A recent article at LAist titled “The poor are in a very bad state: Climate change accelerates California’s cost-of-living crisis,” claims that climate change is increasing the cost of living in California. This is false. Climate policies in California are accelerating the cost of living much more than any modest warming.
The first example the LAist post gives is the fire outbreak from January 2025 in the Los Angeles area, particularly the Eaton fire, which “accelerated the decade-long displacement of tenants […] from Altadena due to rising housing costs.”
This is certainly something that happens, if a neighborhood is burned down it will make already high housing costs impossible to overcome because, simply, the houses are gone. And poorer people will struggle to rebuild. Nothing unprecedented about that.
LAist blames these fires on “an unusual lack of rain, a condition blamed on climate change,” and then backed this assertion up by referencing attribution studies: “Using weather data collected since 1950, scientists ran simulations showing the conditions that dried out the foothills were 35% more likely because of global warming.”
This is nonsense. Not only are attribution studies junk science, as discussed by previous Climate Realism articles here, here, and here, but the conditions that led to the dryness that contributed to the Eaton fire and others at the same time were not due to climate change.
The high, dry wind phenomenon that made the conditions very dangerous and prone to out of control wildfires in the Los Angeles area is so common it has its own name: The Santa Ana winds. These winds are well documented and not historically unusual, though the winds from that particular month were very strong, with some record high wind gusts.
Santa Ana winds are most common during the winter months, and cause vegetation to dry out rapidly, even if there was enough rain beforehand. In fact, there was a lot of burnable vegetation in the area at the time, a high fuel load, because the previous winter seasons had been wetter, and contributed to more plant growth. This means that when the winds came, they dried out a lot of fuel for fires when they were started by arson, in the case of the nearby Palisades fire.
Data does not indicate that the Santa Ana winds are getting more severe or common due to climate change, though there are some studies suggesting they could get weaker, but that has not appeared in data yet.
Several Climate Realism posts go into more detail about the Los Angeles fires, none of the available evidence points to climate change.
LAist pointed to more than just wildfire, saying that “[r]ising temperatures, the clearest impact of climate change, are driving up home energy costs.”
They went on to say that last year was the hottest summer on record for California, and every “day above 95°F increased the chance that the power to low-income households would be disconnected, as energy bills inch up an additional $20 to $30 a month, according to a 2022 UCLA study.”
Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) do not show that California’s number of extremely hot days is increasing beyond what earlier parts of the 20th century saw, particularly the 1930s. (See figure below)
Looking at Los Angeles county alone, the trend is different, with more higher temperature days in recent decades, however this can be attributed to the Urban Heat Island effect, which is not a climate issue, but is due to human activity via urbanization.
LAist also pointed at drought and flooding as weather conditions that are getting worse in California due to climate change, but both of these are also incorrect or misleading. Annual precipitation data shows no long term trend for the state, nor does the number of extreme precipitation events. Drought is a bit more complicated, since water needs are also taken into account. California, especially around Los Angeles, is a very dry state. Most of the climate zones are mediterranean or desert, both naturally dry. Meanwhile, the population and expansion of agriculture (like vineyards) have been expanding and demanding more water. Even if meteorological drought is not worsening, meaning the amount of rainfall and snow the state is getting, increasing demand on groundwater and reservoirs will put a strain on state water supplies. But drought itself is natural for the state, and long term—especially paleontological—data show that repeated lasting droughts are not unusual.
Interestingly, the article authors begrudgingly admit that “California’s policies to discourage fossil fuel use add to costs,” saying that power bills and fuel costs are higher in California as the state attempts to “wean itself off oil and gas.”
This is the largest and most obvious reason for the high cost of living in the state, not a three-degree change in average temperature over more than a hundred years. High costs of electricity make it harder for the poor to afford sufficient air conditioning, and those costs rise much more rapidly than the average yearly temperature. A report by the Institute for Energy Research shows how over-reliance on expensive renewables like wind and solar have driven up costs across the board, and now California has the second highest electricity rates in the country, surpassed by only Hawaii, and pays more than double the national average. California is also the second highest in electricity importing, despite having ample natural resources in the form of natural gas.
The real cause of financial pain for the poor in California is not climate change, but the pursuit of climate policy.
LAist is simply pursuing a climate alarmist angle in this story, while downplaying the larger and frankly blatant influences on the state’s cost of living crisis. California is known for having some of the best climate regions in the world, the easiest to live in, and that has not changed. What has changed is the population, and the insidious growth of climate policies by state leadership, prioritized over public welfare.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Nor it seems did the LAist mention that the Eaton fire was a reignition of the Lachman fire, a small 3-acre brush fire which the fire department did not extinguish completely, leaving smoltering earth for 6 days, just waiting for Santa Ana winds. When they arrived, a surface fire reignited and destroyed Pacific Palisades.
Exactly and an employee from the California State Parks department stopped the fire crews from using their heavy equipment to secure the site. They were worried about “sensitive natural and cultural resources” like endangered plants and Native American archaeological sites.
How are those “sensitive natural and cultural resources” doing now?
In a recent season the Santa Ana winds were quite late, so air tankers had left for the southern hemisphere or went into maintenance.
(A few were in condition that they could be flyable again soon, IIRC two of the big 10tanker ones. Quebec was able to send one or more additional CL air tankers, very useful for fires near the ocean – round and round they flew. Unfortunately the Might Mars air tankers had been retired because the gummint of BC sneered at them.)
There were allegations of underfunding ground fire fighters and water reservoirs.
“High costs of electricity make it harder for the poor to afford sufficient air conditioning”
I’ve never lived in CA so I’m speculating here, but… in the Eastern states, in hot weather, it doesn’t cool off much at nigh due to high humidity. In arid and semi arid places like much of CA, I’d think the nights must cool off much better than in the Eastern states. And even during the day, it’s not going to be as humid compared the Eastern states- so even though it might be 95F, it won’t feel as oppressive. So, I’d think that AC isn’t a big drain on the grid in CA. I suspect that not many people in CA even have it- other than in the true desert areas of the southern part of the state. I’m sure somebody will educate me on this. 🙂
Your assumptions are mostly correct. People that can afford air conditioning can also afford the electricity to use it. If they rent and it comes with AC they don’t have to turn it on if the cost is too high. AC is a must in the desert towns like Palm Springs, Borrego, Needles, etc. Coastal towns have the ocean. “Sufficient” for some is luxury for others.
You are right in general. The cold Pacific moderates coastal temperatures where most people live in California. Los Angeles’ “hottest” month (August) sees average highs of only 84°F (29°C) while the “coldest” month (December) has average highs of 68°F (20°C). Most of the year, coastal dwellers need little AC cooling and only modest heat (at least before the era of sealed, climate-controlled buildings), interspersed with occasional hot or cold spells.
In the southern desert and the desert-like Central Valley, also somewhat heavily populated and rich in irrigated agriculture, up until the 21st century, many or even most homes used the dry air for evaporative cooling (rather than refrigerated AC) in daytime and usually enjoyed pleasant evenings. Outdoor dining at restaurants often employs mists to cool the air and keep diners comfortable.
I have many relatives whose families migrated to California seeking pleasant climes and employment during the Great Depression and the heat and drought of the Dust Bowl of the1930s. Most of them stayed there.
Today, modern construction (sealed building envelopes) and HVAC concepts have convinced everyone that indoor environments must remain at 72°F (22°C) and 40% humidity year round, irrespective of the weather outside, thus greatly adding to energy demands.
I’m a 5th generation Californian (Van Nuys), but my parents moved us when I was a baby. I used to visit a lot, all of my Mom’s side of the family lived there, but they’re mostly gone now.
I used to joke that people in LA would break out their parkas when it hit 70F.
When I lived in LA back in the 60’s and 70’s, our house had a single wall unit air conditioner. We ended up using that unit only 2 or 3 times during the year. Most of the time we just opened the windows at night, and sealed up the house during the afternoon.
Spot on, Linnea. Now, if the MSM would just reprint this article. Fat chance or when Hell freezes over. Oh wait, it is three degrees hotter there and that will never happen now. Climate change affects everything and everyone, I forgot.
Is this a printed news item, digital, or what? On air, it seems to be an NPR affiliated station. Not that there is anything wrong with that.
I do think the headline should be truncated at the colon (:).
“The poor are in a very bad state.”
A very bad state indeed, the most corrupt in the U.S. with billions spent for causes du jour, which provide the mechanism to fleece taxpayers, all to ill effect.
Medieval religious fanaticism shifting away from the church and into the Gaia climate cult, except for Muslims, where it remains intrenched in the Mohammad’s way. It works for Gavin, because it requires no actual thinking.
Very nice Linnea. California has a high cost of living for one reason, crappy government. No other cause needs to be considered.
All California revenue spending bills originate in the California State Assembly. The California State Assembly has had a democrat party majority since 1958.
Any resultant “crappy government” originates there. People and companies are now voting with their feet due to the high cost and decreasing opportunity. If you don’t surf and can buy your weather cheaper in other places, it’s a no brainer.
Remember, people who want to reduce your standard of living are not your friends.
There is a bill before the CA legislature to install a new wealth tax. 5% of your wealth each year for everyone who owns more than $1B.
Needless to say, lots of billionaires and those who are close to being billionaires are already making plans to leave.
Cmon guys it’s not about production efficiency and innovation with the patriarchy in our Western institutions anymore but the great feminisation whereby everybody must feel good about themselves and what they’re doing with noble works-
Bad Day to be an Irish Taxpayer
You just gotta get with the feels now the Western patriarchy has conquered scarcity.
What California is doing to fight climate change will have no effect on our global climate system. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on our global climate system. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified by science. Spending money to fight climate change is a big waste of funds.
Various factors make California unaffordable, many directly the fault of government.
And people leave because of crime. (Which also indirectly increases cost of living.)
A half century ago people flocked to California, besides its climate of course it was freer, less discrimination, ….
Crime hurts poor people most as they have less financial resiliency.
They lose income from injury, they lose income because their transportation is stolen, and of course lose directly by loss of theft.
California is drought territory, a long one occurred in the past.