Los Angeles fires ravaged an area of 16,425 hectares, or 164 km², largely exceeding the size of intramural Paris (105 km²). The financial consequences of this disaster are all the more important as the fire insurance offer is very limited in this region, which explains the calls to lift regulatory constraints in order to rebuild quickly.
Fires: a collective problem
Recent fires in Los Angeles illustrate that these disasters are a collective challenge, both for their prevention, their management and for their consequences. The extent of the disaster has also shown that the necessary means – water, material and human means – to manage the consequences of fires are rather state, or even international cooperation.
Prevention: essential and economic
The first returns indicate that prevention in Los Angeles was insufficient. In comparison, Europe and France display best practices. In the long term, they record less disasters and less magnitude. Admittedly, the cost of prevention may seem high in the short term. But with the increase in frequency and intensity fires, investing in prevention remains more economical than funding repeated reconstructions.
The regulations: the problem or the solution?
In emotional shock, some pleads to lighten the regulations in order to rebuild quickly and at a lower cost. However, this approach could worsen the problem, making fires more frequent and more destructive. Fires, like other manifestations of climate change, require collective responses. The regulations are therefore essential. The real question is not whether it is useful, but what regulations adopt to combine prevention, resilience and adaptation.
Unstability: an alert signal
In the Los Angeles region, fire insurance was limited and costly. Even the richest lose their goods without the possibility of adequate protection. This decline in insurability reflects the failure of collective decision -making mechanisms and suitable regulations. To avoid a similar situation in France, you have to learn from these flaws. Solidarity mechanisms or insurance obligations are necessary to manage the short -term consequences, but only an improvement in rules and preventive efforts will allow a lasting response.
Conclusion
The case of Los Angeles shows that the absence of prevention and unsuitable regulations aggravate the impacts of disasters. Europe, better prepared, can avoid following this trajectory. However, this requires enlightened and ambitious collective decision -making. Each actor must ask himself how he can contribute. The insurance sector has a role to play by providing contracts favorable to adaptation to change and prevention.
