What More Is There to Say About the LA Wildfires? And What Do We Do Next?

The horrifying, heartbreaking images from the wildfires encircling Los Angeles remind us again that no one is safe in a global climate emergency. Here’s how we find common ground to take action.

CAL FIRE/flickr

Scenes of unimaginable destruction, with whole neighbourhoods burned to the ground. Exhausted firefighters. Fire hydrants running dry. Comparisons to the firebombing of Dresden and the destruction of Pompeii. And an immediate, secondary firestorm of wacky conspiracy theories and political finger-pointing.

With meteorological agencies reporting that 2024 was (yet again) the hottest year on record, Los Angeles is being overwhelmed by the biggest, most destructive fire in its history, with three active blazes as of Sunday morning consuming nearly 40,000 acres to the north and west of the city. The city was reporting 16 dead and more than 200,000 evacuated, and the death toll was expected to rise once firefighters could conduct house-to-house searches, particularly in the wake of the massive Palisades and Eaton fires.

We’ve been inundated with news and social media on the human toll of the fires, the unique health dangers of urban wildfire smoke, the drastically heightened risk when fires cross the wildland-urban interface, the homes and lives and priceless mementoes obliterated in a heartbeat by fires that moved as fast as three football fields per minute. And we can already connect the scale of the devastation to dry conditions over the last several months, low humidity, and hurricane-force Santa Ana winds that sometimes exceeded 130 to 160 kilometres per hour.

“Meteorological conditions similar to those triggering [the] January 2025 California wildfires are up 5°C warmer, 3 mm/day (up to 15%) drier, and up to 5 km/h (up to 20%) windier in the present compared to the past,” writes ClimaMeter, a rapid attribution service based in Paris. Those factors classified the LA fires “as an event driven by very rare meteorological conditions whose characteristics can be ascribed to human-driven climate change.”

Much of the news reporting has focused on massive insurance losses in an area where companies like Standard Life have already been pulling back their coverage. “Climate change is showing its claws,” reinsurance giant Munich Re headlined last week, in an annual review that cited the US$140 billion in losses that insurers had to cover last year—and that’s just the households and businesses that had insurance when climate change came to call.

Don’t Confuse Us With Facts

But none of that has stopped a predictable storm of misinformation and climate denial directed at state and local governments, blaming the fires on everything from endangered species protection to job equity initiatives to Russia’s war in Ukraine. (Not much word yet on secret space lasers, but the night is young.) It’s hard to imagine a universe in which Donald Trump would have taken the high road, rather than renewing his longstanding grudge with California Gov. Gavin Newsom.

“Several of the statements made by incoming president-elect Trump, as well as Elon Musk, were riddled with both misinformation about our water management system as well as about the fires,” Ashley Overhouse, a water policy advisor for Defenders of Wildlife, told Inside Climate News. “That kind of misinformation is not only incredibly inappropriate here, it’s also dangerous.”

The explosion of unfounded conspiracy theories had locals turning to a non-profit tracking app to get a clear picture of what was going on.

As climate author and Third Act co-founder Bill McKibben writes in his The Crucial Years newsletter:

The great casualties in California today are people and animals and buildings—homes, synagogues, schools, libraries. The great casualty in the months ahead may be the insurance system of the world’s fifth biggest economy, which is going to buckle under the strain of these losses. But the steady loss of intelligence in our nation and our world worries me the most. Even as the stakes grow higher, we’re losing our hard-won ability to understand the world around us.

How Not to Connect the Dots

In 10½ years as a climate publisher and journalist, I’ve come to dread having to assign or write the stories that I think of as the “weather report”.

They’re the horrifying, heartbreaking accounts of the wildfires and storms, flooding and drought rolling over households, communities, regions, and local ecosystems across the globe, where hundreds of thousands or millions of lives can be transformed or lost in a matter of hours or days. Brought to us largely by an unapologetic fossil fuel sector that knew about climate change in the 1970s, chose not to let the rest of us in on the secret, and is proudly promising to increase production of oil, gas, and coal to this day.

But these days, what I dread the most is the standard trajectory that each of these massive disasters follows, the sense that every new local tragedy keeps driving us apart, rather than bringing us together around a shared set of facts and solutions.

As a climate hawk, I know full well what has polluted our politics and our public conversation about climate change—tens or hundreds of millions of dollars will buy you a whole lot of confusion, misunderstanding, and resentment, and that’s exactly what the fossil industry has been working at for decades. But that’s not a useful perspective when we’re trying to connect with anyone who isn’t already inside the “bubble” of climate change concern.

And it’s especially unhelpful for people who are right in the middle of their own, local climate disaster. I’m lucky enough that I’ve only learned this second hand. But when you’re still trying to figure out whether your home and workplace have been destroyed, whether your pets and livestock survived, whether you’ll be able to get home anytime soon—or anytime ever—the last thing you need or want is to be reminded that your life has just been turned upside down by climate change.

But that reality undercuts an essential part of the theory of change that has guided climate communicators for decades. As Bloomberg opinion columnist Lara Williams writes:

Once upon a time, activists and scientists alike thought that once people saw the impacts of climate change firsthand, they’d be moved to believe in the urgency of the crisis and, crucially, to act. But as with hurricanes and other extreme weather events that have come before, the California wildfires are proof that isn’t the case. Rather than baring the truth for all to see, misinformation and new flavours of climate denial are thriving in the chaos.

So. We know that climate impacts are cascading, the message isn’t getting through, and time is running short. What will it take to change the conversation, find common ground, and build trust?

Time to Stop Arguing (It Isn’t Working)

Out of the avalanche of wildfire coverage and commentary over the last week, I keep turning back to two posts that showed up in my LinkedIn feed—one from biodiversity brand strategist Diana Myers, the other from San Francisco-based web designer Akhila Kosaraju.

Myers recounts how she “decided to just listen” after realizing how much it tired her out to argue with a close relative about the reality of climate change.

“Climate deniers love to blame the government. Not for climate change, but for other things,” she wrote. “Climate activists and biodiversity builders, on the other hand, love to focus on solutions.” So “what if there’s a way to bridge the gap via shared values instead of talking over each other?”

Myers lists clean air and water, healthy, nutritious food, community protection and empowerment, biodiverse forests and oceans, and safe, healthy children as goals that pretty much everyone can share. And if that’s right, she says:

Maybe it’s not about compromising on truth or arguing over science sources.

Maybe it’s not about who’s smarter or more educated.

Maybe the way out of this is meeting people where they’re at and building conversations on common ground.

Then maybe—just maybe—there will be room for collaboration.

Pulling the Right Levers

Kosaraju’s post gets at how to move from sympathy to empathy and action with people who aren’t on the immediate front lines.

“Climate change will manifest as a series of disasters viewed through phones with footage that gets closer and closer to where you live until you’re the one filming it,” she writes, citing an unattributed quote circulating widely in the wake of the LA fires.

But even so, “climate change has a relatability problem,” Kosaraju says. “Indians can’t relate to catastrophic wildfires in the U.S. during winter. Americans can’t relate to floods in Pakistan that crashed its economy. Europeans can’t relate to droughts in Kenya that starved millions.”

And once again, the time to expect people to respond and take action is not when they’re the ones filming their own disaster in real time.

The best response, Kosaraju says, is to get educated about climate change, figure out the biggest levers you can pull to make a difference—then pull them.

The climate problem is a deep rooted one that spreads across every industry and sector you can imagine. As depressing as that sounds, the good thing about it is that you can definitely find a piece of the puzzle where you have an unfair advantage to solve it. This could be influencing your social circle, lobbying and activism, shifting your investments, pushing for behaviour change, community building.

Kosaraju’s wise advice points to one lever we should all seriously consider and one that we should be careful to avoid.

For some time, our team has been working with a strange but inevitable reality in a climate fight that is necessarily about equity, about keeping at it until no one else is left behind. The climate emergency and climate solutions belong to all of us. And yet, for better and for worse, some of us can have disproportionate impact in driving faster, deeper emission cuts and building climate resilience—by virtue of where we’re situated, who we can connect with, or as Kosaraju says, the levers we can pull.

That means the maximum influence she’s urging us all to seek out will often be found in our work, not primarily in our homes or neighbourhoods. Anyone who works for a power utility, a financial institution, or in and around city government…anyone who manages a supply chain or who teaches at any level, from junior kindergarten to post-secondary—if your work gives you a unique way to respond to the climate emergency and build practical solutions, that’s the lever to pull first.

Climate Mitigation is the New Adaptation

There’s also one potential landmine that we would all be well advised to dodge. As climate disasters become more frequent and severe, we’re hearing more and more that the effort to shut down the greenhouse gas emissions causing climate change has failed, and all we can do is adapt to the impacts. In August, one leading Canadian climate adaptation specialist took the extreme position that governments should divert funds from emission reductions to focus more on today’s impacts.

The important grain of truth in his argument is that we absolutely need a lot more funding and investment for climate adaptation—in Canada, across North America, and around the world. We needed it yesterday. But not at the expense of the urgent push to drive down emissions.

The problem, of course, is that climate change won’t graciously pause and give us time to accommodate our lives and infrastructure to the impacts we’re already seeing. Average global warming is now in the range of 1.5°C, but there’s enough additional warming baked into the system to get us to about 2.7°—and Donald Trump’s second term could load another four billion tonnes of climate pollution into the atmosphere by 2030.

So yes, governments and private companies are long overdue taking climate adaptation seriously, with the level of investment to show that they mean it. But we can’t ever forget that mitigation is the new adaptation. Otherwise, "we can rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic for a few more years,” University of British Columbia biology and biotechnology professor Miranda Hart told CBC, “but we can't build a society resilient to climate change. It's too powerful and it's too multifaceted."

---

Mitchell Beer traces his background in renewable energy and energy efficiency back to 1977, in climate change to 1997. Now he and the rest of the Energy Mix team scan 1,200 news headlines a week to pull together The Energy Mix, The Energy Mix Weekender, and our weekly feature digests, Cities & Communities and Heat & Power.

---

Chart of the Week

via LinkedIn

---

O’Leary Pitches $70B Tech Hub Fueling Alberta’s Oil and Gas Ambitions

As Trudeau Departs, Differences Emerge in Leadership Hopefuls’ Climate Records

Hydrants Run Dry as Los Angeles Fights Monster Palisades Fire

Ontario Triples Energy Efficiency Programs to Save $12.2B Over 24 Years

Fish or Cut Bait on Carbon Capture, Wilkinson Tells Oil Sands Consortium

Gates Invest $40M in Montreal-based Direct Air Capture Startup

Seven Sustainable Finance Predictions for 2025

Canada Reports 8.5% Emission Reduction Through 2023, Still Far Short of 2030 Target

Pathways CCS Project Won’t Break Even Without Efficiency Gains, Steadier Revenue: IEEFA

---

Sustainable finance rules set to fully enter EU economy in 2025 (Clean Energy Wire)

‘Ironic’: climate-driven sea level rise will overwhelm major oil ports, study shows (The Guardian)

Shell faces shareholder revolt against scrapped climate targets (The Sunday Times)

Oil Companies Skip Auction for Arctic Refuge Drilling Rights (Bloomberg)

Trump Says He Wants No Wind Farms Built During Presidency (Bloomberg)

As construction of first small modular reactor looms, prospective buyers wait for the final price tag (Globe and Mail)

Oil extraction may have triggered over 100 earthquakes in the UK (New Scientist)

England has second worst harvest on record with fears mounting for 2025 (Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit)

Improvements to Electric Vehicles Ease Concerns About Range Loss in Cold Climates (Inside Climate News)

The U.S. clean energy manufacturing revolution is real (Canary Media)

A $60 billion-a-year climate solution is sitting in our junk drawers (Mother Jones)

Accelerating green shipping with spatially optimized offshore charging stations (Nature Energy)