As a resident of Idaho and former resident of Utah who has spent years having to suffer from the smoke, I have a similar tendency to take this suggestion seriously. Not as a punishment, but as an incentive to improve things. California has neglected things like electrical grid repairs (PG&E anyone?) and controlled burns for many, many years, and now others who had nothing to do with it are paying for it with our health. I know people who are sensitive to the smoke and are essentially trapped in their houses during those times, and have to spend hundreds of dollars on air cleaners.

So, it's an interesting idea to change the choice from: either "don't spend the money" or "spend the money on prevention and fixing our shit"

To: from "the money is spent either way, might as well fix our shit."

If there's also one state that has demonstrated a willingness to use economics to encourage "correct" choices/behavior in consumers, it's California, so they should be real sympathetic to this idea :-)

I don't know if I'd support such a proposal or not. That would require some serious analysis and consideration of the details, but I don't think we should just dismiss the whole idea.

But even if everybody moved out of California, there would still be wildfires that blow smoke two states over.