fires are going to happen. It is just a matter of time.
Human Expansion
In my opinion the single largest factor in these fires is the fact that humans have expanded into areas that historically are often cleared by wild fires. When government policy prioritized humans the risk would be reduced but instead of this the state has prioritized "environmental" interests. What makes this worse is that the state has also put their finger on the scales in regard to insurance.
Once again, I rarely hear the fact that more people are living in forests as a massive factor. I have traveled all over the state over the last 30 years and the growth is incredible. I don't have a problem with his growth but you have to recognize the risk. In a free market insurance should handle this issue of risk.
The Role of Insurance
Insurance is all about calculating risk. If you seek insurance the higher your risk the higher the premium. On both ends of the scale of risk both parties will not enter into an agreement. If the risk is very low individuals will not naturally see a need for insurance. Insurance companies LOVE to sell insurance with low risk. The opposite is true. If your risk is high an insurance company cannot provide assurances of payment.
The thing people most miss about insurance is that they play the role of evaluating risk. They are incentivized reduce risk, much more than the state. Recently insurance companies have stopped offering polices in California due to introduction of price controls and the state's forestry polices. In some of the areas now burning these companies have declined to renew fire polices. Why? Because the risk was to high. That should tell us something.
What Is the Answer
Remove regulations altering the natural market force of insurance. If an area is very risky insurance should be high. That is a signal that can very well save lives. I think people should be allowed to live on any property they own or rent. They should be able to do so without insurance as well. But insurance should be allowed to do what it does. Reduce risk and provide a valuable signal to the market. The same goes for power utilities. There needs to be a removal of the monopoly held by PG&E. They need to build nuclear plants in the state to provide power for the growing population. I believe the market, if allowed to operate would fix these issues.
When it comes to environmentalism the state should pick a side. People, or environmentalism. If they pick environmentalism they should not bail out the insurance companies and restrict building back in areas affected by wild fires. To be clear, I oppose that position because I don't believe it is actually good for the environment of California and its destructive to human life. The other path is to return to managing the forests. Restore the forestry practices that worked for decades. Allow insurance to operate as a free market and listen to the market signals.
When it comes to water its a similar situation. The reality is until farming practices change to be more regenerative and if the population level continues to grow the state is going to have to build more water storage and divert the natural flow of water. Humans are competing for resources with Salmon. I would love to see California restored to a more natural state but the reality is that will not be possible without a drastic population decrease and more fires like this. I don't think the people actually want that. They have been lied to for decades by politicians and environmentalists.
I know this is a long post, there is much more I could say and I'm sure I'll hear it in the comments but I tried to keep this short. Its a very complex issue that the state and Newsom largely own. They will try to distract with many other things but this is where the focus should be IMO.