Supporters and opponents of EMBER have started more than a hundred threads on recent local social media, and resulted in thousands of posts. Many of these posts are not factual: for the sake of an educated debate, we should discuss the facts. What are the arguments, from both sides, that hold true in the debate? We are only discussing here solid arguments, and leaving spurious ones or disinformation for another post.
Arguments against EMBER
The city of Berkeley says EMBER will protect the whole city from wildfire, but the homeowners are the ones to shoulder 100% of the costs: TRUE
With EMBER, the Grizzly Peak Mitigation Area (“GPMA”) would play the role that Kahoma Village played in the Lahaina fire, and serve as a fortified buffer that will stop the ingress of fire into Berkeley. There are limited grants available so far ($1M), for a likely number of approximately 1,000 houses included in the zone. The Berkeley Fire Department (“BFD”) estimates the costs of Zone 0 to be $3-$5K per house. While the city expects to be able to raise more grant money, it is likely that the brunt of the costs will be paid for by homeowners.
Counterpoint: living in the WUI is a choice by homeowners that bears a cost, equivalent, for instance, to insurance.
There is evidence that vegetation protects houses in Zone 0: FALSE
Two articles are quoted by EMBER opponents to support this assertion.
- One, by Dr. Alexandra Syphard, is a research paper. The author herself has explicitly disavowed this interpretation (she also wrote a letter to the Calfire Zone 0 workshop in concert with Prof. Gollner of UC Fire Research Lab): “I am sorry to learn that my work is being somewhat misrepresented in a way that could make residents more at risk to wildfire. […] My study found significant benefits of defensible space, particularly the closer you are to the structure. It is my thought that the Zone Zero requirements are one of the most important things residents can do to protect their property from wildfire.”
- The other is an opinion paper, by Moritz and Carmigniani, published in the LA Times and the Conversation. A thorough analysis of all its its supporting links shows that there is actually no quoted evidence that supports its assertions.
- Counterpoint: some EMBER opponents suggest a conspiracy resulting in pressure for Dr. Syphard to agree to CalFire’s Zone 0 direction.
There is evidence that Zone 0 compliance will cause radical damage to the Berkeley Hills, including mudslides, increased temperatures, water contamination and more: FALSE
The document cited by EMBER opponents in support of this assertion is the LongCore-Osseola letter, an opinion letter, not a research paper, sent by four individuals to the CalFire zone 0 workshop. The letter cites generic risks without providing evidence for them, and the Sierra Club, the ultimate steward for the land, has endorsed EMBER. Not counting wildfire scientists among its authors, it uses a Syphard article and the critique of a Gollner article to support the thesis that Zone 0 will not improve wildfire resilience: both Syphard and Gollner disavowed this interpretation in a subsequent letter to the Calfire Zone 0 workshop.
It is not defensible space, but home hardening, that will save homes: FALSE but you need both.
The consensus of wildfire science is that you need both. Here is, for instance, a quote from Prof. Gollner: “It becomes apparent when we look at the end that you need BOTH defensible space and hardening to make a substantial difference in losses, but there is SOME reduction from either independently.” By law, in California, home improvement must be controlled through the permitting process—so home hardening can only be encouraged, while defensible space may be mandated.
EMBER grants the fire chief the authority to file misdemeanor charges against violators of the fire code: FALSE but it already exists
EMBER does not grant this right. It exists already in today’s fire code (and probably has since the 1930s). What appears to be a new provision in the fire code is due to the fire code rewrite, caused by the taking-in of mid-cycle fire code changes required by the state.
Counterpoint: the city has agree to make changes to the fire code, and to remove BFD’s right to charge misdemeanors against zone 0 violations, to be carried in a second motion, that will be voted on later this year.
EMBER gives the fire chief the right to impose fines of up to $500 per day for violations: FALSE but it already exists
EMBER does not give the chief these rights: they exist in today’s fire code. They only appear to be new because of the way the fire code changes get displayed. But the fire chief will have that right.
Counterpoint: BFD says that most do not get fines after infractions even if they have not had time to correct, if they show good faith and progress. They list “fewer than 70 citations issued [in 3 years] (0.8% of violations, 0.3% of inspections).”
EMBER only gives us 60 days to make the changes we need to make for Zone 0 compliance before before we get charged with thousands of dollars of fines: FALSE
If EMBER passes on June 17, 2025, it will take almost a year before inspections hit the GPMA. Next year, though, after an inspection, we will have 60 days to correct infractions.
Counterpoint: BFD says that most do not get fines after infractions even if they have not had time to correct, if they show good faith and progress. They list “fewer than 70 citations issued [in 3 years] (0.8% of violations, 0.3% of inspections).”
EMBER is a one-size-fits-all measure with no flexibility for each house: FALSE
A resident may ask for a “modification” under the existing Berkeley fire code if they can show that they can reach the same result as the ordinance in another manner. A resident may also put together a “fire plan” and ask for approval from BFD if they would like to phase their modifications over several years, for financial or feasibility reasons.
EMBER needs a Environment Impact Report: FALSE
There an an explicit exemption in CEQA for wildfire abatement within 30 ft of a home, that can be extended to 100 ft through the filing of a Notice Of Intent. Although we may only know the final answer to this through a lawsuit.
It will cost this person $100,000 to implement EMBER. FALSE
The person who made this declaration on social media admitted, in the thread, that the estimate she got from her contractor included whatever her contractor felt was more useful, such as home hardening (not included in EMBER) or relandscaping to create shade on a deck. In a pilot program, BFD came up with an estimate of $3-5K for zone 0 removals (this does not include replacements). This article indicates total cost of $4,400-$7,800 for a specific homeowner.
Arguments for EMBER
Wildfire science supports EMBER. TRUE
There are thirty years of wildfire science articles supporting the Home Ignition Zone and Zones 0, 1 and 2 concepts. We should not take this to mean that existing research is all comprehensive: there are gaps in the research, and the intersection of vegetation and wildfire is a difficult field. The existing research supports EMBER.
Counterpoint: vegetation research could, in the future, show specific use cases where close vegetation could help house survival.
Wildfire scientists support EMBER and strict Zone 0: TRUE
A large consensus of wildfire scientists, including the most prominent ones, such as (Jack) Cohen, Quarles, Gollner, and Maranghides, support a strict Zone 0 regulations. There is a small number of exceptions. The support for strict Zone 0 regulations at the May 12 Calfire Zone 0 workshop was unanimous among testifying wildfire scientists.
California firefighters support EMBER and strict Zone 0: TRUE
The support for strict Zone 0 regulations at the May 12 Calfire Zone 0 workshop was unanimous among testifying firefighters. In some, some firefighting groups recommend going further than Zone 0.
Insurance companies support Zone 0: TRUE
Both the IBHS (a consortium of insurance companies grouping issuers of 76% of homeowners’ policies in the US) and the Fair Plan list strict Zone 0 in their list of important wildfire mitigations.
Time is of the essence: TRUE
Existing risk assessment for insurance companies places the risk of total destruction for a non-hardened house without defensible space in our WUI, for most addresses, at 3% per year, which goes down to 1% for hardened homes with defensible space.
We cannot protect the Berkeley Hills without EMBER: TRUE
From our interview with Chief Winnacker, nationally recognized expert in wildfire mitigation:
- What about our likelihood of loss of life?
It is not quantifiable, but high. The fire moves from east to west, and our narrow streets run from north to south. There will be losses. - Is the Berkeley Ridge defensible today? Would BFD position assets there and endeavor to defend it?
BFD will do what it can, but we have a low probability of success. - Can we survive a wildfire on the Ridge in Extreme Fire Weather ?
Yes. If we are prepared, puny little men with tools can stop it. - Can we defend the Berkeley Ridge without EMBER?
I dont think so.