My former Berkeley Law colleague Steve Weissman and his twin boys Alex and Eli have an op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that our fire prevention approach has the incentives all wrong:

For more than 100 years, land managers in the United States have treated wildfires as an ignition issue. The logic is: If we prevent wildfires from starting in the first place, the problem is solved.

Such aggressive fire suppression has also driven regulation: The person or entity legally responsible for igniting the fire faces financial consequences. This approach has brought about safer transmission lines and encouraged campers to extinguish their campfires.

Even so, mega-fires not only persist, but are larger and becoming more frequent. This is because ignitions are not the cause of bigger wildfires. Increasingly, destructive wildfires are a consequence of changing climate, mismanagement of flammable vegetation and building in fire-prone areas.

The Weissman trio recommend holding individual property owners to account for how they maintain their property. Policy makers should also plan new communities with fire breaks in mind.

Otherwise, the climate change-induced fires we’re seeing will become more severe, with the financial losses pinned on insurance companies, utilities, and property owners themselves. It certainly behooves all of us to encourage better land management by those who own their properties.