The main policy choice being houses built in the areas that are burning.
Though I'm not from California I've studied the issue of the chaparral wildfires in Southern California (all too often, people equate the issues with "forest" fires in other part of the country) I see little to no evidence that environmentalists are the cause of or contribute to the specific fire problems in the populated areas of Southern California. They're just a convenient whipping boy.
“The main policy choice being houses built in the areas that are burning.”
Okay, I’ve heard this argument before, and I think it’s total crap. There is no place on EARTH that is immune to every natural disaster. The P Northwest may not have many wildfires, but they have earthquakes and flooding. The Southwest has wildfires and drought, but no hurricanes or ice storms. The midwest has tornados, ice storms and bitter cold. The northeast has flooding and ice storms. South? Flooding and hurricanes. Southeast? Hurricanes and flooding too.
People have to live somewhere, and when nature strikes we should hold our hands out to them, not say “you brought it on yourself.”