Hacker News Reader

Comment by theossuary | Hacker News Reader

We should if they're the reason the regions are becoming more dangerous.

Yes, a person in the inland empire using gas to get to their job far as fuck away because that’s all the house they can afford should clearly be subsidizing some coastal elite’s “I want a house on a cliff overlooking the ocean” insurance. Because fossil fuel use is the direct cause of the house’s instability.

Is there any indication that the high risk properties in California are coastal instead of rural or exurban? Presumably the risk is from fire and that’s disproportionately not going to be in highly developed communities like the coastal regions.

> Is there any indication that the high risk properties in California are coastal instead of rural or exurban?

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.

This seems like a random meme designed to avoid drawing a basic line of responsiblity between fossil fuel emissions and the costs they impose on many people. That's one discussion.

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.

Frankly, the evidence is not there that these wildfires are being caused by climate change vs cyclical droughts and mismanagement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com