Two articles in different newspapers show the transitory value of insurance. On February 27th, the Los Angeles Times published an article describing how the Insurance Commission for the state is heavily indebted to the insurance lobby for campaign contributions (Fire Victims Feel Burned by Lawmakers Tied to Insurers). On April 30th, the Washington Post printed an article describing how insurance companies are withdrawing from coastal areas of the U.S. due to concerns about natural disasters (Insurers Retreat From Coasts).
These two articles underscore the importance of pursuing a pro-active approach to wildfire suppression, because you can't rely on insurance to pay off in a timely manner (if at all) after fire destroys your home or business. But the resources needed to fight wildfires are diminishing, as described in an article in the Rocky Mountain News (Tanker plans in air as fire season nears ) that details the diminished numbers of heavy air-tankers available to fight fires this year. With over 2 million acres burned nationwide to date (which some regard as a conservative estimate), and with fire managers in the US and Canada predicting the worst fire year ever, can we afford to rely on the good graces of insurance companies to pay off on claims after a fire destroys our homes and/or businesses? I think not! Let me know what you think at firstname.lastname@example.org.