Los Angeles is a climate disaster. The fires will change nothing
- Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
Los Angeles is burning. Fossil fuel companies laid the kindling. Soon the world will stop caring.
I’m sorry for sounding callous, but it’s true.
You’ve probably seen the headlines, the photos, the evacuation maps. At least 25 people dead, more than 12,000 homes and other buildings destroyed, tens of billions of dollars in damage and losses. Maybe you or your family or friends were forced to flee. Maybe the monstrous winds kept you awake late into the night, full of terror.
This is what climate chaos looks like.
There was no coal baron who lighted the matches. No oil driller who dried out the terrain, priming Southern California to burn. No gas executive who decided to build residential neighborhoods in already fire-prone landscapes.
But a global economy built on fossil fuels — and a U.S. political establishment funded in great part by fossil fuel corporations and their allies — brought us to this point. After two wet winters fueled the growth of grasses and brush — ideal kindling for fires — across SoCal mountains and hillsides, the last few months saw an abrupt shift to record-dry conditions. This kind of weather whiplash is a hallmark of global warming.
Add explosive Santa Ana winds to the mix, and it’s a recipe for apocalyptic infernos.
Stepping out of my West L.A. apartment last week — wearing an N95 mask to avoid inhaling too many unhealthy particles — I was horrified by the gray-orange gloom from the Palisades fire blotting out much of the sky. My wife and I were soon inundated by calls and texts: You guys OK? Anything we can do to help?
Meanwhile, I read about oil giant Exxon Mobil suing California’s attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing Bonta has damaged the company’s reputation by accusing it of falsely promoting plastic recycling. I read about the nation’s largest financial institutions leaving the banking sector’s biggest climate coalition in the run-up to President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration. I read about Trump falsely accusing Gov. Gavin Newsom of somehow causing the fires.
Meanwhile, our cousin in the Hollywood Hills fled her home. Friends in Pacific Palisades lost theirs.
It’s awful. It’s infuriating. And it’s not going to stop the climate crisis.
For many Angelenos, this is our most jarring confrontation yet with global warming. But hundreds of millions of Americans have faced fossil-fueled disasters, and the politics of climate obstruction have hardly budged.
There was the 2018 Camp fire, which killed 85 people and leveled the Northern California town of Paradise. And the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome, which contributed to an estimated 1,200 fatalities. Just a few months ago, Hurricane Helene and then Hurricane Milton walloped the U.S. Southeast, collectively killing 250 people.
None of those climate disasters changed the fact that the Republican Party is almost totally beholden to the fossil fuel industry. None of them changed the fact that the Democratic Party, although largely committed to climate action — see President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act — still hasn’t done nearly enough to phase out fossil fuels.
As firefighters continue to battle multiple major wildfires, The Times has compiled a list of resources to help.
And none of them changed the fact that the billionaires and powerful executives who could do more than anyone to change the political landscape — many of them tech entrepreneurs, Hollywood stars and sports titans who live right here in L.A. — are typically more worried about making money than leaving the world a safer place.
Maybe this time will be different?
Don’t leave it to chance. Demand better.
When the flames recede, and the smoke clears, keep talking about the climate crisis. Bring it up on social media, over dinner. Make it a defining issue when you vote. Support businesses whose leaders and practices reflect your values. Subscribe to news outlets that report on climate. Drive electric, if you can. Take public transit.
In other words, let the rich and powerful know that weeks like this one are unacceptable.
Otherwise, the fires will change nothing.
On that note, here’s what else is happening around the West:
ON THE FRONT LINES
Beyond the death and destruction, the half-dozen fires and more than 40,000 acres burned have disrupted everyday life in a way that’s difficult to understand if you don’t live here. School closures. Widespread power outages. Canceled surgeries and evacuated nursing homes. Lost work for film and TV crews already struggling to stay employed. Low-wage landscapers driving through smoke because they can’t afford to miss a day of work.
Trivial as it may sound in the grand scheme of things, sports were affected — a financial blow to businesses that depend on live event revenue, and a psychic blow to fans who love watching their favorite teams. The fires forced the NFL to move a Rams playoff game from Southern California to Arizona, The Times’ Sam Farmer reports.
Some wounds may never heal. My colleagues Colleen Shalby, Melissa Gomez and Brittny Mejia wrote about the devastation wrought by the Eaton fire in Altadena, a racially diverse, relatively affordable town in the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains. The Times’ James Rainey lamented the loss of his childhood home in Malibu.
On a personal note, I was sad to learn that the actor Will Rogers’ ranch house burned down; I’ve walked past that place so many times while hiking in the Santa Monica Mountains and always meant to take a tour. It was just one of many historic properties lost in the fires, from Altadena’s quirky Bunny Museum to the home of Western fiction writer Zane Grey. Climate change will only make preservation harder, The Times’ Daniel Miller reports.
The havoc caused by the blazes — more than 28,000 acres have been scorched — necessitates immediate and long-term relief.
There’s an understandable instinct to point fingers at a time like this, to look for scapegoats. And especially as the planet heats up, we absolutely need public officials and other powerful actors to give us their very best.
But we need to be guided by facts and science, not the loudest voices in the room.
For instance: Billionaire L.A. developer Rick Caruso and billionaire Trump advisor Elon Musk seem to think better brush clearance in the mountains could have stopped or slowed the fires. But Times environment reporter Alex Wigglesworth asked actual fire experts, who told her the landscape was so dry — thanks, climate change — and the winds were so bad that better brush clearance probably wouldn’t have helped much, if at all.
Another example: The L.A. Department of Water and Power has taken a lot of heat over a loss of water pressure in fire hydrants, and a Pacific Palisades reservoir that was closed for maintenance when the fires started to burn. But experts say that firefighting conditions were so unprecedented that the agency was simply overwhelmed.
We should believe the scientists who dedicate their lives to understanding these issues. Sadly, misinformation and disinformation — that’s when the people spreading lies do it on purpose — are all the rage these days. The Times’ Karen Garcia has a guide to spotting fake news — and recognizing real journalism — as the fires burn.
All of which brings us back to one of the biggest factors underlying the infernos: climate change.
As my colleagues Corinne Purtill and Karen Kaplan report, 2024 was the planet’s hottest year ever recorded, beating the record set in 2023. Earth’s surface temperature was roughly 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, a mark scientists say we should be trying desperately to avoid in future years. Fossil fuels were the main cause.
The fires serve as a powerful reminder that Los Angeles and other cities were not built for global warming — and that surviving continued temperature increases will require us to reimagine our infrastructure, our housing, our financial systems and more. A few stories that touch on these pressing challenges:
- L.A. County granted building permits for 24,300 homes in 2023. The fires have destroyed at least half that many buildings. Also, rents will probably increase in fire-stricken areas. (Liam Dillon, L.A. Times)
- To help wildfire victims rebuild their homes faster, Newsom is suspending certain requirements for building permits and environmental reviews. (Seema Mehta, Liam Dillon and Rosanna Xia, L.A. Times)
- California officials were just finalizing home insurance reforms designed to lure providers back to the market as climate-fueled wildfires pushed them away. Then the infernos struck. (Laurence Darmiento, L.A. Times)
- “As fires grow larger...should storage tanks and other local water infrastructure be expanded to contend with them? Where? And at what cost?” (Ian James, Matt Hamilton and Ruben Vives, L.A. Times)
We also need to cut down on fire ignitions — and that starts with figuring out how they’re happening now. In the San Gabriel Mountains, officials are investigating a Southern California Edison power tower as a possible ignition point for the Eaton fire, although Edison says it doesn’t believe its equipment was responsible.
As Los Angeles rebuilds — from these conflagrations and from future climate-tinged disasters — wealthy families and individuals will have an inherent advantage. Crafting recovery policies to support everyone else is an especially important part of responding to the climate crisis, Times columnist Anita Chabria writes.
Speaking of inequity, I was fascinated to read this story by my colleague Caroline Petrow-Cohen, in which private firefighters who work for rich homeowners make the case for their services as a useful economic efficiency.
Although the recovery process will be led by local officials, federal money will be needed. Perhaps unfortunately for L.A., that means relying on Trump and a Republican-controlled Congress, The Times’ Kevin Rector writes.
“We live in a cocoon of denial, playing the odds and figuring we’re going to be OK,” columnist Steve Lopez writes, describing the joys and the terrors of living in a place as precarious as California. “But the order of things is different now in this age of accelerated climate change.”
Truer words.
ONE MORE THING
I wrote last week about my frustration with all the inaccurate fossil fuel propaganda in “Landman,” an otherwise entertaining Paramount+ streaming series from “Yellowstone” co-creator Taylor Sheridan.
The finale aired this weekend, and there was a scene near the end that made me gasp.
I’ll spare you all the details. But, short version: In a quiet conversation with drug cartel boss Galino (Andy Garcia), Billy Bob Thornton’s character Tommy Norris finally acknowledges that the oil industry may have a limited future — after spending the whole season insisting there’s no technology that could possibly replace oil and gas.
“There’s no future in the product you sell,” Norris tells Galino.
“I’m more curious about the product you sell,” Galino responds.
“Mine’s running out of future too,” Norris says.
Has Norris believed any of the lies he’s been telling all season? Has he been lying to himself? Is Sheridan going to take my advice and tell some stories next season about fossil fuels and renewables coming into conflict?
My fingers are crossed.
This is the latest edition of Boiling Point, a newsletter about climate change and the environment in the American West. Sign up here to get it in your inbox. Or open the newsletter in your web browser here.
For more climate and environment news, follow @Sammy_Roth on X and @sammyroth.bsky.social on Bluesky.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The column portrays the Los Angeles fires as a vivid manifestation of “climate chaos,” contending that a global economy built on fossil fuels, and a U.S. political system heavily financed by oil and gas interests, helped create the conditions for catastrophe even if no executive literally lit the match.[1][4][9]
- It argues that “weather whiplash” — two unusually wet winters that fueled vegetation growth, followed by record-dry months and then explosive Santa Ana winds — reflects global warming trends that have made such sequences more likely and more dangerous for Southern California.[2][3][11]
- The piece situates the current fires within a broader pattern of climate‑linked disasters, noting events such as the Camp fire in Paradise, the Pacific Northwest heat dome, and recent deadly hurricanes, and concludes that despite mounting losses, national climate politics remain largely entrenched, with Republicans aligned with fossil fuel interests and Democrats still far from phasing out fossil fuels.[1][4]
- The article contends that many of the billionaires and powerful executives best positioned to shift the political landscape — including tech figures, entertainment leaders, and sports magnates in Los Angeles — have prioritized wealth and business interests over aggressive climate action, reinforcing an unequal status quo in both risk and recovery.[1]
- It emphasizes that Angelenos should not assume this disaster will automatically change policy, urging residents instead to “demand better” by keeping climate in everyday conversation, voting on climate as a defining issue, backing businesses and media that take the crisis seriously, and choosing lower‑carbon options such as electric vehicles and public transit when possible.[1]
- In discussing blame, the column urges readers to focus on evidence rather than scapegoats, highlighting fire experts who say the landscape was so dry and the winds so extreme that additional brush clearance would likely have had little effect, and noting that water and power officials were overwhelmed by unprecedented conditions rather than simple negligence.[1][2][6]
- The piece argues that Los Angeles’ built environment, from housing to water systems and historic landmarks, was never designed for a hotter, more fire‑prone climate, and that survival will require reimagining infrastructure, land use, insurance, and finance in line with scientific warnings about intensifying wildfire risk.[1][3][4][11]
- It stresses that climate‑driven disasters deepen inequities, with wealthy homeowners better able to protect and rebuild through private resources such as concierge firefighting services, while lower‑income residents face greater displacement and slower recovery, making equitable policies central to any credible climate response.[1]
- Finally, the article warns that misinformation and deliberate disinformation around the fires and climate change are spreading rapidly, criticizes fossil fuel propaganda in popular culture, and suggests that even within fictional portrayals of the oil industry, there are emerging hints of recognition that fossil fuels have a limited future in a warming world.[1][4][9]
Different views on the topic
- A New York Post opinion column argues that “bad leaders — not climate change” are primarily responsible for California’s wildfire crisis, asserting that human ignition sources, poorly maintained power lines, and decades of flawed forest and land management decisions are the real culprits and that attributing the surge in fires to climate change “lacks substantiation.”[10]
- That piece further contends that while burned acreage has increased in some recent years, the total number of wildfires has declined since the late 1980s, claiming this disconnect reflects aggressive suppression policies and environmentalist resistance to active forest management rather than a clear climate signal.[10]
- In an interview highlighted by the Santa Maria Sun, wildfire scientist Jon Keeley dismisses several attribution studies on the 2025 Los Angeles fires as “total garbage” and maintains that extreme Santa Ana winds — reaching 80 to 100 miles per hour — were “without a doubt” the fundamental reason the fires were so catastrophic, arguing that the role of climate change in Southern California wildfire patterns is often overstated.[5]
- Some conservative and industry‑aligned analysts argue that Sacramento’s environmental and climate policies, not fossil fuel companies, bear the most direct responsibility, describing the disaster as a culmination of decades of mismanagement in areas such as vegetation treatment, utility regulation, and development in high‑risk zones.[10][12]
- Those critics also portray California’s efforts to sue oil companies and proposed legislation that would make it easier for residents and insurers to seek damages from fossil fuel firms as a politically motivated “lawfare” campaign, suggesting it deflects attention from state‑level failures in planning, infrastructure, and emergency preparedness.[10][12]
- Business figures such as Rick Caruso and Elon Musk have argued that restrictive environmental regulations and insufficient brush clearance are key drivers of wildfire destruction, claiming that more aggressive vegetation removal and wider firebreaks near homes could have significantly mitigated the damage, in contrast to expert views that downplay the potential impact of such measures under the recent extreme conditions.[6]
- Political voices on the right have at times rejected any climate link altogether; for example, Donald Trump Jr. asserted that the Los Angeles wildfires had “nothing to do with climate change,” framing climate attribution as partisan spin, even as subsequent fact‑checking and climate research concluded that higher temperatures and drier fuels clearly worsened the fires.[7]
- Climate “realism” commentaries, including analysis on public broadcasting outlets and scientific blogs, take a more mixed stance, acknowledging that human‑driven warming has made Los Angeles several degrees hotter and more prone to fire‑friendly conditions while insisting that natural variability such as La Niña, local topography, and long‑standing fire regimes remain equally important drivers that should temper claims that fossil fuels are the dominant cause.[2][8][11]
- These more skeptical or pluralistic perspectives tend to prioritize near‑term adaptation measures — such as stricter control of human ignitions during high‑risk periods, home‑hardening, targeted vegetation management, and more cautious zoning in fire‑prone areas — and argue that such strategies deserve greater emphasis than broad calls to overhaul the fossil fuel‑based global economy.[2][3][11]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
In this episode, we bring you the update on how an Altadena resident and her neighborhood are coming along, plus a re-run of the two-part series we did on the Poppyfields people back in June.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
