You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
For more than a decade, Americans have been sold inferior furnaces to heat their homes that raise their energy bills and dump carbon into the atmosphere when much more efficient options were available. That’s finally going to change … five years from now.
On Friday, the Department of Energy finalized new, long-awaited standards for gas furnaces that have not meaningfully changed since they were first enacted in 1987. So long as the rule does not get held up in court, or by a future administration, it will require that by 2029, all gas furnaces on the market are 95% efficient. When it was first enacted, the standard was 78%. The current standard, which went into effect in 2015, is 80%.
It’s a bit of an awkward win for the climate movement. On the one hand, it’s a rule that assumes that fossil fuel-fired furnaces will still be on the market through at least 2058, far past the 2050 date by which the U.S. has committed to reduce its emissions to net-zero. Every new gas furnace installed could lock in carbon emissions and local pollution for the 15 to 20 years it operates.
On the other, clean energy and environmental advocates have been pushing for this kind of update to the standards since at least 2007, only to be stymied by lobbying and lawsuits from the gas industry, equipment manufacturers, and other industry groups. Though some states, like New York and California, are starting to phase out the sale of gas furnaces, there’s not yet any plan to do so on the national level. As long as people keep buying them, this rule will go a long way to make sure they emit as little as possible.
“Furnace technology advanced a long time ago, but the standards didn’t keep up,” said Andrew deLaski, the executive director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, in a press release. “This is going to guarantee that all new models use proven energy-saving technologies. We won’t keep wasting so much heat for decades more.”
The DOE estimates the updated standard will cumulatively save consumers $24.8 billion on their energy bills between 2029 and 2058. Individual households could save $350 over the lifetime of the equipment, and those living in mobile homes could save more than $600. The agency also says the rule will cut carbon emissions by 332 million metric tons over that period, roughly equivalent to the annual emissions from a third of American homes. It will also cut methane emissions by 4.3 million tons, which is slightly more than all U.S. municipal landfills emit in a year.
Jumping from 80% to 95% might sound like a big leap, but the technology to achieve it has been on the market for decades. A number of states and efficiency advocacy groups tried to sue the DOE when it last changed the standard in 2007 because they claimed that 80% was already too low back then. The vast majority of the products for sale were performing at that level or higher, so the change wasn’t going to do anything to reduce energy consumption or save households and businesses money.
The DOE made several attempts to update the standard under the Obama administration. The big sticking point was a technological quirk. Systems that achieve efficiency higher than 80% use something called a condenser to capture waste heat from the exhaust stream and send it into the building instead. Switching from a non-condensing furnace to a condensing furnace may come with some additional expenses, like the need to move the furnace to a different part of the building and install an exhaust pipe. Opponents argued that any rule that effectively banned non-condensing furnaces was unfair to consumers who couldn’t afford those changes. Under the Trump administration, they argued that condensing furnaces should be regulated as an entirely different product class.
But advocates counter that consumers will save money in the long run with a more efficient system. The updated standard could especially benefit renters, who won’t necessarily be burdened with any potential increase in upfront costs to install a condensing boiler, but will see lower heating bills. The DOE also estimates that when the standard kicks in, about 4.2% of building owners will forgo a new gas furnace altogether and get an electric heat pump, with the help of tax credits and rebates in the Inflation Reduction Act that incentivize this shift. That estimate does not even take into account the fact that furnaces may soon no longer qualify for Energy Star certification, which could push even more consumers to heat pumps.
Though on paper, the standard is expected to make a significant dent in emissions, the fact that it won’t go into effect for five more years — nearly 40 years after the last significant change — will have lasting consequences. Millions of gas-guzzling furnaces have been installed that didn’t have to be, and millions more could be before the standard kicks in. All the carbon emitted as a result will warm the planet for thousands of years.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Plus 3 more outstanding questions about this ongoing emergency.
As Los Angeles continued to battle multiple big blazes ripping through some of the most beloved (and expensive) areas of the city on Friday, a question lingered in the background: What caused the fires in the first place?
Though fires are less common in California during this time of the year, they aren’t unheard of. In early December 2017, power lines sparked the Thomas Fire near Ventura, California, which burned through to mid-January. At the time it was the largest fire in the state since at least the 1930s. Now it’s the ninth-largest. Although that fire was in a more rural area, it ignited for some of the same reasons we’re seeing fires this week.
Read on for everything we know so far about how the fires started.
Six major fires started during the Santa Ana wind event this week:
Officials have not made any statements about the cause of any of the fires yet.
On Thursday morning, Edward Nordskog, a retired fire investigator from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, told me it was unlikely they had even begun looking into the root of the biggest and most destructive of the fires in the Pacific Palisades. “They don't start an investigation until it's safe to go into the area where the fire started, and it just hasn't been safe until probably today,” he said.
It can take years to determine the cause of a fire. Investigators did not pinpoint the cause of the Thomas Fire until March 2019, more than two years after it started.
But Nordskog doesn’t think it will take very long this time. It’s easier to narrow down the possibilities for an urban fire because there are typically both witnesses and surveillance footage, he told me. He said the most common causes of wildfires in Los Angeles are power lines and those started by unhoused people. They can also be caused by sparks from vehicles or equipment.
At about 35,000 acres burned total, these fires are unlikely to make the charts for the largest in California history. But because they are burning in urban, densely populated, and expensive areas, they could be some of the most devastating. With an estimated 9,000 structures damaged as of Friday morning, the Eaton and Palisades fires are likely to make the list for most destructive wildfire events in the state.
And they will certainly be at the top for costliest. The Palisades Fire has already been declared a likely contender for the most expensive wildfire in U.S. history. It has destroyed more than 5,000 structures in some of the most expensive zip codes in the country. Between that and the Eaton Fire, Accuweather estimates the damages could reach $57 billion.
While we don’t know the root causes of the ignitions, several factors came together to create perfect fire conditions in Southern California this week.
First, there’s the Santa Ana winds, an annual phenomenon in Southern California, when very dry, high-pressure air gets trapped in the Great Basin and begins escaping westward through mountain passes to lower-pressure areas along the coast. Most of the time, the wind in Los Angeles blows eastward from the ocean, but during a Santa Ana event, it changes direction, picking up speed as it rushes toward the sea.
Jon Keeley, a research scientist with the US Geological Survey and an adjunct professor at the University of California, Los Angeles told me that Santa Ana winds typically blow at maybe 30 to 40 miles per hour, while the winds this week hit upwards of 60 to 70 miles per hour. “More severe than is normal, but not unique,” he said. “We had similar severe winds in 2017 with the Thomas Fire.”
Second, Southern California is currently in the midst of extreme drought. Winter is typically a rainier season, but Los Angeles has seen less than half an inch of rain since July. That means that all the shrubland vegetation in the area is bone-dry. Again, Keeley said, this was not usual, but not unique. Some years are drier than others.
These fires were also not a question of fuel management, Keeley told me. “The fuels are not really the issue in these big fires. It's the extreme winds,” he said. “You can do prescription burning in chaparral and have essentially no impact on Santa Ana wind-driven fires.” As far as he can tell, based on information from CalFire, the Eaton Fire started on an urban street.
While it’s likely that climate change played a role in amplifying the drought, it’s hard to say how big a factor it was. Patrick Brown, a climate scientist at the Breakthrough Institute and adjunct professor at Johns Hopkins University, published a long post on X outlining the factors contributing to the fires, including a chart of historic rainfall during the winter in Los Angeles that shows oscillations between wet and dry years over the past eight decades.
But climate change is expected to make dry years drier and wet years wetter, creating a “hydroclimate whiplash,” as Daniel Swain, a pre-eminent expert on climate change and weather in California puts it. In a thread on Bluesky, Swain wrote that “in 2024, Southern California experienced an exceptional episode of wet-to-dry hydroclimate whiplash.” Last year’s rainy winter fostered abundant plant growth, and the proceeding dryness primed the vegetation for fire.
Editor’s note: This story was last update on Friday, January 10, at 10:00 a.m. ET.
On rising global temperatures, LA’s fire disaster, and solar stations in space
Current conditions: A sinkhole threatens to swallow up Ecuador’s large hydroelectric power plant • Air quality is poor in Delhi where dense smog has caused travel chaos • Nearly 40,000 customers are already without power in Texas as a winter storm rolls in.
At least 10 people are known to have died in the Los Angeles fires, and some 10,000 structures are believed to have been destroyed. Five blazes continue to burn. The Palisades fire, the largest in the city’s history at 20,000 acres, remains just 6% contained. The Eaton fire has consumed 13,700 acres and is 0% contained. While lower wind speeds have helped firefighters make some progress over the last 24 hours, the Santa Ana gusts were expected to peak at 75 mph last night. “We are absolutely not out of this extreme weather event,” Los Angeles fire chief Kristin M. Crowley said in a news conference.
Charred homes in Pacific Palisades. Mario Tama/Getty Images
President Biden sent more than 30 government helicopters and planes to fight the flames, and said federal funding would cover the costs of the fire response for 180 days. (An early estimate from AccuWeather puts the cost of the disaster at more than $50 billion.) Biden also connected the emergency to climate change. “All has changed in the weather,” he said. “Climate change is real. We’ve got to adjust to it, and we can, it’s within our power to do it. But we’ve got to acknowledge it.”
Some of the world’s leading weather research organizations are releasing data today showing that 2024 was the hottest year on record. The World Meteorological Organization, the European Copernicus Climate Change Service, the UK Met Office, Berkeley Earth, NOAA, NASA, and others “have made a concerted effort to coordinate the release of their data, highlighting the exceptional conditions experienced during 2024,” Copernicus said. The service is one of the first to roll out its findings, showing that the global average temperature last year was 59.18 degrees Fahrenheit, or 15.10 degrees Celsius. This is 1.60 degrees Celsius higher than the pre-industrial average, making last year the first full calendar year during which the 1.5C warming threshold has been breached.
Copernicus
Oceans also were exceptionally warm, with sea surface temperatures reaching new record highs. Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions also increased. “These high global temperatures, coupled with record global atmospheric water vapour levels in 2024, meant unprecedented heatwaves and heavy rainfall events, causing misery for millions of people,” said Samantha Burgess, strategic climate lead with the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.
BlackRock yesterday announced its departure from the UN Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative. The decision is “a remarkable U-turn for a company that was once a poster child of the environmental, social, and governance investing movement,” saidThe Wall Street Journal. Asset managers participating in the initiative pledge to support the goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. BlackRock’s departure is significant because it’s the largest asset manager in the world, but so far it “has not prompted others to follow,” Reutersreported. More than 325 signatories managing more than $57 trillion are still signed on to NZAMI. BlackRock is currently being sued by 11 Republican-led states over ESG investing practices.
“Climate change poses one of the greatest risks to our global economy and the long-term investments BlackRock’s clients rely on,” said Ben Cushing, campaign director for the Sierra Club’s Fossil-Free Finance campaign. “Membership in voluntary alliances sets an important baseline, but to truly fulfill its fiduciary duty to long-term investors, BlackRock must support real-world decarbonization through stronger shareholder voting and by directing capital toward industries that mitigate systemic climate risks. If BlackRock won’t do that, its clients should find a different asset manager that will.”
Coming later today (probably): President Biden will release short-term guidance on clean fuel tax credits, two sources toldReuters. But the final rules will be left to the incoming Trump administration, meaning “biofuel companies and their legislative backers will have to wait to see if Trump will back the plan on the highly anticipated guidelines on new clean fuel production tax credits aimed at the airline and biofuel industries.” The tax credits were supposed to come into effect on January 1 to help spur on production of sustainable aviation fuels.
China is reportedly planning to build a massive solar power station in space to harness the sun’s energy and beam it back to Earth. A Chinese scientist told the South China Morning Post that super-heavy rockets will be launched to build the station, which will be “another Three Gorges Dam project above the Earth.” Space-based solar power is a “tantalizing” way to generate clean energy from the sun around the clock, and many countries are investing in R&D on the idea. The European Space Agency estimates sunlight is 10 times more intense at the top of the atmosphere than on Earth’s surface, but “in order to generate optimal, economically-viable levels of solar power, the required structures need to be very large, both on Earth and in space.” NASA noted that researchers would need to figure out how to build these large structures in orbit, then make sure they can operate autonomously. Plus, manufacturing costs would be extremely high. “Moving all that mass into orbit would require many sustained missions to carry infrastructure into space,” NASA said. China’s electricity demand rose by 6.4% in 2023, and the country is leading in clean energy investments. According to the International Energy Agency, China commissioned as much solar power in 2023 as the entire world did in 2022.
“While it would take an act of God far stronger than a fire to keep people from building homes on the slopes of the Santa Monica Mountains or off the Pacific Coast, the city that rebuilds may be smaller, more heavily fortified, and more expensive than the one that existed at the end of last year. And that’s just before the next big fire.” –Heatmap’s Matthew Zeitlin on the economic devastation of the LA fires
Recovering from the Los Angeles wildfires will be expensive. Really expensive. Insurance analysts and banks have already produced a wide range of estimates of both what insurance companies will pay out and overall economic loss. AccuWeatherhas put out an eye-catching preliminary figure of $52 billion to $57 billion for economic losses, with the service’s chief meteorologist saying that the fires have the potential to “become the worst wildfire in modern California history based on the number of structures burned and economic loss.” On Thursday, J.P. Morgan doubled its previous estimate for insured losses to $20 billion, with an economic loss figure of $50 billion — about the gross domestic product of the country of Jordan.
The startlingly high loss figures from a fire that has only lasted a few days and is (relatively) limited in scope show just how distinctly devastating an urban fire can be. Enormous wildfires thatcover millions of acres like the 2023 Canadian wildfires can spew ash and particulate matter all over the globe and burn for months, darkening skies and clogging airways in other countries. And smaller — and far deadlier fires — than those still do not produce the same financial roll.
It’s in coastal Southern California where you find large population centers areas known by all to be at extreme risk of fire. And so a fire there can destroy a whole neighborhood in a few hours and put the state’s insurance system into jeopardy.
One reason why the projected economic impacts of the fires are so high is that the structures that have burned and the land those structures sit on are very valuable. Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and Santa Monica contain some of the most sought-after real estate on planet earth, with typical home prices over $2 million. Pacific Palisades itself has median home values of around $3 million, according to JPMorgan Chase.
The AccuWeather estimates put the economic damage for the Los Angeles fires at several times previous large, urban fires — the Maui wildfire in 2023 was estimated to cause around $14 billion of economic loss, for example — while the figure would be about a third or a quarter of a large hurricane, which tend to strike areas with millions of people in them across several states.
“The fires have not been contained thus far and continue to spread, implying that estimates of potential economic and insured losses are likely to increase,” the JPMorgan analysts wrote Thursday.
That level of losses would make the fires costlier in economic terms than the 2018 Butte County Camp Fire, whose insured losses of $10 billion made it California’s costliest at the time. That fire was far larger than the Los Angeles fires, spreading over 150,000 acres compared to just over 17,000 acres for the Palisades Fire and over 10,000 acres for the Eaton Fire. It also led to more than 80 deaths in the town of Paradise.
So far, around 2,000 homes have been destroyed,according to the Los Angeles Times,a fraction of the more than 19,000 structures affected by the Camp Fire. The difference in estimated losses comes from the fact that homes in Pacific Palisades weigh in at more than six times those in rural Butte, according to JPMorgan.
While insured losses get the lion’s share of attention when it comes to the cost impacts of a natural disaster, the potential damages go far beyond the balance sheet of insurers.
For one, it’s likely that many affected homeowners did not even carry insurance, either because their insurers failed to renew their existing policies or the homeowners simply chose to go without due to the high cost of what insurance they could find. “A larger than usual portion of the losses caused by the wildfires will be uninsured,” according to Morningstar DBRS, which estimated total insured losses at more than $8 billion. Many homeowners carry insurance from California’s backup FAIR Plan, which may itself come under financial pressure, potentially leading to assessments from the state’s policyholders to bolster its ability to pay claims.
AccuWeather arrived at its economic impact figure by looking not just at losses from property damage but also wages that go unearned due to economic activity slowing down or halting in affected areas, infrastructure that needs to be repaired, supply chain issues, and transportation snarls. Even when homes and businesses aren’t destroyed, people may be unable to work due to evacuations; businesses may close due to the dispersal of their customers or inability of their suppliers to make deliveries. Smoke inhalation can lead to short-, medium-, and long-term health impacts that take a dent out of overall economic activity.
The high level of insured losses, meanwhile, could mean that insurers’ will see less surplus and could have to pay more for reinsurance, Nancy Watkins, an actuary and wildfire expert at Milliman, told me in an email. This may mean that they would have to shed yet more policies “in order to avoid deterioration in their financial strength ratings,” just as California has been trying to lure insurers back with reforms to its dysfunctional insurance market.
The economic costs of the fire will likely be felt for years if not decades. While it would take an act of God far stronger than a fire to keep people from building homes on the slopes of the Santa Monica Mountains or off the Pacific Coast, the city that rebuilds may be smaller, more heavily fortified, and more expensive than the one that existed at the end of last year. And that’s just before the next big fire.