It's been a well known risk for at least a century. Aldo Leopold began popularizing the idea of using prescribed burns to manage forests in the 1920s and by mid-20th century it was officially part of US Forest Service management practices. The problem has always been the people who live in and around fire prone areas. They've used public pressure, bureaucracy, and litigation to prevent State and Federal agencies from properly managing the forests since the post-war boom.

In California, for example, permits are managed by 35 different "Air Districts" created in 1947 each with their own local leadership that are easily lobbied. Residents can trivially grind any project to a halt because controlled burns are practically impossible, given California's pollution standards, without these permits and exceptions from the state Air Resources Board.

It's coming up now because the situation is so dire we need a concerted effort to sway public opinion towards the realistic solution. Now that insurance companies are giving up on these fire prone markets, the residents have no choice but to get with the program.

If, on the other hand, the area to be burned has "invested capital" and houses and land on it--essentially, private property, which has this strange quality of fixity even in the face of something as destructive as the earth (which never fails to dissolve it), how would you guarantee, without incredibly high insurance premiums, that people's houses wouldn't burn down.

And even if people are willing to pay the premiums, they would do so knowing that the government might decide, almost randomly (to them), to burn a chunk of forest right next to their house. They'd get fair warning, sure, but who wants to own a house that might burn down in 10 years because the state decides that its too much of a risk to have that patch of land burn naturally?

Absolutely. A good starting point is to look to Australia's regulations for construction materials, methods, water storage and setback/firebreak requirements, etc. for fire safety in bushfire prone areas.

While it may be picturesque to have your house or cabin nestled in amongst the forest, your fire survivability is Zero.

Especially when volunteer firefighters then have to risk their lives to save people with the lovely view. (Ditto California...)

The population density between Australia and the US is radically different though which changes the dynamic (deserts and marginal land exist in both, but Australia is particularly water challenged with no high mountains, so no major rivers).

Insurance companies could presumably do inspections of clearings and cancel or charge more if you don't have sufficient clearing, but municipalities aren't going to like the tree cutting that results.

Yes, defensible space helps, but temperatures can exceed 1,000 to 2,000 F / 500 -- 1,000 C. Sustained exposure to that can damage all kinds of materials, let alone be difficult to survive. Even at considerable distance the radiant heat of even a smaller wildfire is quite palpable, something I've had personal experience of.

The fire will also reduce or remove available oxygen, there can be tornadic-ferocity winds (and what the winds blow), embers, and all manner of other threats.

Smoke is only one of your worries.

Sprinklers on the roof work pretty well too.

That said, sitting around in an active wildfire is a bad idea compared to not being there.

The biggest issue is usually fuel close to the structure (bushes or trees right next to the house), or openings in the structure like eaves. Rooftop sprinklers work decently well for wooden roofs, but it's more complicated than just installing them due to potential water pressure issues. Metal roofs shouldn't need them.

All it takes is a small hole in the armor though sometimes, and without someone there to watch it and fight it, it takes a big change in building styles to be 100% sure. Like cement structure + metal framing & roofing + minimal combustible furniture, etc.

The biggest issue IMO is that western style (really central european/north western european) construction tends to focus on greenery, windows, wood and natural materials, etc.

Spanish-Colonial style construction is better suited to these kinds of conditions, with some modifications (avoiding exposed beams, and dealing with earthquakes both major necessary changes).

[https://firesafemarin.org/articles/should-i-put-a-sprinkler-...]

As long as fuel is kept a decent distance and the house is closed up (and doesn't catch on fire), you'd be fine. SCBA would make sure you didn't get any red eyes from the little smoke that would get in.

If you have bushes and trees right up against the structure (or are in a tinder dry forest in a fully involved canopy fire), then you're having a different kind of party of course.

Actually, the Native Americans historically started the practice.

Do they realize how much pollution is produced in the California's uncontrolled forest fires? Laws should not be that stupid.

I wasn't really a fan of Melting Stones, which mainly focuses on Briar's student and takes place at the same time as The Will of the Empress. If I remember right that book was also an experiment, written as an audiobook first then later released as a regular book, so that may explain why it doesn't feel as good to me.

The author has had another in mind for years too, a continuation of the problems Tris had been having from The Circle Opens onwards: she can't figure out how to make a living with her magic, because she refuses to use it as a weapon. Unfortunately, the author doesn't actually have the rights to this universe, so she has to wait for Scholastic to want another book.