Who’s to Blame for California’s Fires?

President Trump’s insistence on blaming the state of California for the devastating wildfires is yet another example of over-simplifying an issue without regard to the historical context.

The President is quite correct to attribute at least some of the cause of the fires to a forest management policy that is focused on preventing fires rather than on maintaining a healthy forest. Fire is a naturally occurring phenomenon that increases the health of a forest by removing underbrush and stimulating reseeding. Our emphasis on fire prevention has increased the fire load to such an extent that major fires now burn hotter that normal, destroying  trees rather creating the conditions for healthy growth.

However, the President seems unaware that this policy originated with the federal government following the Great Fire of 1910. This fire, also known as the Big Burn, destroyed some three million acres in northern Idaho, western Montana, eastern Washington, and southeastern British Colombia, an area the size of Connecticut, and killed 87 people, mainly firefighters. The fledgling US Forest Service received considerable praise and, more importantly, an increased firefighting budget.

A major result of the fire was a shift in the role of the Forest Service from conservation to fire prevention. The Forest Service was originally established to protect federal lands from exploitation from timber companies and developers. However, after the Great Fire, the desire to prevent a repetition of such a devastating fire meant that the mission changed from one of conservation to a primary focus on fire prevention. The result is the current policy that actually encourages more devastating fires by preventing the smaller fires that are a natural part of forest ecology.

It is important to acknowledge that the origins of our current forest management policy lie with the federal government. Over 57% of the forest land in California is federal land, under the control of the US Forest Service. President Trump has recently cut some $40 million from the Forest Service budget earmarked for hazardous fuel reduction, the same mitigation measure he is demanding of the state.

Laying the blame on California alone for bad forest management policy shows a lack of understanding of the historical context of how this policy originated. It also ignores other factors such as poor maintenance by utilities and climate change or the fact that many of these fires occur on private land over which the state has no control. There are a lot of factors contributing to these fires and we would be better served by addressing them rather than attempting to fix blame for political purposes.

Why Do We Still Kill The Messenger?

There was an interesting article in Sunday’s San Francisco Chronicle about one of the survivors of the recent fire that destroyed the town of Paradise. The gentleman in question was born and raised in Paradise and built a home there. That home was destroyed in the Camp Fire last November. But unlike the other disaster survivors, this man receives no sympathy from his neighbors and has had to endure threats and vandalism. The reason? He works for Pacific Gas and Electric.

PG&E has had image problems since the San Bruno pipeline explosion in 2010 that resulted in a conviction for obstruction of justice. The company has a reputation for placing profits above safety, a reputation that was reinforced by the company being found responsible for major fires in California in both 2017 and 2018. The company faces multiple civil suits from those fires and consideration is being given to charging the company with manslaughter and possibly even murder.

But are the employees working on recovery culpable in any way? The individual that the Chronicle article highlighted is both a native of Paradise and himself a disaster survivor. The work he is engaged in is community restoration. Yet he and other workers have had their vehicles vandalized, been verbally assaulted, and had garbage thrown at them. They are abused not for who they are or what they are doing but because they are a visible and accessible representative of a powerful company that the abuser has no real power to influence.

This an extreme case, to be sure, but how often are we rude to people who are trying to help us simply because they are the only representative of an institution accessible to us? Mind you, I have limited patience with rudeness and inefficiency, but I try not to open a conversation with a customer service representative with a verbal assault. I remind myself first that I want their help and secondly that they, in most cases, don’t have the power to make any real decisions. In other words, they’re not to blame for their company’s errors; they’re trying to help fix the problem.

Executing a messenger who brought bad news simply because they represented the sender went out of style years ago. Next time you’re angry with a company, write the chairman or president; don’t beat up on the person who’s only trying to make things better.