|
|
|
|
|
|
by jvanderbot
2103 days ago
|
|
|
Yes. Climate change should be met with mitigation (to avoid further climate change) and realistic adaptations of forest management. But, to make matters worse, the baseline expected rate of fires is higher due to climate change, and is much higher due to PG&E negligence. We can and should attack all factors with regulation, maintenance policy change, etc. The fact is, we had maintenance policies for PG&E's portion, and they were negligent. |
|
|
Yes. But we can't control the climate. Or rather climate change will require policies spanning decades or centuries.
>and is much higher due to PG&E negligence
Sure. PG&E should be held accountable for their part. But to mark them as a cause is not right. California was a tinderbox waiting for a spark to start the explosion. It could have been anything, and in fact, there were many 'sparks' that started a bunch of these fires. You make PG&E the scapegoat, you're going to miss the true culprit - bad vegetation management.