There is continuing widespread global media coverage of the wildfires that are still alight and burning through parts of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles Times highlights that officials say the “fires that have devastated portions of the Los Angeles region in recent days stand among the worst natural disasters in American history and will have a long legacy”. The newspaper quotes Craig Fugate, who led the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema) during the Obama administration: “This is your Hurricane Katrina [which devastated New Orleans in 2005 killing thousands of residents]. It will forever change the community. It will be a touch point that everybody will remember, before and after. And for Los Angeles, this will become one of the defining moments of the community, the city and the county’s history.” The newspaper adds: “There are the immediate questions, like where people who have lost their homes will stay tonight, tomorrow and the rest of this week, and the longer-term ones, such as whether LA should rebuild in areas that remain vulnerable to the increasing cruelty of climate change. Another question that has loomed large: As the region tries to move forward, will politics get in the way? Scenes of sheer devastation in LA – from Altadena to the Palisades to Pacific Coast Highway – have been met with finger-pointing and barbs traded at the highest levels of government.”

Separately, the Los Angeles Times – which has extensive coverage and has lowered its paywall during the disaster – has a live-blog which reports: “There have been at least 24 deaths and more than 12,000 structures damaged or destroyed in the LA-area fires. After a day of progress in containing the Eaton and Palisades fires, crews are bracing for several days of winds that could hamper efforts to contain the firestorms…Gusts of 50 to 65mph are expected Monday, with the strongest winds arriving before dawn Tuesday and peaking through Wednesday.” Reuters reports: “Private forecaster AccuWeather has estimated the damage and economic loss at $135bn to $150bn. To help expedite the monumental rebuilding effort ahead, [California governor Gavin] Newsom signed an executive order on Sunday temporarily suspending environmental regulations for destroyed homes and businesses.”

Meanwhile, Politico carries comments made by Newsom, the state’s Democrat governor who says the wildfires will be the “worst natural disaster” in US history, “in terms of just the costs associated with it, in terms of the scale and scope”. Responding to political attacks and criticisms from Republicans such as Donald Trump and JD Vance, Newsom is quoted saying: “That mis- and disinformation I don’t think advantages or aids any of us. Responding to Donald Trump’s insults, we would spend another month. I’m very familiar with them. Every elected official that he disagrees with is very familiar with them.” The Hill notes that Dave Min, an incoming Democrat Congressman from California who has “spent the last two years chairing the California State Senate’s Natural Resources and Water Committee”, has “pointed to climate change as a significant contributor to the rapid spread of wildfires”. The New York Times says that Trump “offered fresh criticism early Sunday of the officials in charge of fighting the Los Angeles wildfires, calling them ‘incompetent’ and asking why the blazes were not yet extinguished”. The Times reports that LA’s mayor has defended the city’s response to the fires amid calls for her resignation: “A petition for Karen Bass to step down has been signed by nearly 100,000 Californians while her fire chief has attacked her over underfunding.”

Some outlets have attempted to counter and fact-check the wave of misinformation, disinformation and climate denial being spread on social media and beyond by highly partisan sources such as Elon Musk and Alex Jones. The Guardian says: “As Los Angeles firefighters battle ongoing blazes, prominent rightwing figures are spreading bigoted criticism of the response and lies about who is to blame, including that the fire is raging because of diversity within the fire department. The misinformation echoes the claims that plagued the North Carolina hurricane response. Both disasters led to outrage, which partisan actors seized upon to advance their political goals, muddying the already confusing information ecosystem that accompanies a fast-moving news event. In what has become a common theme, rightwing media and commentary have said that diversity within the Los Angeles fire department is to blame for the devastation.”

The Los Angeles Times has an article headlined: “LA firestorms bring waves of fire myths, disinformation. Here’s how to debunk it and not get fooled.” BBC News focuses on “fact-checking criticism of California Democrats over fires”. The Times has an analysis article which asks: “Is Donald Trump right to blame Gavin Newsom for the LA fires?” It then answers its own open question: “The president-elect has accused the governor of California of being ‘incompetent’ and caring more about fish, but experts say his claims don’t stack up.”

A wide range of outlets focus on the role climate change has played in exacerbating the conditions that allowed the wildfires to ignite and spread. Axios says: “Climate change – particularly whiplash between two wet winters followed by a bone-dry, unusually hot spring, summer and fall – set the stage for Los Angeles’ deadly and devastating fires, scientists say. The firestorm was the product of what climate researchers refer to as ‘hydroclimate whiplash’. Other factors include one of the worst Santa Ana wind events of the past two decades; land use patterns; and sparks set off by power lines, car engines, suspected arsonists and other potential ignition sources. Whatever the source, it’s clear a changing climate made the fires more ferocious, long-lasting and destructive, as has been the trend across the West in recent decades.” The Associated Press says: “Welcome to one wild week of the climate crisis, scientists say. There will be more…Climate change laid the groundwork for California’s megafires. Atmospheric rivers dumped huge amounts of water on the region that caused plenty of plant growth. Then, a fast onset of drought dried them out, providing plenty of fodder for the flames.”

Al Jazeera has an explainer titled: “Is climate change to blame for the California wildfires?” It then answers its own question: “As wildfires become more frequent each year around the world, concern from climate scientists that climate change is making them worse is mounting…The changing climate coupled with poor urban planning and management has exacerbated natural disasters globally, including cyclones, hurricanes and floods. Scientists at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) believe that if planet temperatures exceed the pre-industrial average by 2C, hurricane wind speeds could rise by 10%. They also say that climate change might be slowing the pace – rather than the velocity – at which hurricanes move. This means that storms can dump more water on the places they pass through.” Channel 4 News interviews climate scientist Prof Michael Mann who says: “Wildfires will get worse as the planet gets warmer.”

There is continuing coverage of the confirmation by a range of global datasets that 2024 was the hottest year on record and the first to breach the 1.5C threshold across a single year. Bloomberg says: “Earth’s warming exceeded 1.5C on an annual basis for the first time in 2024, according to three major climate science agencies. It’s the most potent evidence yet that countries are failing to meet a Paris Agreement goal of limiting global heating to that level as a decades-long average. The Paris target of staying below 1.5C ‘is unobtainable’, scientist Robert Rohde said in a statement issued by Berkeley Earth, one of the record-keeping groups. The world may surpass the largely symbolic mark within five or 10 years, Rohde said. Nevertheless, ‘urgent action is still needed to limit man-made climate change’, he added. Two datasets show annual warming of 1.6C or more: Berkeley Earth (1.62C) and the EU Copernicus Climate Change Service (1.60C). The UK Met Office found warming of 1.53C. Two US agencies came out slightly below 1.5C – NASA (1.47C) and NOAA (1.46C). The science groups are all saying the same thing, despite having separate methodologies and modest variations in results, according to Russell Vose, chief of NOAA’s environmental monitoring office. ‘I wouldn’t get wrapped around the axle about those differences,’ he said.”

The Guardian quotes Dr Gavin Schmidt, a senior climate scientist at NASA: “All the groups agree, regardless of how they put the data together, there’s no question. The long-term trends are very clear.” It quotes Schmidt saying the levels of global warming are pushing humanity beyond its historical experience of the Earth’s climate: “To put that in perspective, temperatures during the warm periods on Earth three million years ago – when sea levels were dozens of feet higher than today – were only around 3C warmer than pre-industrial levels. We are halfway to Pliocene-level warmth in just 150 years.” The New York Times has a news feature under the headline: “‘We’re in a new era’: How climate change is supercharging disasters. Extreme weather events – deadly heat waves, floods, fires and hurricanes – are the consequences of a warming planet, scientists say.” (See Carbon Brief’s latest quarterly “state of the climate” analysis for all the details and a range of charts.)

Separately, BBC News says an “iconic depiction of global temperatures has been updated to represent the average global temperature for 2024”. It continues: “Prof Ed Hawkins from the University of Reading, who created the climate stripes diagram, said the figure was a ‘stark reminder’ there was more work to be done to tackle climate change.” Hawkins has written an article for the Conversation titled: “My new dark red climate stripe for 2024 shows it’s the hottest year yet.”

China has officially declared that it emitted 13bn metric tonnes of “climate-warming greenhouse gases” in 2021 – a 4.3% increase from a year earlier, according to the country’s latest report to the UN, Reuters reports. Emissions from cement production fell by 3.2% in 2021 as a result of “declining clinker production”, with emissions from steel smelting also falling 2.3% to 65.5m tonnes, the newswire adds. It also says the country is “struggling to meet a 2025 interim target to cut the amount of CO2 produced per unit of economic growth by 18% between 2021 and 2025”. State news agency Xinhua also covers the story, saying that the “implementation of various targets is well on track, with goals for forest stock and total installed capacity of wind and solar power having been achieved ahead of schedule”, according to the document. Business news outlet Jiemian, citing the same document, says it will cost at least 26.8tn yuan ($3.66tn) from 2024 to achieve “carbon neutrality” by 2060. An article by the state-run China Daily says that China can play a “critical role” in decarbonising the global shipping industry. Separately, a total of 590 wind power projects with a combined capacity of 103.4 gigawatts (GW) were approved in 2024, International Energy Net reports.

Elsewhere, Reuters reports that “China’s coal imports rose 14.4% in 2024 to a record high, official data showed on Monday, as lower international coal prices spurred buyers to substitute imports for domestic supply”. The Hong Kong-based South China Morning Post (SCMP) reports that Beijing has “concluded that the EU’s recent investigations into Chinese enterprises…were ‘unfair and non-transparent’”. China will ask the EU to “rectify its trade barrier practices” and create an “open, fair, just, nondiscriminatory and predictable environment for Chinese companies to invest and operate in Europe”, says China Daily. Bloomberg publishes an article under the headline: “EU set to back Draghi warnings on lagging behind US and China.” State-supporting newspaper Global Times publishes an editorial under the headline: “EU green growth needs market expansion, not protectionism.” The Financial Times’s Lex column has an article headlined: “China’s solar sector could be on course for a glow-up. After a plague of overcapacity and falling prices, there are signs the sector may be approaching a bottom.”

Meanwhile, the Press Association says UK chancellor Rachel Reeves has signed a “formal agreement to co-operate with China on fighting climate change despite tensions in other areas” during a visit to China. (The UK government has published a document saying that a “China-UK Energy Dialogue” will convene this year.)

In other news, a new round of “price war” in China’s auto market could “begin earlier than usual” with the arrival of the lunar new year, business news outlet Yicai reports, adding that “several electric vehicle (EV) brands have set ambitious targets”. China News reports that the China Passenger Car Association predicts that domestic sales of EVs will reach 13.3m units in 2025, a year-on-year growth of 20%, with a “retail penetration rate of 57%”. 

Finally, the Communist party-affiliated newspaper People’s Daily carries an article in its print edition by Zheng Shanjie, head of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), China’s top economic planner, saying that the country will actively promote its “dual-carbon” goals in 2025 through efforts including “energy conservation and carbon reduction” and the transition to “dual control of emissions”.

UK household bills will remain high “unless the government overhauls the energy system, the head of the country’s biggest supplier has warned”, reports the Sunday Times. It continues: “Greg Jackson, the chief executive of Octopus Energy, said [prime minister] Keir Starmer risked repeating the same mistakes as the outgoing US president Joe Biden, who was ‘punished because he didn’t bring down the cost of living’. Jackson, 53, is a prominent advocate of green power whose renewables-focused company has grown rapidly in recent years. It is now valued at £7.4bn. He warned, however, that the energy secretary Ed Miliband’s route to decarbonised electricity will not drive prices down unless a radically different route is taken. He suggests localised pricing that would mean those living near abundant renewables could be offered cheaper power. Jackson warned ministers they would be making the same mistake as companies rendered obsolete by the march of progress if they did not address urgently the economic and technical system underpinning green energy.” The article adds: “Last year, £1bn was spent on this process, known as ‘curtailment’. The rapid increase in renewables, Jackson said, meant curtailment costs would continue to soar and could reach £6bn annually by 2030. ‘We’ve had days when turning off windfarms on winter days has cost us as a nation £20m in a day,’ he added. ‘I think there was one day recently when we curtailed three times the amount of electricity that London uses.’” (See Carbon Brief’s in-depth interview with Greg Jackson published last May.)

In other UK news, the Daily Telegraph joins other outlets in reporting: “Britain’s gas reserves have dwindled to a ‘concerning’ low with just a week of supply left as freezing temperatures and low winds grip the country this weekend. The UK’s storage sites are about half full, said British Gas owner Centrica – 26% lower than this time last year. It comes amid a battle over the future of Centrica’s Rough undersea storage facility with Centrica seeking subsidies to fund a £2bn expansion plan.” The Financial Times reports: “UK ‘well placed’ to obtain enough gas this winter, says biggest network operator.” The Daily Telegraph also has a news feature headlined: “Why Britain is running out of gas. Low temperatures have exposed the UK’s overreliance on a single energy source.” The same newspaper, which relentlessly campaigns against the transition away from a reliance on fossil fuels, has another article titled: “Why the ‘eye-watering’ cost of heat pumps doesn’t add up.” (See Comment below.)

Meanwhile, the Financial Times and Times report on comments made by Ineos boss Jim Ratcliffe who argues that the UK’s chemicals industry is heading for “extinction” due to “high energy prices and carbon taxes” which are “forcing the closure of Ineos’s synthetic ethanol plant at Grangemouth”. The Sunday Times reports that a “cross-party group of peers has called for the energy secretary Ed Miliband to introduce safeguards that prevent UK renewable energy companies from importing Chinese components made by slave labour”.

Many outlets carry commentary reacting to the wildfires in Los Angeles. Writing in the Washington Post, columnist Jennifer Rubin says: “The hellish fires tearing through the Los Angeles area are a preview of what’s to come if politicians, ideologues and Big Oil continue to ignore climate change…These sorts of horror shows will become routine if climate change deniers, led by the MAGA anti-science crowd, get their way. Put differently, the cost of refusing to listen to Al Gore – who has been sounding the climate change alarm for decades – and the scientific community is proving astronomically high.” She concludes: “In short, MAGA climate deniers and their fossil fuel backers cannot deal with the deadly and destructive effects of climate change, the massive costs it inflicts, and the untold human suffering in red and blue states alike. Confronted with the very outcomes Gore and others predicted, they resort to untruths and insults. Enough. Democrats, independents, sensible Republicans, state and local officials, homeowners and the rest need to be blunt and consistent: Climate denial destroys lives; dishonest narratives and a lack of empathy for victims are repellent. If ordinary Americans harmed by Republicans’ irrational policy positions are to both hold those responsible to account and change the political landscape to produce lifesaving policy changes, they need to make the connection between GOP ideology and climate disasters.”

In the Guardian, Tzeporah Berman, chair of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, argues that “Los Angeles is on fire and big oil are the arsonists”. Freelance writer Alf Young in the Sunday Times writes: “Hotheads fuel the fires that are destroying our world. The Los Angeles inferno should help the world find consensus in fighting climate change. But the conduct of Donald Trump and Elon Musk suggests otherwise.” In the New York Times, columnist David Wallace-Wells says that “you don’t get disasters like the Palisades fire without human failure”, adding: “Global warming has already remodeled the risk landscape in California and indeed well beyond, making gigafire burns and urban firestorms like this one so much more likely. But so has housing policy, which has directed much more development into the path of fire across the vast tinderbox of the American West.” Also in the New York Times, climate scientist Peter Kalmus writes: “As a climate scientist, I knew it was time to leave Los Angeles.” In the Los Angeles Times, Carla Hall, a member of the editorial board, says: “What happened this past week has upended all our assumptions about our truce with the wildness of Los Angeles. We were wrong when we figured that our infrastructure was sufficient to save us from this inferno.”

An editorial in the Independent begins: “With uncontrolled blazes still raging around Los Angeles, on the day it was confirmed that last year was the hottest in human history, it would be a good time for global leaders to finally take climate change seriously.” An editorial in the Daily Mirror concludes: “In the last two decades the number of wildfires in California has risen by more than 70%. The rise in temperatures and lack of rain experienced in the state has created the perfect environment for conflagrations. As American people survey the damage caused, they should also consider why they have elected Donald Trump, who has pledged to roll back measures aimed at limiting climate change, as their next president.”

An editorial in the Guardian says: “Events in California reveal how political obstruction is deepening a climate crisis that needs urgent action to prevent it becoming an irreversible disaster…Trump’s return to power won’t halt America’s path to decarbonisation, but it will slow it disastrously. An analysis by Carbon Brief estimated last March that his return could add 4bn tonnes of US carbon emissions by 2030 compared to Democrat plans – inflicting $900bn in global climate damage…Climate denialism ought to be confronted with bold policies; business must be held accountable for its role in this crisis; and voters need to see through the rightwing populist parties who prioritise profit over the planet. The next catastrophe isn’t a distant threat, it’s already in motion. Only immediate and determined action can stop global heating from becoming humanity’s undoing.” An editorial in the Observer also cites the same Carbon Brief analysis, adding: “With Hollywood ablaze, ditching carbon targets would be an act of recklessness.”

In the New Yorker, columnist Elizabeth Kolbert examines the “insurance crisis” that will follow the LA fires: “With damages from these still mostly uncontrolled blazes now estimated at up to $150bn, the future of California’s insurance market is looking a lot more rocky than resilient. As one LA-based insurance agent put it to the Wall Street Journal, ‘We are in uncharted territory.’ What is often referred to as California’s ‘insurance crisis’ has been years in the making.” An editorial in the Wall Street Journal also focuses on “California’s wildfire insurance catastrophe”, while Bloomberg writer Liam Denning argues that “California’s wildfires are a $9bn threat to power companies”. 

Elsewhere, the Guardian quotes John Vaillant, the author of Fire Weather, saying: “We have tweaked nature and pissed it off.” Meanwhile, an editorial in the climate-sceptic comment pages of the Wall Street Journal sits under the heading: “California’s climate time for choosing. Sacramento tilts at reducing temperatures while its cities burn from failure to adapt to a variable climate.” (Another editorial in the Wall Street Journal argues: “Trump speaks truth to wind power. He says windfarms only work because of subsidies. He’s right.”) And, finally, the climate-sceptic political editor of the Sunday Telegraph Camilla Tominey claims in a comment piece: “The Left is no longer getting away with blaming climate change for wildfire disasters. Possibly cutting the fire department might have had something to do with it.”

An editorial in the Financial Times begins: “Climate change is happening even faster than expected. In determining what happens next, China will play a pivotal role. It is now by far the largest greenhouse gas emitter. But it is far ahead, too, in the race for supremacy in green technology.” The editorial argues: “For western democracies, Beijing’s green ascendance sparks two big concerns. One is that its price advantage – achieved with hefty state support – will drive western rivals out of business and leave governments dependent on a strategic competitor for key technology. The other is that ‘smart’ tech embedded in everything from EVs to turbines could pose security risks. The debate around UK chancellor Rachel Reeves’ visit to Beijing this weekend, over green energy and broader business links, highlights the dilemmas for Europe and the US…Given the risks of over-dependency, it makes sense for the US and Europe to continue developing and diversifying their own green supply chains. But trying to usurp China from behind protectionist walls is expensive and at odds with the urgency of climate change. China has a surplus of green tech, so urging Beijing to share more intellectual property in exchange for market access is one approach. Rather than blocking Beijing’s green imports outright, national security concerns could be addressed by more robust tech inspections, ensuring local control over plants using Chinese products, and assessing whether vulnerable ‘smart’ components can be isolated or removed.” Relatedly – and in contrast – the Times provides a platform for the views of Richard Dearlove, the former MI6 chief, who claims that the UK government’s “ideologically driven” push to reach net-zero “hands power to Beijing”.

Meanwhile, the UK’s right-leaning newspapers continue their on-going campaign – see Carbon Brief’s new analysis on newspaper editorials in 2024 – against net-zero and, in particular, energy secretary Ed Miliband. An editorial in the Sun says: “The chancellor must…take an axe to the whole of Whitehall. She could start by telling Ed Miliband his net-zero plans will bankrupt the country.” The Sun also clears space for the climate-sceptic commentator Ross Clark to claim: “Ed Miliband’s net-zero obsession is a threat not just to our economy but the survival of Labour’s government.” The Daily Telegraph also platforms a net-zero sceptic called Tony Lodge under the headline: “The UK faces a fate worse than blackout. To keep the lights on, industry and consumers will continue to pay ever-higher prices for energy.” An article in the Sunday Telegraph, citing figures from the anti-renewables lobby group the Renewable Energy Foundation, claims: “Miliband’s ‘reckless obsession’ with renewables leaves consumers with record bills.” It points to costs of £13 per household per year. The Daily Telegraph has also published a comment piece by Conservative MP Nick Timothy who uses it to maintain his attacks on “an energy policy that puts security and economic competitiveness ahead of decarbonisation”.

Finally, the Financial Times weekend magazine sees Henry Mance interview the climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf under the headline: “The utterly plausible case that climate change makes London much colder. For some climate scientists, global warming threatens Britain with a more unexpected scenario.”

Converting forests into cropland “may be an ineffective climate adaptation strategy for improving nutrition” in Nigeria, a new study suggests. The authors combine data on forest cover and climate variables with models and household survey data to examine the relationships between climate anomalies, forest loss from cropland expansion, and dietary outcomes in Nigeria. They find that 25-31% of annual forest loss in Nigeria is linked to climate variability. Changes in forest cover “have a significant positive association with changes in child diet diversity”, while cropland expansion does not, they add.