It doesn't work that way.
The average global temperature was 1.5 Kelvin above the long term average (since the end of the last ice age), but fires reflect local temperatures, not the global average.
What it takes is a high wind and very dry grass. If you mowed a couple of miles of dry grass you you might be able to create an effective fire-break, but mowers need flat ground.
It's simple. The most flammible, and the hottest burning, and the closest things, were other houses.
I wonder if they will rebuild the same way.
It's probably not quite that simple. The fires started on a very windy day, and got big, which generated even more air circulation. There are eddies - vortices - in that circulation, and you do get tongues of flame that can burn something down-wind while skipping an adjacent area
They will want their houses to look much the same as they used to, which does constrain the architects, and have the same impressive views.
People with enough money to build that sort of house aren't good at taking inconvenient advice, any more than Trump was about taking advice on how to avoid getting Covid-19.
Maybe not, the US has a lot of "trickle down" housing, development in much of Altadena had been banned for decades due to the threat of fire.
A lot of homes there were 50-100 years old and while worth millions on paper due to scarcity and gentrification pumping up the values I'm sure a lot were stll laughably outdated by even modern US building codes much less European codes. Those were cheap houses for working-class people at one time!
Not everyone in that area is Hollywood-rich even today there are families who're only "home rich" in that their home (which may have been passed down three generations) was worth a lot on paper but there's nowhere cheaper to buy nearby anyway so it's a highly illiquid asset.
Long story short a lot of the less well-to-do residents will likely have to leave and the vulture capitalists (including it seem Trump himself) are already circling, they'll build much more expensive properties if they can, which will likely at least be fully up to modern code
The question is whether anybody would want to live in it or buy it. People want houses that are sited close to where they work, and provide an attractive environment in which to live. There's a certain amount of compromise involved in making the choice.
That's what fuel reduction burns are supposed to deal with. They aren't a complete answer.
I guess your definition of "vulture capitalist" is someone who did something that worked.
Better managed societies don't allow that sort of greed and exploitation of the working classes. China and Cuba and North Korea, for example.
Bad guess. A vulture picks over rotting corpses to get its food, and a vulture capitalist take over failing companies, dismantles the them, and sell the bits for what they can get. People who do stuff that works can mostly make enough money out of that to stay in business, and aren't vulnerable to vulture capitalists.
The US - with it's extraordinary levels of income inequality and dire provision of health care for the less well off - is a pretty horrible example greedy exploitation of the working classes. Because the country is remarkably rich, the working classes do a lot better than their Chinese and North Korean counter-parts. Cuba actually offers pretty respectable health care even though it is now quite a poor country after half a century of American economic sabotage.
Western Europe and Australia look after their working classes quite a bit better than America does.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required