[Curvature5868]

A viable solution might be the creation of an insurance fund to compensate for any unintended damage caused by prescribed burns. This fund, funded by utility companies especially those in wildfire-prone areas, would function similarly to banks' contributions to the FDIC. This could alleviate liability concerns, thereby encouraging proactive wildfire prevention strategies.

[riskable]

This is a good idea but it doesn't address the pollution problem. If a prescribed burn will increase pollution beyond the EPA's acceptable limits then the burn will be against the law.

We need the EPA's emissions/particulate rules to be adjusted to give priority to prescribed burns by certified firefighters and foresters. They don't do burns often enough that the EPA should be limiting their power to manage fire susceptibility. We also need watchdogs to make sure that regular polluters don't increase output during prescribed burns in order to hide their actual emissions.

[ROTMetro]

Being the devil's advocate, when my mother was dying of cancer there were forest fires here. She had to leave the area and stay at a hotel far away at great cost/physical discomfort (at that point she had a hospital bed at home). There are people who physically can't handle the higher particulate amount, what do you propose we do with them? Let them suffer/die?

[Filligree]

But the burn will happen anyway. It'll just happen at a different time, when it hasn't been prepared for, with less control and more particulates as well as destruction of communities.

[XorNot]

No it won't. It might happen. Or it might go years before happening in that area. Or you might move away before it does.

But you don't get to use your perception of inevitability to cause harm and financial damage for someone else.

[xyzzyz]

Filtering particulates in interior spaces is relatively easy, and when moving between them, you can wear a mask. Of course, this is very inconvenient, but it is so no matter whether the fire is a prescribed burn or a wildfire. Having to move elsewhere during prescribed burn might be highly inconvenient to you, but doing the same during wildfire will be highly inconvenient to other people. We might decide to favor some people over others, or balance the positive and negative externalities, but it seems silly to me to choose wildfires over prescribed burns just because the former are caused by inaction, and latter by action.

[anonymouskimmer]

Yep. If the benefits are socialized it's a good idea to social the costs as well.