There were many devastating fires in CA in the early 20th Century. Perhaps another purge of growth but more noticeable due to increased human habitation.

I'm a retired Civil Engineer, and it would seem that while granted, weather is more severe, oceans rising, fires increasing, people need to also quit building in areas prone to disaster and wanting FEMA bailouts. Examples:

1) Areas below 20 ft above sea level, protected by levees. There are many of these in CA, levees always failing. Unless levees are much better, trouble. I realize that much of Holland, Venice, New Orleans in this position, and it may be possible to build a wall around your city, but think of the costs.

2) Beachfront property. I've seen the ocean eat away at coastal bluffs and deposit or erode massive amount of "beach" in my time. Not smart to build there, no seawalls last.

3) Landfills-These always settle.

4) Landslide zones (base of hillside colluvium that gets wet and slides). We can mitigate but not stop.

5) Forested lands-This is interesting as these places could be safely developed if: a) They had large buffers (like golf courses or recreation areas b) Power lines underground c) Houses made of less-combustible materials (like steel) d) Better fire protection, more water to dampen premises ahead of fire, Chinook helicopters to drop massive fire retardents. At least these areas are typically not in flood zones.

6) I guess I should add tornado, hurricane, and earthquake zones, but then I'm including much of North America!

I wonder if Canada may become the preferred living zone when climate change is understood. After all, its the same latitude of much of relatively stable Europe.