Opinion: Climate change not only cause of wildfires in California
The recent Eaton and Palisades wildfires in Los Angeles County have refocused the public’s attention on the recurrent nature of vegetation burning and the devastating effects on people and the environment. Litigation against Southern California Edison by Los Angeles County and the cities of Pasadena and Sierra Madre seeks to gain financial compensation from damages caused by the Eaton Fire.
Wildfires recur seasonally and annually in California, and the losses are mounting over time. Some blame climate change for the repeated occurrence of severe wildfires in California. I respectfully disagree based on my four decades of research and consulting in the field of resources management in California and nationally. The fact that human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases have contributed to modern-age climatic warming does not explain the recurrence of wildfire or their intensity and severity. Wildfires occur now any time of the year, summer and winter. The real issue is the lack of a long-term governmental policy concerning wildfire preparedness.
It seems nothing can be done to control the escalating calamities of wildfires. Or can it?
Wildfires are part of the life cycle of forests and the chaparral, which burn with regularity to regenerate themselves and have occurred long before humans populated the Golden State.
What has changed is the settlement of people within the chaparral and forested areas. The state’s population was about 1.5 million people in 1900. In 2025, the population of California was 42.5 million, almost a 30-fold rise.
The rapid population growth has brought in urban sprawl, traffic gridlock, environmental pollution and a declining quality of urban life. People have migrated to areas previously occupied by forest and chaparral to escape urban stresses and to build cheaper homes. Roads and homes are built in vegetated areas, and power lines are installed to provide electricity. California wildfires are now ignited by malfunctioning power lines — the Wolsey Fire in Malibu, the Thomas Fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties, the Camp Fire in Butte County — and by equipment operating in forested areas, by arsonists or by the negligence of forest visitors, as with the Cedar Fire in San Diego County.
In Los Angeles County, as the Santa Ana winds gain strength, they topple or cause short-circuiting of power equipment, which ignites the surrounding vegetation, and then the winds spread the fire — burning anything in its path.
Are Californians therefore doomed to suffer from wildfires without recourse?
The answer is a qualified no. First, planning and development agencies must be stricter in the issuance of building permits in the wildland urban interface and forested areas. This means requiring the use of ignition- and burning-resistant materials and suitable architectural designs (e.g., special windows, doors and eave configurations) in buildings. It might require setting limits to the density of the built space in fire-prone areas.
In the wildland urban interface and forested areas that are already populated, it might require retrofitting buildings to reduce their vulnerability to ignition and combustion. This includes creating defensible space surrounding buildings.
Tax deductions may be given to offset expenses incurred by building owners. Low-interest loans could be made available to building owners to fire-proof their buildings.
One possible, yet expensive, remedy would be to bury power lines underground, or confine them in above-ground enclosures, removing the threat of toppling or damage by gusty winds, by falling vegetation or by other above-ground destabilizing factors.
Energy companies might have to recover costs by raising utility fees. Nevertheless, the benefit to cost ratio of fire prevention is sound.
Currently, energy companies suspend electric transmission when forecasts of gusty wind signal threats to power equipment. But this practice has not been effective because forecasting of sudden, powerful winds is far from accurate.
The lawsuit filed against Southern California Edison may result in a damage settlement of billions of dollars.
Taxpayer-funded measures could provide capital to protect critically vulnerable areas. The cost of fireproofing buildings constitutes a premium to residing in a region where wildfires are unavoidable, and where housing is expanding into marginal areas.
It’s the price of enjoying the California dream.
Loaiciga, Ph.D., is a distinguished professor and director of the Hydrology Laboratory at the University of California-Santa Barbara, and is a Public Voices Fellow of the OpEd Project at UC Santa Barbara.
Originally Published: