Los Angeles is burning.

Dozens are reported to have died, while hundreds of thousands had to evacuate their homes when the fires were at their peak. The wildfires have blanketed much of the region in smoke, posing a serious health hazard. Children, pregnant people, first responders and people with pre-existing respiratory conditions are particularly vulnerable to the health risks of smoke inhalation.

Climate change isn’t the only driver of these fires, but it’s a key driver of wildfires in general — and of  California wildfires in particular.

Far from “natural,” disasters are inherently political.

If they are even partially preventable, why didn’t those with the power to prevent them act in time — or at all? If common sense measures to avoid the worst impacts of the disaster could have been implemented, why weren’t they? And why are those most harmed by a disaster least able to access resources to recover? These are inherently political questions.

Some will say the moment or aftermath of a disaster isn’t the right time to talk politics. But it’s exactly the right time.

“I’ve been doing this for 20 years so,” said climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe on Bluesky. “I have learned, very sadly, that the only time the news is willing to talk about how climate change is putting all of us at risk is during and immediately after the extreme weather event: no other time.”

We need to have important public conversations about the growing risks of climate disasters, the culpability of powerful corporations and their supporters in politics, and the systemic causes of disproportionate disaster impacts on marginalized populations. And if we don’t have them now, we may not have them at all.

That said, there’s still a wrong way to politicize these disasters.

Case in point: President Trump has made absurd claims blaming endangered species protection initiatives by California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) for the lack of water in Southern California. The real explanation is much more straightforward: Southern California is experiencing prolonged drought, made worse by climate change.

It’s terrifying that a person holding the highest elected office in the country is spreading disinformation for political gain. But it gets even worse: He’s doing so to cover up his own plans to exacerbate some of the underlying causes of the inferno. Trump has made no secret of his plans to “drill, baby, drill,” and it’s also widely known that he solicited, and received, what are essentially legal bribes from fossil fuel barons.

To his credit, Newsom replied that his priority was “protecting people” and “making sure firefighters have all the resources they need,” just as it should be. 

However, he went on to say, “I’m not here to play any politics.” But Newsom’s politics deserve scrutiny, too.

California is a major oil-producing state, and Newsom has a mixed record when it comes to confronting the industry and making serious efforts to wind down production. 

Newsom signed legislation last year to give local governments more power to restrict oil and gas operations and to fine companies for operating highly polluting oil wells. In 2022, he signed legislation to limit oil and gas production within 3,200 feet of schools, homes and other community spaces.

These are commendable measures. But at the same time, the California oil and gas regulatory agency continues to issue more oil and gas permits — and evidently the governor is unwilling to rein them in.

Clearly, politics has a lot to do with why the Los Angeles fire was so devastating — and getting our politics right would go a long way toward making things better in the future. California can take big steps in the right direction by passing a “polluter pays” bill to compel fossil fuel companies to pay for the damage they cause, closing tax loopholes benefiting the fossil fuel industry and getting rogue government agencies under control.

With the federal government in the grips of climate deniers, it will be all the more important for states to take steps like these. And that starts with talking openly about this very political problem.

---

---