In the aftermath of devastating wildfires that recently ravaged Pacific Palisades and Altadena, wildfire experts Stephen Pyne and Jack Cohen have emerged as crucial voices in the conversation surrounding fire management and prevention. Although neither resides in California, both have extensive knowledge of its unique geography, including the notorious Santa Ana winds and the dry, combustible hillsides that contribute to the region’s fire risk. Their analysis points to a troubling reality: the destruction wrought by these fires could have been significantly mitigated.
Pyne, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University and an author who has extensively studied the role of fire in human history, expressed his concern over urban development patterns in Los Angeles. He highlighted that rather than reducing fire risk, much of the city’s development has exacerbated it. "The astonishing thing is not that Los Angeles burns but that so much of its development has enhanced rather than blunted the threat from fire," he remarked.
Cohen, a retired U.S. Forest Service research scientist and an authority on home ignition dynamics, echoed these sentiments. He emphasized that while extreme wildfires are an unavoidable reality, there are steps that can be taken to protect communities. "By reducing home ignition potential, we can create ignition-resistant homes and communities," he stated, underscoring the importance of addressing how structures ignite during wildfires.
Both experts are frustrated by the persistent ineffectiveness of firefighting strategies over the years. They advocate for a more nuanced understanding of fire, recognizing it as a multifaceted issue intertwined with ecological, sociological, and political factors. Pyne noted that while climate change is a significant contributor to the intensity of wildfires, many of the problems stem from historical land-use practices and fire suppression policies that have not adapted to current realities.
The recent fires, which have claimed at least 28 lives and destroyed over 18,000 structures valued at more than $275 billion, have reignited debates about fire management. Pyne criticized the tendency to label the January fires as "unprecedented," arguing that similar urban fires have occurred throughout history, often prompting reforms that are reactive rather than proactive. He cited the banning of wood shingles in the Bay Area following the 1923 Berkeley fire as an example of effective policy change that could have been replicated elsewhere.
Cohen added that the fires’ timing in January, coupled with the lack of rain, created a perfect storm for ignition. He emphasized that the primary issue is not the climate but rather the ignition of homes, which can be traced back to burning embers and surrounding combustible materials. He called for communities to focus on reducing vulnerabilities to ignition rather than solely on suppressing fires.
As the conversation evolves, both Pyne and Cohen hope that the visibility of the destruction in Pacific Palisades and Altadena will stimulate a meaningful dialogue about fire prevention. They urge policymakers and the public to shift their perceptions of wildfires from viewing them as mere crises to understanding them as inevitable events that require comprehensive planning and community resilience.
In light of these recent tragedies, the experts stress that a collective response is essential to address the underlying issues contributing to wildfire risks. They advocate for rigorous fire and building codes, improved zoning regulations, and the establishment of fire protection systems that reflect actual risks. By fostering a collaborative approach, they believe communities can better coexist with the natural fire cycles of the region.
Ultimately, the path forward requires a reevaluation of how society interacts with fire. Both Pyne and Cohen are optimistic that, with the right strategies and a willingness to change, it is possible to live harmoniously with fire while minimizing its destructive potential.