They’re engaged in emotional manipulation and blame-shifting haphazardly disguised as policymaking.

Let’s say we’re neighbors. Let’s add that, during a recent windstorm, a tree on my property fell onto yours, crushing a healthy segment of your beautiful new picket fence. Finally, let’s assume (for the purposes of this thought experiment alone, please) that I’m a horribly negligent person with no intention of meeting my obligations, and I tell you that you can expect no remedy from me. You can, however, take your complaint down the street to a third party who, I insist, played host to the seed that ultimately blossomed into the tree that fell on your fence. Would you be even remotely satisfied by my attempt at misdirection?

Presumably not. But the State of California is willing to gamble on a similar ruse. “Democratic California state senators on Monday announced a proposal that would allow the victims of natural disasters and insurance companies to sue the oil industry for damages based on their impact on the environment,” the California-based outlet KCRA reported on Monday.

The bill, SB 222, would allow those impacted by natural disasters, private insurance companies, and California’s state insurance program known as the FAIR Plan to recoup losses from natural disasters by taking oil companies to court. The proposal would apply to oil companies that operate in California.

“Californians are paying a devastating price for the climate crisis, as escalating disasters destroy entire communities and drive insurance costs through the roof,” said one of the not-yet-drafted bill’s supporters, San Francisco–based state senator Scott Wiener. “By forcing the fossil fuel companies driving the climate crisis to pay their fair share, we can help stabilize our insurance market and make the victims of climate disasters whole.”

What impeccable logic. By forcing the insurers who are already fleeing the state in response to Sacramento’s imposition of price caps on the industry despite the increased risk it assumes by insuring properties vulnerable to fire (a risk that has grown in proportion to the state’s inattentive and labyrinthine forestry management policies, among other failures), the state now hopes to replenish their coffers by telling them to seek satisfaction via costly and fraught legal fights with oil companies. What’s more, none of this will have any negative effect on the prices consumers pay for energy or insurance! It’s all upside.

This is not serious policymaking. It is emotional manipulation and blame-shifting haphazardly disguised as policymaking. The scale of the mismanagement that contributed, to one degree or another, to the fires in Los Angeles is difficult to measure, but California’s voters do seem to be waking up to it.

Last week, a poll sponsored by the L.A.-based media firm Madison McQueen found L.A. voters displaying signs of buyer’s remorse in reflecting on Karen Bass’s mayoral election. It showed local developer Rick Caruso defeating Bass in a rematch, and it even found a statistically insignificant gap separating Angelenos who would vote for “Republican leadership of LA county” from those who would not. That’s just one poll, and it may or may not represent the voting intentions of Southern California residents. But one poll that doubtlessly does indicate a shift in voters’ sentiments took place on November 5, 2024:

Maybe California lawmakers understand deep down that they can no longer offload their administrative failures onto nebulous scourges like climate change. But what else have they got? The alternative would be to shelve the excuse-making, which would risk Democratic lawmakers’ support from the progressive pressure groups that make or break their candidacies, in the hopes that they might repair the trust deficit with voters. But the prospect of repair is a gamble, while a backlash from progressive pressure groups is certain.

The prospects for Democrat-led change in Southern California are bleak, and the state’s voters do seem increasingly willing to recognize that. The question is, What are they going to do about it?