Though often viewed as a problem for western states, the growing frequency of wildfires is a national concern because of its impact on federal tax dollars, says Professor Max Moritz, a specialist in fire ecology and management.

    In 2015, the US Forest Service for the first time spent more than half of its $5.5 billion annual budget fighting fires—nearly double the percentage it spent on such efforts 20 years ago. In effect, fewer federal funds today are going toward the agency’s other work—such as forest conservation, watershed and cultural resources management, and infrastructure upkeep—that affects the lives of all Americans.

    Another nationwide concern is whether public funds from other agencies are going into construction in fire-prone districts. As Moritz puts it, how often are federal dollars building homes that are likely to be lost to a wildfire?

    “It’s already a huge problem from a public expenditure perspective for the whole country,” he says. “We need to take a magnifying glass to that. Like, ‘Wait a minute, is this OK?’ Do we want instead to redirect those funds to concentrate on lower-hazard parts of the landscape?”

    Such a view would require a corresponding shift in the way US society today views fire, researchers say.

    For one thing, conversations about wildfires need to be more inclusive. Over the past decade, the focus has been on climate change—how the warming of the Earth from greenhouse gases is leading to conditions that worsen fires.

    While climate is a key element, Moritz says, it shouldn’t come at the expense of the rest of the equation.

    “The human systems and the landscapes we live on are linked, and the interactions go both ways,” he says. Failing to recognize that, he notes, leads to “an overly simplified view of what the solutions might be. Our perception of the problem and of what the solution is becomes very limited.”

    At the same time, people continue to treat fire as an event that needs to be wholly controlled and unleashed only out of necessity, says Professor Balch at the University of Colorado. But acknowledging fire’s inevitable presence in human life is an attitude crucial to developing the laws, policies, and practices that make it as safe as possible, she says.

    “We’ve disconnected ourselves from living with fire,” Balch says. “It is really important to understand and try and tease out what is the human connection with fire today.”

答案精析：根据Professor Balch和fire可定位至倒数两段。倒数第二段段首首句提到，人们依然认为火是一种需要被完全控制，在必要时才释放的东西。随后用But表示转折，鲍尔奇教授提出，火在人类生活中是不可避免的，这种态度对法律和政策的制定，以及将火尽量控制在安全范围之内是非常重要的。由此可知，鲍尔奇教授认为对于火的必然存在，人们应该采取一种接受的态度，因此选择B项。

错项排除：文章提到鲍尔奇教授将人们想要完全消除和控制火灾的想法作为一种谬论批判，因此A项错误。原文中并未提及要付出代价，因此排除C项。文章最后提及人们不能隔断人类与火的联系，因此D项错误，故排除。

长难句分析：But acknowledging fire’s inevitable presence in human life is an attitude crucial to developing the laws, policies, and practices that make it as safe as possible, she says.

本句主语为acknowledging fire’s inevitable presence in human life，表语为an attitude，表语的后置定语为crucial to developing the laws, policies, and practices，其后为that引导的定语从句，修饰laws, policies and practices，she says为插入语，用于说明信息的来源。

句意为：但是，我们要知道火在人类生活中是不可避免的，这种态度对法律和政策的制定，以及将火尽量控制在安全范围之内是非常重要的，她说。