Najmedin Meshkati, University of Southern California

The Los Angeles fires are a national disaster of epic proportions. City officials, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and President-elect Donald Trump have traded accusations about what caused this crisis. But as an engineering professor who lives in Los Angeles and has studied extreme events and natural and human-caused disasters for over 40 years, I believe an event with so many lives lost and damages estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars demands a more substantive response.

Many problems have been cited as alleged root causes of this massive wildfire outbreak. They include mismanaged water resources, misallocation of firefighting resources, fire department funding cuts, poor risk management, reignition of past fires, and climate-driven dry conditions. Rumors and conspiracy theories have also abounded. https://www.youtube.com/embed/E2_KvbLgHlY?wmode=transparent&start=0 Damage from the Los Angeles wildfires, estimates at $135 billion or more as of mid-January, could affect homeowners insurance rates across the U.S.

I have served as a member or adviser to national- and state-level investigations of events including gas leaks, oil spills, nuclear reactor accidents, refinery explosions and, most recently, aviation mishaps.

In my view, the Los Angeles fires call for a similar investigation that is technically sound, multidisciplinary, unbiased, apolitical and independent. U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff of California has called for convening such a review.

To quote a saying often attributed to Albert Einstein: “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”

Natural events + human responses

Natural disasters such as wildfires, earthquakes and tsunamis often serve as triggers. Devastating on their own, these events can have far more catastrophic aftermaths that are shaped by human choices. Nature delivers the initial blow, but a complex interplay of human, organizational and technological factors can either mitigate or worsen the consequences.

I believe human operators and first responders constitute society’s first and the very last layer of defense against death and destruction in the crucial moments following natural disasters and technological systems failures – serving as our immediate shield, intermediate mitigator and ultimate savior.

Advertisement

I saw this when I served on a National Academy of Sciences committee that studied the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. The explosions and radioactive releases at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were triggered by an earthquake and tsunami, but a Japanese high-level review concluded that this event was a “manmade disaster” – one born of human and organizational failure at the utility and governmental levels.

The fate of the Onagawa Nuclear Power Station, just 39 miles from Fukushima, was also notable. Although Onagawa was closer to the earthquake’s epicenter and faced an even more powerful tsunami, the reactors there – which were identical in type and age to Fukushima’s and subject to the same regulations – emerged almost unscathed. This stark difference demolished any argument that Fukushima’s failure was inevitable, an act of God or purely nature’s fault.

High-level commissions have reviewed similar disasters in the United States. For example:

– The President’s Commission on the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 produced the landmark Kemeny Report, which concluded that the accident was primarily caused by human factors, including inadequate operator training and confusing procedures, rather than equipment failures alone. The report strongly criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the nuclear power industry, and recommended a complete restructuring of the agency. It also called for better safety measures, operator training and emergency preparedness in the nuclear industry.

– Independent commissions investigated the explosions of the Challenger space shuttle in 1986 and the Columbia space shuttle in 2003. They identified similar systemic issues behind these incidents, even though they occurred 17 years apart, and provided overlapping recommendations to improve NASA’s safety culture and decision-making processes.

– Two national reviews – one by a blue-ribbon commission and the other by the National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council – investigated the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. This disaster killed 11 workers, seriously injured 16 others and released an estimated 134 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Both reports concluded that BP’s poor safety culture and practices, along with technical failures, lax regulation and inadequate inspections, had contributed to the well blowout. Both commissions made recommendations for improving the safety of offshore drilling. https://www.youtube.com/embed/I9aSUQmwUgA?wmode=transparent&start=0 President Barack Obama announces the formation of an expert commission to analyze causes and lessons from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, May 21, 2011.

Analyzing the Los Angeles fires

Based on my research and experience, I believe only a high-level independent investigative commission can fully unravel this disaster’s interconnected causes. Government agencies, regulatory bodies and legislative committees inevitably fall short in such investigations. They are constrained by jurisdictional boundaries and bureaucratic interests. Their efforts remain too narrow and inward-focused. And, crucially, they lack true independence.

Advertisement

Gov. Newsom has directed the Los Angeles water and public works departments to review why hydrants ran dry, which hampered firefighting efforts. But this inquiry focuses narrowly on water supply issues in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood. It does not address other blazes like the Eaton fire near Pasadena, which has caused even more damage.

The most straightforward way to set up a high-level review of the Los Angeles wildfires would be for the Trump administration and Congress to direct the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the National Research Council to establish an independent commission. The National Academies are private, nonprofit organizations created by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to provide the nation with independent, objective advice on complex problems. The National Research Council is the National Academies’ operating arm.

Typically, such studies are led by a prominent person of national distinction or a renowned scholar, and are carried out by a panel of national experts from academia, business, the public sector and nongovernmental organizations.

The National Academies have a reputation for producing independent, rigorous and nonpartisan studies. They screen members thoroughly for technical expertise and conflicts of interest. All of their studies go through formal peer review, which helps ensure that they are scientifically accurate and credible.

When the federal government requests a study from the academies, Congress provides funding through a relevant federal agency. For the Los Angeles fires, the federal sponsor might be the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Could a study proposed and sponsored by Congress and the Trump administration be balanced and nonpartisan? In my view, if the National Academies produced it, the answer is yes. The academies have a strong track record of reviewing complex issues, including disaster planning, response and recovery, risk assessment and wildfires. And their recommendations have improved public policy. https://www.youtube.com/embed/raMmRKGkGD4?wmode=transparent&start=0 In a televised 1986 hearing, physicist Richard Feynman, a member of a presidential commission that investigated the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, demonstrates the commission’s finding that critical seals on the shuttle became brittle at low temperatures. The report showed that NASA and its key contractor knew this flaw existed and could cause a catastrophic failure, but still approved the launch. The explosion killed all seven crew members.

Lessons for future disasters

I see the Los Angeles fires as a stark warning to communities nationwide. There is a widening gap between intensifying climate-induced extreme events that are becoming Earth’s new normal, and municipal planning, preparedness and response capabilities.

Advertisement

Meeting these unprecedented challenges requires a paradigm shift in public policy. To protect public safety, officials and planners will have to proactively confront scenarios that may recently have seemed unthinkable.

For example, while Southern Californians are accustomed to wildfires, Los Angeles County agencies were unprepared to fight several major fires simultaneously. Flooding in North Carolina from Hurricane Helene in September 2024 is another example. Rainfall totals across the southern Appalachians reached levels that would only be expected once in 1,000 years based on past records.

To be prepared for such events, government agencies at all levels will need to reimagine their approaches to hazard assessment, risk management and emergency response. I believe a balanced and thorough investigation of the Los Angeles fires could help communities across the U.S. reframe their thinking about planning for emergencies.

Najmedin Meshkati, Professor of Engineering and International Relations, University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Cassandra Chapman, The University of Queensland

In late 2019 and early 2020, a series of devastating wildfires, known as the “black summer” bushfire disaster, left Australia reeling: More than 20% of the country’s forests burned.

As a scholar of the psychology of charitable giving, I have long been interested in the unique emotional response that disasters evoke – often generating an urgent and visceral wish to help.

I wanted to understand how and why people respond to a crisis of this magnitude. For the project, I teamed up with three Australian environmental psychology and collective action experts: Matthew Hornsey, Kelly Fielding and Robyn Gulliver.

We found that international media coverage of disasters can help increase donations. Our findings, which were published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Disasters in 2022, are relevant to the situation in Los Angeles, where severe fires destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in January 2025, devastating many communities.

That recovery could take years.

5 key factors affect generosity

All told, Australian donors gave more than US$397 million, or $640 million in Australian dollars, to support the recovery from the black summer bushfire disaster. The international community also rallied: U.S. and U.K. donors contributed an additional US$2.6 million. These donations were used to fund evacuation centers, support groups for victims, and cash grants for repairs and rebuilding, among other things.

When we surveyed 949 Australians about what influenced their donations and analyzed news articles about the disaster, we found that coverage of disasters significantly increased generosity and influenced which charities drew donations. This may be because news articles communicated directly the need for charitable support.

Advertisement

Using this survey data, we identified key factors that influenced how much money, if any, people donated in response to the bushfire disaster appeals. These five were linked with the amounts Australians donated:

• Scale: The sheer scale of the fires.

• Personal impact: Having been personally affected, knowing people who have been affected, or being worried that they will be affected in the future.

• Climate change beliefs: Believing that climate change is impacting the environment.

• News footage: The dramatic footage of the fires they have seen.

• Stories: The stories of those who have been affected.

Three of these factors – scale, news footage and stories – relate to information people were exposed to in media coverage of the disaster. Further, when we asked people how they chose which charities to support, they said that media coverage was more influential than either their friends and family or direct communication from those same charities.

Advertisement

These findings collectively show how media coverage can powerfully influence both how much people give to disaster relief and which nonprofits they choose to support.

Setting the agenda

In the next phase of our research, we tried to learn how media coverage affects the public’s generosity.

We downloaded every news article we could find about the disaster over the three-month period that fires raged and analyzed the text of 30,239 news articles using Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count software.

We looked at which kinds of language and concepts were being used in media coverage, and how frequently they were used compared with their use in everyday written language.

In addition to concepts we expected to see, like emergency, heroes and human loss, we found that the concepts of support and money frequently showed up in coverage. Words like “donations,” “help” and “support” occurred in 74% of news articles. Words having to do with money were even more common: They appeared almost twice as often as they do in ordinary written language.

Our findings suggest that news coverage may have helped to set the agenda for the huge charitable response to Australia’s wildfire disaster because the media told people what they should be thinking about in terms of that disaster. In Australia’s case, it was how they could help.

A consideration for the media

We also believe that it’s likely that news coverage of disasters like this one can serve an agenda-setting function by teaching the public how to think about the crisis.

To the extent that news coverage highlights concepts like support, possibly communicating that donating is a normal response to a crisis, it’s reasonable to expect people to donate more money.

Advertisement

Given that news coverage can influence how much someone donates, as well as which charities they choose to support, nonprofits responding to the Los Angeles fires may wish to encourage media outlets to mention their work in news coverage.

It is likely that being featured in news coverage – especially when calls to action or opportunities to donate are incorporated in an article – would result in more funds being raised for the charity’s response to the disaster.

Cassandra Chapman, Associate Professor, The University of Queensland

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Patrick Megonigal, Smithsonian Institution

Firefighters battling the deadly wildfires that raced through the Los Angeles area in January 2025 have been hampered by a limited supply of freshwater. So, when the winds are calm enough, skilled pilots flying planes aptly named Super Scoopers are skimming off 1,500 gallons of seawater at a time and dumping it with high precision on the fires.

Using seawater to fight fires can sound like a simple solution – the Pacific Ocean has a seemingly endless supply of water. In emergencies like Southern California is facing, it’s often the only quick solution, though the operation can be risky amid ocean swells.

But seawater also has downsides.

Saltwater corrodes firefighting equipment and may harm ecosystems, especially those like the chaparral shrublands around Los Angeles that aren’t normally exposed to seawater. Gardeners know that small amounts of salt – added, say, as fertilizer – does not harm plants, but excessive salts can stress and kill plants.

While the consequences of adding seawater to ecosystems are not yet well understood, we can gain insights on what to expect by considering the effects of sea-level rise.

A seawater experiment in a coastal forest

As an ecosystem ecologist at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, I lead a novel experiment called TEMPEST that was designed to understand how and why historically salt-free coastal forests react to their first exposures to salty water.

Sea-level rise has increased by an average of about 8 inches globally over the past century, and that water has pushed salty water into U.S. forests, farms and neighborhoods that had previously known only freshwater. As the rate of sea-level rise accelerates, storms push seawater ever farther onto the dry land, eventually killing trees and creating ghost forests, a result of climate change that is widespread in the U.S. and globally.

Advertisement

In our TEMPEST test plots, we pump salty water from the nearby Chesapeake Bay into tanks, then sprinkle it on the forest soil surface fast enough to saturate the soil for about 10 hours at a time. This simulates a surge of salty water during a big storm.

Our coastal forest showed little effect from the first 10-hour exposure to salty water in June 2022 and grew normally for the rest of the year. We increased the exposure to 20 hours in June 2023, and the forest still appeared mostly unfazed, although the tulip poplar trees were drawing water from the soil more slowly, which may be an early warning signal.

Things changed after a 30-hour exposure in June 2024. The leaves of tulip poplar in the forests started to brown in mid-August, several weeks earlier than normal. By mid-September the forest canopy was bare, as if winter had set in. These changes did not occur in a nearby plot that we treated the same way, but with freshwater rather than seawater.

The initial resilience of our forest can be explained in part by the relatively low amount of salt in the water in this estuary, where water from freshwater rivers and a salty ocean mix. Rain that fell after the experiments in 2022 and 2023 washed salts out of the soil.

But a major drought followed the 2024 experiment, so salts lingered in the soil then. The trees’ longer exposure to salty soils after our 2024 experiment may have exceeded their ability to tolerate these conditions.

Seawater being dumped on the Southern California fires is full-strength, salty ocean water. And conditions there have been very dry, particularly compared with our East Coast forest plot.

Changes evident in the ground

Our research group is still trying to understand all the factors that limit the forest’s tolerance to salty water, and how our results apply to other ecosystems such as those in the Los Angeles area.

Tree leaves turning from green to brown well before fall was a surprise, but there were other surprises hidden in the soil below our feet.

Advertisement

Rainwater percolating through the soil is normally clear, but about a month after the first and only 10-hour exposure to salty water in 2022, the soil water turned brown and stayed that way for two years. The brown color comes from carbon-based compounds leached from dead plant material. It’s a process similar to making tea.

Our lab experiments suggest that salt was causing clay and other particles to disperse and move about in the soil. Such changes in soil chemistry and structure can persist for many years.

Sea-level rise is increasing coastal exposure

While ocean water can help fight fires, there are reasons fire officials prefer freshwater sources – provided freshwater is available.

U.S. coastlines, meanwhile, are facing more extensive and frequent saltwater exposure as rising global temperatures accelerate sea-level rise that drowns forests, fields and farms, with unknown risks for coastal landscapes.

Patrick Megonigal, Associate Director of Research, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, Smithsonian Institution

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement