In the wake of devastating wildfires that ravaged Pacific Palisades and Altadena, wildfire experts Stephen Pyne and Jack Cohen have emerged as key voices in the conversation about fire management and urban development. Their insights highlight a troubling reality: the severity of these fires was not merely a consequence of natural factors but a result of human decisions that have exacerbated fire risks.
The catastrophic blazes, which occurred in January 2025, resulted in the loss of at least 28 lives and the destruction of over 18,000 buildings, with damages exceeding $275 billion. The affected area spanned a burn zone significantly larger than Manhattan, raising urgent questions about fire prevention strategies in California.
Pyne, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University and a noted author on the history of fire, pointed out that the fires were not unprecedented in the context of urban development. He emphasized that cities have historically been vulnerable to fires, often built with materials that easily ignite. The shift in fire management policy in the 1960s and 1970s, aimed at suppressing fires, did not adequately address the underlying issues of land use and building practices that contribute to fire risk.
Cohen, a retired U.S. Forest Service scientist and expert on home ignition dynamics, echoed Pyne’s sentiments, stating that the fires were fundamentally an ignition problem. He argued that the primary cause of destruction was not the intensity of the fires themselves, but rather the vulnerability of homes to ignition from burning embers. By focusing on creating ignition-resistant homes and communities, the risk can be significantly mitigated.
Both experts criticized the prevailing narrative that attributes the severity of wildfires solely to climate change. While acknowledging that climate factors play a role, they argue that historical lessons about fire management and urban planning have been largely ignored. Pyne noted that effective reforms, such as stricter building codes and zoning regulations, have often followed past disasters but are typically reactive rather than proactive.
The recent fires have reignited discussions about how to effectively manage wildfires in California. Pyne expressed concern that despite the growing frequency and intensity of wildfires, there is still a lack of consensus on how to address the root causes. He called for a collective response to fire management that encompasses ecological, political, and social dimensions.
Cohen highlighted the need for a shift in public perception regarding wildfires. He pointed out that the language used to describe wildfires often frames them as catastrophic events, which can hinder constructive discussions about coexistence with fire. Instead, he advocates for a focus on the mechanisms of home ignition and the importance of reducing vulnerabilities in residential areas.
As California grapples with the aftermath of these devastating fires, experts like Pyne and Cohen are urging a reevaluation of fire management strategies. They emphasize that understanding fire as a systemic issue, rather than just a seasonal crisis, is crucial for developing effective solutions. The recent tragedies may serve as a catalyst for change, but only if stakeholders can come together to address the fundamental issues at play.