We should not tax fossil fuels to subsidize costs for people choosing to live in dangerous regions.
The fact that insurance companies are making changes now shows that this is a more recent trend.
Global warming may be what is lighting the match (sometimes - but frankly probably is only a minor influence) however the giant pile of fuel that has been growing for 100 years remains almost completely unabated.
No matter the time of year.
Even back in the 70’s the National Park service in Yosemite knew the existing forest management practice was creating apocalyptic fire risk (and the ‘91 Yosemite fire bore that out) but until very recently, practices across the state have been unchanged.
[https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/nature/firehistory.htm]
Defacto, walk through the forests in California and the build up of brush is monumental. Along the coasts and in the Sierra Nevada. Many areas are impassible, except those that have burned recently.
Despite it being true.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e...
There is very high fire risk in the coastal hills, which contain the most expensive real estate in CA, but low risk in the adjacent urban areas closer to the water.
The exurban areas of CA are in the Central Valley, which has lower fire risk, but very high heat risk. Rural areas can have high or low fire risk, depending on where they are.
Another discussion is if you chose to connect those - then how do you distribute the costs - and some allocation picked to inflame the discussion seems to be avoid the first issue while assuming some particular lopsided distribution.