The inferno that took America by surprise
For years, California, the crown jewel of the world’s richest economy, has been a harbinger of climate catastrophe, with each wildfire season setting records for devastation. In 2018, nearly two million acres of land were scorched, a figure that was eclipsed in 2020 when flames consumed more than two million acres, leaving livelihoods and entire towns in ruins.
Now, in 2025, another inferno, far from over, yet being described as the costliest disaster in US history, has raged for days across Southern California, and officials are still tallying its toll — a sobering reminder of how far behind the fight against climate change has fallen.
Los Angeles, the city of cinematic illusions, where Hollywood’s apocalyptic fantasies are conjured, has turned into a tableau of real-life destruction. Vast swathes of hillside mansions and middle-class neighbourhoods alike lie in smouldering ruins. The devastation, some say, evokes haunting parallels to Gaza, a strip reduced to rubble and dust after relentless Israeli bombardment — a fate delivered with over 85,000 tonnes of ammunition over 15 months. Reality, in both places, now mirrors the kind of dystopia that films once only dared to imagine.
According to a report by the New York Times, the fires that ravaged Los Angeles last week have left Californians in shock, with more than 12,000 structures reduced to rubble and at least 27 lives claimed. Driven by rare, once-in-a-decade wind gusts and a parched landscape, the devastation has reached deeper into urban areas than residents — and even state officials — ever thought possible. Fire scientists said the destructive force of the infernos intensified as they swept into neighbourhoods, becoming urban fires in which homes ignited one after another. With little that could be done to slow their advance, the flames quickly consumed everything in their path. These multiple fires — experts monitoring the situation said — have stretched the region’s firefighting resources to breaking point, forcing the state to enlist more than 900 prisoners to battle the most destructive flames tearing through America’s city of dreams. Their efforts, paid a maximum of $10.24 a day — well below the minimum wage — with an additional $1 for each hour spent fighting the deadly blazes, exposes the desperate state of affairs.
The situation on the ground remains grim, with the raging fires expected to take some time before they are fully doused. As of January 18, the Palisades Fire in Los Angeles has consumed over 23,700 acres and is approximately 39% contained. While authorities work to mitigate hazards such as landslides and debris flows in the affected regions, over 80,000 people were under evacuation orders. The Eaton and Hurst Fires in Los Angeles County, as well as the Auto Fire in Ventura County, have also caused significant damage, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
With devastation broadcast around the world and grim headlines likening California to a driver suffering multiple car crashes, the scale of the unfolding crisis is hard to overstate. Communities are now grappling with the immediate aftermath—homes reduced to ash, families displaced, and livelihoods destroyed in many areas. Climate change, inadequate forest management, and prolonged drought have created a volatile mix, leaving firefighting crews stretched thin and residents confronting an increasingly uncertain future. The question is no longer merely how to recover, but how to prevent the next disaster from being even worse—a question that America, with its long history of climate-related catastrophes, knows all too well. Only recently, it was battered by hurricanes—yet it has re-elected Donald Trump, a president who has repeatedly dismissed climate change as a hoax throughout much of his political career. This is a deeply troubling position for a country that remains one of the world’s largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions — a key factor driving the fires. Even more disquieting, as the climate-denying Trump prepares to return to the White House, his soon-to-be predecessor, Joe Biden, departs having overseen more oil and gas drilling than Trump ever did. The glaring contradiction between political rhetoric and policy highlights the growing challenge of confronting a climate crisis that shows no sign of abating.
As climate columnist Sammy Roth put it in the Los Angeles Times, “There was no coal baron who lit the matches. No oil driller who dried out the terrain, priming Southern California to burn. No gas executive who decided to build residential neighbourhoods in already fire-prone landscapes. But a global economy built on fossil fuels — and a US political establishment funded in great part by fossil fuel corporations and their allies — brought us to this point.”
But will America change its ways after this latest disaster—one many are already calling its worst, at least until the next? Dr. Patrick Bigger, Research Director at the Climate & Community Institute (CCI), put it bluntly: “Even as this becomes the costliest disaster in US history, it’s unlikely to inspire the kind of consensus on climate change that followed 9/11.”
When asked to describe the unfolding crisis, Bigger, part of a progressive climate and economy think tank, pointed to the ways human activity has intensified natural hazards. “From floods to storms to fires, virtually every hazard is being turbocharged by our unmitigated discharge of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere,” he explained. Wildfires, he said, are a prime example of how a changing climate worsens both the severity and the human toll of disasters.
Bigger highlighted how climate change affects not just warming, but also the entire hydrological cycle, wind velocity, and other atmospheric dynamics. “Combine that with the unfettered way cities have been allowed to grow—placing people directly in harm’s way—and it’s clear this is far from a natural disaster,” he noted. “It’s a social disaster with natural characteristics.”
Caught off guard
Despite the late timing of evacuation orders, nearly all residents of Pacific Palisades, the affluent neighbourhood that overlooks the Pacific Ocean from the canyons of West LA, made it to safety—a relief many attributed to the heightened awareness of fire danger in a region frequently ravaged by such blazes. The efforts of first responders, the initiative of residents to evacuate independently, and the fact that the fire broke out in broad daylight, when many were awake and alert, also played a part in the relatively smooth evacuation.
However, the state’s preparedness to combat the fires was sorely lacking. Several factors complicated the response, with a significant time lag being among them. Severe winds hampered aerial firefighting efforts, while water hydrants ran dry due to unprecedented demand. A nearby reservoir was left empty, having been neglected for repairs. According to the Los Angeles Times, top fire commanders also made the decision not to deploy roughly 1,000 available firefighters and water-carrying engines in advance, further exposing the vulnerability of the region to such catastrophic events.
Experts believe that even the wealthiest state in the world’s richest economy was caught off guard. “Well, nobody’s safe. And we can see this,” said Bigger, adding that the insurance industry has been sounding the alarm for anyone paying attention. “It’s not just California. There are 19 states, where insurers are withdrawing coverage because of increased risk of disasters supercharged by climate change.”
He also pointed out that despite California’s vast resources and focus on climate issues, it still couldn’t prevent such a massive disaster. “If we have the resources and attention to climate that you have in California, yet we’re still unable to prevent a conflagration of this magnitude, it becomes imminently clear that everywhere is probably more vulnerable as the climate crisis intensifies,” the CCI research director cautioned.
Framing disaster
In the aftermath of the catastrophic wildfires sweeping across the Golden State, political leaders have locked horns over the cause and characterization of the disaster. California’s Democratic Governor, Gavin Newsom, quickly described the fires as potentially the costliest disaster in US history, emphasizing on the vast scale of the destruction. Meanwhile, incoming Republican president Donald Trump, a well-known climate sceptic, pointed the finger at the state’s environmental policies, blaming them for exacerbating the fires.
However, this partisan squabble risks overshadowing the central issue – this is a climate crisis. Experts, including Dr. Patrick Bigger, have emphasized that while local policies may have played a role, the primary driver of the disaster is climate change. Bigger, from the Climate & Community Institute, did not mince words when addressing the broader context of the fires. “It is certainly a disaster that has been exacerbated by climate change,” he said. While tying the fires directly to global warming remains complex, Bigger stressed that the impacts are unequivocally more severe. “We can almost certainly say that it’s much more severe, the impacts are more catastrophic,” he noted, pointing to the increased loss of life and property damage, which would have been significantly less without the added pressures of climate change.
But Bigger was also clear that the disaster is not solely a climate issue. “It’s not simply climate. It’s also a range of ways that people’s vulnerability has been exacerbated through basically the political economic relations of growth in the US that are really turbocharging these disasters,” he explained.
Echoing these concerns, Dr. Peter Kalmus, a climate scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, sharply criticized the framing of the fires as a natural disaster. “This wasn’t a natural disaster. Like all climate-related disasters, this was a crime,” Kalmus said. In his recently published book ‘Being the Change: Live Well and Spark a Climate Revolution’, Kalmus argues that the fossil fuel industry has long been aware of the consequences of its actions. “People in the fossil fuel industry have known for decades that they were heating the planet and that there would be consequences to that heating, but they chose to spread disinformation and take other measures to cause society to delay taking action,” Kalmus said.
As the political blame game continues to rage, it is clear that the real conversation needs to focus on the role of climate change in making such disasters more frequent, more destructive, and harder to manage. While politicians continue to argue, the science is unequivocal – unless climate change is addressed, the devastation will only intensify.
A combination of factors
The recent wildfires in California have been driven by a combination of factors, with climate change playing a pivotal role. The phenomenon known as ‘hydroclimate whiplash’ — marked by extreme swings between heavy rainfall and prolonged droughts — has intensified in recent years, fuelling both floods and fires. As the BBC reported, the rapid growth of vegetation during periods of heavy rainfall creates a dangerous cycle – lush greenery quickly turns to tinder in dry conditions, setting the stage for catastrophic fires. Climate change has not only heightened this volatile pattern but also significantly increased the risk and spread of wildfires.
Referring to the fires as a “climate-supercharged disaster,” Dr. Patrick Bigger of the Climate & Community Institute highlighted how systemic failures have deepened the state's vulnerability. Bigger pointed to the fossil fuel industry, which, he argued, has done a ‘spectacular job of guarding its profits,’ thereby ensuring continued reliance on fossil fuels and exacerbating climate change. He stressed that this industry’s reluctance to transition to cleaner energy sources has worsened the region’s exposure to climate-driven catastrophes.
Bigger also drew attention to California’s fiscal constraints, particularly due to tax laws enacted in the late 1970s that severely limited the state’s ability to raise property taxes. This restriction has left California unable to adequately invest in critical priorities like disaster preparedness. “California, despite being the wealthiest state, still finds itself in periodic budget crises,” he noted. He further warned that even states with relatively strong climate policies are ill prepared for the full impacts of climate change. “Even as you take relatively strong action on climate, that doesn’t necessarily prepare you for its impacts,” he said.
To mitigate future disasters, Bigger called for significant investments in adaptation, including forest management, urban planning, and the transition to zero-carbon pathways. “We need stronger investments in adaptation, which simply isn’t possible if we continue to allow billionaires to write the tax code,” he explained. Bigger’s analysis points to a fundamental issue – addressing the climate crisis requires both systemic change and a commitment to long-term resilience through public investment and equitable resource distribution.
Trump’s familiar playbook
As firefighters raced to contain wildfires in Pacific Palisades on January 7 and 8, water pressure at hydrants fell dangerously low, with some running dry. In a January 8 Truth Social post, incoming president Donald Trump blamed Governor Gavin Newsom’s management of California’s water resources, accusing him of prioritizing environmental concerns over human lives. Trump claimed that Newsom had refused to sign a water restoration declaration that would have released excess rain and snowmelt from Northern California into other parts of the state, alleviating water shortages during the fires.
“Governor Gavin [Newsom] refused to sign the water restoration declaration put before him that would have allowed millions of gallons of water... to flow daily into many parts of California, including the areas that are currently burning in a virtually apocalyptic way,” Trump wrote. He also said Newsom was protecting a “worthless fish” — a reference to the delta smelt — rather than ensuring sufficient water supply for residents.
However, experts were quick to refute Trump’s claims, explaining that California’s water management strategy, designed to capture rain and snowmelt from the north, has no connection to the water pressure issues faced by firefighters. The logistical challenge in Pacific Palisades was unrelated to state conservation policies.
It is not uncommon for the firebrand Republican leader to use natural disasters as political fodder. In 2018, he falsely claimed that Democrats inflated Hurricane Maria’s death toll in Puerto Rico. In October 2024, he accused North Carolina’s Democratic governor of blocking federal aid after Hurricane Helene — a claim that was widely debunked. His recent remarks about California’s fires and water management follow the same script, deflecting attention from the immediate crisis while politicizing disaster relief.
Trump’s rhetoric exposes a broader pattern of climate denialism and political opportunism that has tangible policy implications. “I don’t know that it’s going to be meaningfully different from what we saw during the Trump administration,” said Dr. Patrick Bigger of the Climate & Community Institute. He described how Trump’s first term created a ‘permission structure’ for Republican-led states to ignore the climate crisis and delay investments in climate adaptation. Democratic states, he noted, have pursued emission reduction and resilience strategies, though their progress remains insufficient.
Bigger warned that the consequences of a second Trump presidency could be even more severe. Under President Biden, he said, the US became the largest fossil fuel producer in history — a trajectory likely to persist and even accelerate under Trump, worsening the global climate crisis.
“One of the enduring impacts of Trump’s first term was the erosion of private sector climate commitments,” Bigger said. Companies like BlackRock and major tech firms, facing rising energy use and emissions, have scaled back their climate goals. A regulatory climate further hostile to sustainable investment could deepen this retreat. The rollback of corporate accountability, Bigger said, would mark a return to profit-driven policies, delaying critical action on a rapidly worsening climate.
The Republican blueprint
As flames devour homes and businesses across Southern California, and weary firefighters confront relentless blazes, political forces in Washington are reshaping the future of America’s climate policies. MAGA-Republicans, emboldened by their growing influence over federal priorities, are pushing a sweeping blueprint known as Project 2025 — a plan that could unravel hard-won environmental protections and upend federal disaster relief programs just as climate disasters grow more frequent and severe.
The Project 2025 strategy, crafted by the Heritage Foundation and a coalition of conservative think tanks, calls for dismantling core environmental regulations, eliminating subsidies for renewable energy projects, and slashing funding for climate-focused initiatives at federal agencies. Among its most striking proposals is a rollback of the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate carbon emissions, effectively hampering the government’s ability to address greenhouse gas pollution from vehicles and power plants, the two largest contributors to climate change in the US.
More concerning for many, Project 2025 proposes cutting resources for disaster relief and preparedness. FEMA, already stretched thin, would face reduced capacity to aid communities devastated by floods, hurricanes, and wildfires. Advocates of the plan argue that scaling back federal intervention would promote “personal responsibility” and state-level solutions. But critics caution that such moves would leave local governments and residents overwhelmed and exposed to growing risks.
Dr. Patrick Bigger of the Climate & Community Institute said that Project 2025 represents a deepening of long-standing conservative views on disaster recovery. “We’re seeing the intensification of old ideas rather than something new,” he said. FEMA, he noted, has historically struggled with inadequate funding and a reactive rather than proactive approach. “The agency often focuses more on punitive disaster recovery than genuine community support,” Bigger said. “It’s often the first step in what Naomi Klein calls disaster capitalism — just enough clean-up to pave the way for private investment that can accelerate gentrification in disaster-stricken areas.”
Project 2025’s emphasis on shrinking federal disaster aid would be familiar to those who remember the Trump administration’s tepid response to Hurricane Maria’s devastation in Puerto Rico. “The Republican belief is that disaster recovery should be a state and charity function, not a federal one,” Bigger said. “Further cuts to FEMA would undermine even the bare minimum of national disaster management we have now.”
The climate stakes are rising fast. As Southern California burns, questions about who will pay to rebuild loom large. Project 2025 offers a bleak answer – it won’t be the federal government, and it won’t be the fossil fuel companies that profited while the planet warmed. In the future envisioned by this plan, it will be ordinary Americans left to shoulder the costs of reconstruction, increasingly tied to political conditions.
“Expect to see disaster aid dangled as a tool to roll back state climate regulations,” Bigger warned. “We’re already hearing this kind of talk. Recovery funds will come with strings attached — and those strings will be designed to unravel environmental protections.”