The Case for Letting Montana Burn

As many commentors to the post have noted, Montana state legislator John Sinrud's comment wondering out loud why firefighters should save homes from forest fires is more complex than Kos admits. Kos slams Sinrud for this:

"We've gone ... from fighting log fires to structure protection. Where is it that we have to protect those structures? Why not just let them burn?"

Kos, probably rightfully, notes Sinrud's hypocrisy for saying this while doing whatever the timber industry wants him to. But we do have to reconsider our building and fire policies. Thousands of new homes are erected near national forest land each year. They are susceptible to fire. The wealthy and retiring baby boomers want to spend their riches in their 3000 square foot house with their 25 foot bay window on the forest edge.

But we have entered a period of intensive climate change. Beginning in 2000, forest fires in the West exploded. This decade has seen an unprecedented increase in acreage burned by fire. Last year, over 9 million acres burned, the most in 45 years. So far this year, nearly 7 million acres of land have burned in wildfires. Idaho has taken the brunt of it, with over 1 1/2 million acres torched. There is little reason to believe this won't continue. Fire fighters are now putting their lives on the line every summer saving some millionaire's home. Is this right? Should we allow people to build new homes in fire-prone areas?

My title to this post plays off Mike Davis' famous "The Case for Letting Malibu Burn," which notes the differences between how fire policy deals with wealthy Malibu homes burning and tenements in the inner cities. In Montana, we are again seeing wealthy white people building irresponsible homes and thus dictating fire policy in the American West. In response, I would like to see federal legislation placing severe limits on home building in rural parts of the West. Only in special circumstances should the boundaries of semi-rural settlements be allowed to expand into new forested land.

This sounds harsh. But we are entering a new epoch in American history. This is the climate change era and we must face the harsh realities it brings. I am not sure why it is the American taxpayer's responsibility to bail out wealthy people for choosing to live in the forests. It's time people start taking note of the new environmental realities and create proper policies in response, even if that cuts back on Americans ability to commodify the forests.