In June,California department of forestry and fire protection determined that 12 devastating fires that struck Northern California tate last year were the result of trees coming into contact with power lines or other problems tied to the electric utility PG& E.Thanks to a policy known as inverse conclemnation,the utility could be on the hook for those damages,even if ii is not found to be negligeni.In the past,PG&-E has paid the bills when it was blamed for fires and other damages.But the company now says it cannot keep footing the bill so long as climate change continues to increase the likelihood of fires.Millions of trees have died across California after years of intense drought.creating vast quantities of fuel that allow fires to burn faster and over greater clistances-all combined with higher temperatures.It has pushed to raise electricity rates to pay for tlie clamage.Meanwhile.state officials are pushing a change in the law.Governor Jerry Brown proposed a new plan ihat would allow a court to decide whether the utility acted"reasonably"before forcing the company to pay claims."Costly wildfires and natural disasters have the poiential to undermine the sysiem*"Brown told legislators."leaving our energy sector in a state of weakness at a time when it shoulcl be making even greater investments in safety."Within the U.S.,the debate over liability for climate change has taken several forms.On the fecleral level,proactive policymakers have pushed to rework the National Flood Insurance Program（NFIP）,which pays people to rebuild their homes after floods-even in areas where damage is likely to strike again.In effect,that program,which is more than$20 billion in clebt,put.s the burden of climate-change-related natural disasters in the hands of the U.S.government ancl the taxpayer.Infrastructure experts have also pushed the government to rethink its post disaster funding to require climate change preparedness measures.A group of pioneering American cities have sought to have the oil-and-gas industry pay for climate-change-relatecl clamages and disaster-prevention measures.A series of lawsuits have blamed the companies for years of polluting the planet while concealing evidence that emissions would contribute to devastaiing climate change.The authorities behind the lawsuits hope that courts will force the industry to pay up.Thus far,U.S.courts have expressed skepticism-not necessarily of the fault of oil and gas but of the ability of the judicial system to address the issue."The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,"wrote William Alsup of the U.S.District Court in Northern California.Elsewhere,a large number of litigants have also looked to the courts.Lacking other avenues for addressing the issue,people feeling the impacts of climate change are increasingly Lurning to courts to help find a global answer to a global problem. In Jerry Brown"s opinion,the right thing to do now is to

In June,California department of forestry and fire protection determined that 12 devastating fires that struck Northern California tate last year were the result of trees coming into contact with power lines or other problems tied to the electric utility PG&
E.Thanks to a policy known as inverse conclemnation,the utility could be on the hook for those damages,even if ii is not found to be negligeni.In the past,PG&-E has paid the bills when it was blamed for fires and other damages.But the company now says it cannot keep footing the bill so long as climate change continues to increase the likelihood of fires.Millions of trees have died across California after years of intense drought.creating vast quantities of fuel that allow fires to burn faster and over greater clistances-all combined with higher temperatures.It has pushed to raise electricity rates to pay for tlie clamage.Meanwhile.state officials are pushing a change in the law.Governor Jerry Brown proposed a new plan ihat would allow a court to decide whether the utility acted"reasonably"before forcing the company to pay claims."Costly wildfires and natural disasters have the poiential to undermine the sysiem*"Brown told legislators."leaving our energy sector in a state of weakness at a time when it shoulcl be making even greater investments in safety."Within the U.S.,the debate over liability for climate change has taken several forms.On the fecleral level,proactive policymakers have pushed to rework the National Flood Insurance Program（NFIP）,which pays people to rebuild their homes after floods-even in areas where damage is likely to strike again.In effect,that program,which is more than$20 billion in clebt,put.s the burden of climate-change-related natural disasters in the hands of the U.S.government ancl the taxpayer.Infrastructure experts have also pushed the government to rethink its post disaster funding to require climate change preparedness measures.A group of pioneering American cities have sought to have the oil-and-gas industry pay for climate-change-relatecl clamages and disaster-prevention measures.A series of lawsuits have blamed the companies for years of polluting the planet while concealing evidence that emissions would contribute to devastaiing climate change.The authorities behind the lawsuits hope that courts will force the industry to pay up.Thus far,U.S.courts have expressed skepticism-not necessarily of the fault of oil and gas but of the ability of the judicial system to address the issue."The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,"wrote William Alsup of the U.S.District Court in Northern California.Elsewhere,a large number of litigants have also looked to the courts.Lacking other avenues for addressing the issue,people feeling the impacts of climate change are increasingly Lurning to courts to help find a global answer to a global problem.
In Jerry Brown"s opinion,the right thing to do now is to