Attributing the L.A. Fires

It’s striking that in reflecting on the decline of rational thinking and evidence-based approaches, we often end up unwittingly embracing some of the very habits we decry. Recently, a section of a post online stood out to me—"giving vent to cheap explanations you know are too easy to be true but just make you feel good"—feels particularly apt when applied to how we talk about climate change. Take the “immolation of Los Angeles” as an example. If we dig into it, the explanation isn’t as simple as "climate change" flipping some apocalyptic switch. There’s credible evidence that fire management budgets were slashed, warnings from preparedness experts were ignored, and proper forest and urban interface management wasn’t prioritized. These are tangible, actionable factors we can address. Instead, the issue is often framed as part of a single, all-encompassing narrative about CO₂, leaving no room for solutions outside that lens. It’s also worth noting that global data on ...