Few communities worldwide have worked harder or invested more in their firefighting capacity than California in recent years. Yet, the world was shocked by the scale of devastation caused by the Los Angeles fires in January.
Now that the unproductive blame game and the recriminations have quietened down, along with the fires, it is time for some rigorous analysis so that we can understand how and why the fires occurred and what can be done in future to limit the destruction and help resilient communities rebuild.
These lessons from Los Angeles can be applied in other regions at the greatest risk from the climate emergency, and they are relevant to Australia and New Zealand.
Of all global jurisdictions, California is one of the best prepared for wildfires because they are not unique one-off events.
The state is at the front line of climate change’s impacts, and its vulnerability to extreme weather events is always elevated.
California’s building code is highly prescriptive, with mandatory requirements such as requiring homeowners in risky areas to create a defensible space around their properties.
The building codes, however, apply to newer homes, and so the older homes—which are not retrofitted—were built in an era of lower fire risk.
State fire agency CalFire has a US$4 billion budget and has some of the best-trained firefighters in the world, and local fire departments back them up.
Despite this, CalFire estimates around 12,000 buildings were destroyed, and insured losses may reach US$20 billion, with total economic losses at US$50 billion. At least 29 people lost their lives.
Rather than blaming CalFire and the local firefighters for what happened in January, we must understand that, well prepared as California may have been, the force of nature from a confluence of factors was overwhelming.
Beyond their actions on the day, there is evidence that the US has under-invested in its system of predicting disasters, which may have undermined its ability to respond.
Reconstruction efforts in the past have also tended to be ad hoc and underfunded, undermining the capacity to ‘build back better’ and make communities more resilient in the future.
California’s building code may be among the most rigorous in the country, but there could be a revision and a tightening of regulations around which building materials are used and on housing density.
These may add significant costs to building homes, but as we have seen, the cost of destruction is likely to be exponentially larger.
There is also the issue of where to build communities. As we saw in New Zealand after the floods, some areas are now uninhabitable and should never host residential or commercial development.
There is also evidence that in Los Angeles, the regulation of homeowners insurance encouraged many people to risk living in fire-prone areas without adequate cover.
Insurance is a massive issue, and restructuring the industry’s approach must be part of the solution.
Already, there are suggestions for building master-planned new communities that embody the best practices in fire resistance, and this could be part of a plan to ensure that homes remain insurable.
Zoning may also need to be reconsidered. Most of the damaged structures were in areas with blurred boundaries between natural landscape and human development.
According to one study, more than a quarter of California’s population – over 11 million people – live in regions in the so-called ‘wildlife-urban interface’, which puts them in the path of wildfires.
Reconstruction should also factor in developing community protection infrastructure such as levees and firebreaks, which, where possible, can be natural assets rather than hard infrastructure.
There could be different kinds of fire breaks, more reserves of water and more extensive undergrowth clearing.
Resilience is not simply a question of building back better but of understanding that we need to build back very differently in the future because the risks and potential for destruction are so much greater today.
The elephant in the room, and one that is politically controversial, particularly in the US, is climate change.
According to a 2023 study by the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) completed before the January 2025 events, ten of the largest California wildfires have occurred in the last 20 years, and five occurred in 2020 alone.
The state experienced a 320% increase in burned areas between 1996 to 2021.
The evidence strongly suggests that these trends will continue, and California faces an ongoing challenge from wildfires.
Denial of climate change risks inaction, which can only lead to more tragedy in the future.
Greater resilience requires an acceptance of the reality of climate change so that the risks can be addressed in a focused and holistic way.
Without basing its response on that reality, California is unlikely to achieve the resilience it needs to succeed in facing what will surely be future challenges.
