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:
More than two years later, hundreds of people in eastern Washington are still struggling to recover.

On the day of the wildfire, Kaye Peterson witnessed three miracles.
The first miracle was that the campers were late. On a normal Friday, caravans of cars would wind the 40 miles west from Spokane, Washington, to Silver Lake Camp, following a one-way-in, one-way-out road from nearby Medical Lake. Each previous week’s 300 or so campers typically departed by 11 a.m., which gave staff like Peterson — who had left her job as a teacher in a Seattle suburb three years earlier to work as the guest services manager and community chaplain at the historic Bible camp — just a handful of hours to turn over the beds, the lodge, and the cafeteria for the next group of campers to arrive around 2 p.m.
But on August 18, 2023, for the first time in all of Peterson’s years of working at Silver Lake, the incoming group had requested a 3 p.m. check-in time.
Peterson arrived early, nevertheless. “We saw some smoke, but we’re kind of used to seeing smoke,” she told me. “We didn’t pay any attention. We were cleaning up and getting ready — there’s so much to do to get ready for the next camp.” The power went out as the kitchen staff prepped pizzas for the night’s dinner, but the backup generator kicked on and the bustle continued. “But then we could start to see the smoke plume,” on the far side of the lake, Peterson said.
There are thousands of acres of ponderosa pine forests in Spokane County, which are meant to burn at a low intensity every five to 25 years, meaning that smoky skies in August aren’t necessarily cause for alarm. But the region has also been getting drier and hotter by the year; summers in the county are now almost 1.6 degrees Celsius (2.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than they were in the pre-industrial era, heating up at a rate that far outpaces the 0.8 degrees Celsius average in the rest of the country. That rise has led to more intense and more frequent wildfires; Spokane County consistently has the highest number of fires of any region in Washington.
By early afternoon, Silver Lake staffers were complaining about the air quality. One colleague stopped by to let Peterson know that she was leaving early to check on her kid. Meanwhile, the temperature was climbing toward 93 degrees Fahrenheit; the Wednesday prior, it had reached 100 degrees, one degree short of the daily temperature record for Spokane and 14 degrees above average for eastern Washington.
But Peterson, more than anything, noticed the wind, which was blowing in gusts as strong as 20 or 30 miles per hour. As the air quality continued to deteriorate, Terry Andrews, the executive director of Silver Lake Camp and Peterson’s supervisor, told the rest of his staff and volunteers to head home.
“And just about the time he said that, the sheriff came through with the sirens blaring, saying, ‘Leave now, leave now, leave now,’” Peterson said.
The second miracle was the safe. Peterson had moved from Spokane to Silver Lake Camp’s staff housing just two months prior, and she still kept an overnight bag in her car for nights when she visited a friend back in the city and was too tired to make the return trip. But earlier Friday, while helping search the grounds for a missing wallet, she’d decided on a whim to walk back to her house and throw her lock-box with her ID, passport, and other important documents into her car, as well.
Looking back, she isn’t sure what compelled her to do it. Though the sky was just starting to get hazy, it wasn’t anything out of the ordinary for the season, much less cause for alarm. Still, maybe some unconscious part of her picked up on the danger — the smell of nearby smoke; the direction of the wind, which would blow embers across the lake; the preceding week of dry heat.
Peterson, though, calls it God’s wisdom — when she went to evacuate her house after the sheriff’s alert, she already had a de facto go-bag in her car. With just minutes to decide what else to take with her, she had only to reach for her pillow, Bible, and laptop. She never suspected it’d be the last time she’d see her house and the rest of her things.
Peterson began her evacuation, bumping across the two cattle guards leading out of the camp and onto the only road out of the neighborhood. The smoke grew even thicker, reducing her visibility to nearly nothing. Traffic choked the winding S-curves leading back to downtown Medical Lake. Peterson shudders now to think about how much worse the chaos would have been if hundreds of Spokane campers had arrived at the usual check-in time.
By the time she finally made it out of town, Peterson was praying, tears streaming down her face. She passed a vantage point where she could look out to the south and take in the scope of the fire. Although she didn’t know it at the time, she was witnessing the third miracle.
The Gray Fire would ultimately take one life and consume over 10,000 acres and 259 buildings. Only about half a dozen houses on the west side of Silver Lake would make it through the fire, and each of them suffered severe smoke damage. But at Silver Lake Camp, the fire only reached the upper campus, where it destroyed five cabins, two shops, and five staff homes, including Peterson’s and Andrews’. And despite the lower campus cabin windows having been left open during the hasty evacuation, “not one of them had any smoke damage on the inside,” Peterson told me. “No way to explain that.”
About the time Peterson was fleeing the wildfire in Medical Lake, a pile of dried grasses under a tarp spontaneously combusted on a rural gravel lane called East Oregon Road, some 40 miles to the northeast.
While Medical Lake is small, with a population of around 5,000, it is home to a major state psychiatric hospital and an Air Force base, and is a classic example of the wildland-urban interface, attracting Spokanites who want to live closer to nature. But no one would describe Elk, an unincorporated neighborhood along the Little Spokane River, in the foothills of northern Spokane County, as anything other than rural.
“Elk used to be a thriving timber town. There were hotels, bars, brothels — this, that, and the other thing,” Rick Knapp, who’s lived in the community for six years, told me. These days, Elk is “just a white spot on the road.”
Like the Gray Fire in Medical Lake, the Oregon Fire — referred to locally as the Oregon Road Fire — burned hot and fast, fanned by the week’s dry air and the same high winds that billowed the flames on the shores of Silver Lake. Within two hours of the property owner’s reporting the tarp ignition, the fire had already raced through 2,000 acres of surrounding cropland and timber forest. “Leave now” evacuation notices went out to some 8,000 people across the region; over the weekend, the fire would consume almost 11,000 acres, 384 structures, and — like the Gray Fire in Medical Lake — take one life.
The Spokane County fires on August 18 were just two of the 56,580 wildfires that ignited in the U.S. in 2023. You never hear anything about the vast majority of those fires, though. Many burn in remote areas, far from property or infrastructure that can be tallied up in headline-making damages. Most are also small and extinguished quickly; last year, for example, the National Interagency Fire Center reported that “large wildfires” that burned a minimum of 100 acres in timber or 300 acres in grass represented less than 2% of total wildfires in the country.
When it comes to wildfires that impact communities, though, the Gray and Oregon Fires can serve as instructive case studies. Though they were neither small nor insignificant, they failed to garner the kind of national attention — or the outpouring of funding and support — of the fires that haunt the national consciousness, like the deadly Camp Fire in Paradise in 2018 or the 2023 wildfire in Maui, which ignited 10 days before the Spokane County fires. Most national news outlets ran a single story on the two fires, if they covered them at all; ultimately, most of the coverage came from reporters writing for the region’s local newspaper, The Spokesman-Review.
Initially, the Gray and Oregon fires were too small even to qualify for aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, forcing many people in Elk and Medical Lake to navigate the recovery without a guide. Terri Cooper, Medical Lake’s mayor, told me that in the absence of an obvious roadmap to follow, she reached out to fellow mayors like Dan Harwood of Malden, Washington, a town that lost 80% of its homes in a 2020 wildfire but had to make do without much help from the federal government.
That is the case for many smaller communities that are affected by wildfires each year. The federal government typically steps in only when fires overwhelm state resources; between 2019 and 2023, Presidents Trump and Biden designated just 13 wildfires as major disasters, limiting access to funding in locales that sustained more minor damage. In 2021, FEMA denied roughly 70% of wildfire survivors’ claims, not counting those it suspected of being fraudulent.
Major catastrophes like the megafire in Paradise and wildfires in densely populated locations such as Lahaina and Los Angeles have taught us much in recent years about how to live with fire. And yet most wildfire-impacted communities will find more in common with the stories of the people of Medical Lake and Elk. It’s for this reason that we’ve decided to highlight the communities as an example of how other neighborhoods and towns can recover from a wildfire — from the initial response by aid groups and local leaders, to the long-term fight for federal funding and insurance payouts, to the look ahead at how to rebuild and prepare for a future that is all but guaranteed to see fire again.
Despite the distance between Medical Lake and Elk, media write-ups almost immediately treated the Gray and Oregon fires as a single event. It’s easy to see why: The fires ignited within hours of each other under the same extreme conditions (Medical Lake was in fact under a critical fire danger warning, and local fire chief Cody Rohrbach had told the city council that the 18th would see “the worst fire weather of the year”), and pulled on the same strained firefighting resources.
More critically, though, when Spokane County commissioners declared a state of emergency on Saturday, August 19, they sought funding resources to address both fires together. “It was to everyone’s benefit to count the two fires as one,” Jeanna Swanson, the director of New Hope Resource Center, a faith-based nonprofit and food pantry that serves northern Spokane County, told me. Although each was severe on its own, together the Gray and Oregon fires destroyed 366 homes and 710 structures, resulting in an assessed property value loss of $166 million, making them the worst fire event in Washington State’s history. “We probably wouldn’t have gotten FEMA money, or some of those other dollars” if officials hadn’t treated the fires as a single event, Swanson told me.
The day after she evacuated the Silver Lake camp, Peterson learned from her boss, Andrews, that the fire had destroyed her house. “When it was finally safe to return to the area about five or six days later, Peterson felt an odd sort of lightness. “I was like, ‘Wow, yeah, it did burn to the ground,” she said. “I mean, everything was gone.” She’d lost her entire wardrobe, aside from what she’d packed in her overnight bag, including all her teacher clothes from her previous life. When Samaritan’s Purse reached out to her to offer to sift through the remains of her house, and was there anything she wanted them to look for?, Peterson asked only for her father’s camp whistle from his days working in the Black Hills of South Dakota and a piece of rose quartz from the same region.
As a chaplain, she took naturally — and immediately — to directing community members to available resources, and Silver Lake Camp became a hub for organizing the recovery effort. The local Lowe’s hardware store donated pallets of Gatorade and water, which the camp staff left in the driveway for anyone to take. Silver Lake Camp also opened up its bathrooms to anyone who needed them while sifting through the remains of their homes.
Perhaps most important, though, was the mobile internet that Cooper, Medical Lake’s mayor, brought to the camp. Access to Wi-Fi enabled residents to begin to fill out the necessary forms for insurance and recovery. “You can’t do it on your phone,” Peterson said. “We had a space at the camp if you needed to hop on a laptop, and opened up the property for people to come in and have meetings with, say, their demo guy.”
By the Sunday following the fires, Washington’s then-governor Jay Inslee had issued an emergency proclamation to coordinate the state-level response and mobilize the National Guard. Inslee also treated the fires in Medical Lake and Elk as a single event. But for all the fires’ technical similarities, the circumstances and responses to them couldn’t have been more different.
“We out here in Elk are a different lot,” Knapp told me when I asked him to describe the differences between Elk and Medical Lake. “I won’t say we’re hillbillies, but I will say that we enjoy and cherish our freedoms, and don’t like to be bothered by governmental agencies, because there’s not a lot of trust in those agencies.”
Many of the people who lost their homes in the Oregon Fire earned below 80% of the median family income for Spokane County. “You’ve got people out here — I’m not saying they’re squatters, I’m just saying they’re living on Grandpa’s property and Grandpa may or may not be still alive,” Knapp went on. “They don’t have a deed that says they are the owners of the property. They never had insurance.”
Even if the residents of Elk had been receptive to outside help, the community is unincorporated, meaning there was no mayor or local government to advocate on its behalf or to coordinate the immediate fire recovery.
But it did have Pastor Jose of the Country Church of the Open Bible.
August 18 was Jose Ng’s wife’s birthday. As Ng recalled to me, he learned about the Oregon Fire from their friends, who left her celebration early to check on their home. “I said, ‘Well, hey, why don’t you bring your stuff down to the church?” Ng said. “That’s kind of how it initially started.”
By Friday evening, as the Oregon Fire grew increasingly severe, more people from Elk began gathering at the church, awaiting news about their homes. Ng invited anyone who’d evacuated to stay the night, and “a handful of people just kind of camped here,” he said. “The next morning, you wake up and you realize that a bunch of these people had lost everything.”
Ng described the population of Elk to me as close-knit, independent, and deeply attached to their land — skeptical of handouts, maybe, but loyal to one another. When people in “rows and rows of cars coming from Spokane” eventually filled the church’s foyer with donations, fire victims felt more comfortable accepting assistance from the church than from an outside group like the Red Cross or Salvation Army. Local restaurants began to reach out to Ng about donating food, and soon larger organizations from across the region began contacting Country Church to offer their assistance.
Unlike wildland-urban interface communities like Medical Lake, which benefit from proximity to major population areas, media attention, and politicians who can advocate on their behalf, rural communities like Elk face unique challenges after wildfires. They have more limited access to disaster and emergency resources, meaning community members must lean even harder on each other.
As is the case with other climate disasters, wildfires disproportionately affect low-income and disenfranchised populations. Shasta County in California has a poverty rate of over 17% — and a FEMA wildfire risk score of more than 99 out of 100. Nearby Lake County and Mendocino County, where the poverty rate exceeds 20%, also have risk scores above 97. (Around half of the people exposed to wildfires in Washington State are also considered socially vulnerable.)
Over half the people who lost their homes in Elk were uninsured, and almost everyone else was underinsured. “Everybody has big chunks of property, but nobody wants to leave their land,” Ng told me. “And so people were staying in their cars or their tents or whatever they could find on their property.” Others moved into RVs and campers that “had mold, and some of them leaked,” Swanson told me.
Despite the entrenched suspicion of outside help, it was clear to community leaders in Elk, including Ng and Knapp, that they’d benefit from the disaster falling under the same umbrella as Medical Lake’s. Elk Strong, a loosely organized community resilience group, soon joined forces with ReImagine Medical Lake, a civic revitalization group that Mayor Terri Cooper had launched 10 years prior with her sister, to create a joint long-term recovery group that would allow both communities access to more funding due to their combined losses.
The first month and a half after a fire are the most critical and intense, Cooper told me. But the true heavy lifting was still ahead. “After about that five-week initial period,” Cooper said, “is when the recovery really begins.”
Medical Lake and Elk had another good reason for teaming up: They’d seen what happened in Malden.
On Labor Day in 2020, a windstorm knocked a tree branch onto a power line 40 minutes south of Spokane, sparking the 15,000-acre Babb Road Fire. Though nobody died in the fire, between 80% and 85% of the buildings in the small towns of Malden and Pine City burned to the ground.
FEMA funds are contingent upon the president approving a disaster declaration. But despite the near-complete devastation, President Donald Trump allegedly foot-dragged on approving the disaster request from Inslee, a Democrat, due to “personal animosity” between the two, The Spokesman-Review reported at the time. (Trump won Washington’s 5th Congressional District, which includes both Malden and Medical Lake, by 9 points. Inslee did not return a request for comment.) Two weeks after President Joe Biden took office in 2021, he finally approved Inslee’s request for the disaster declaration — but denied an individual request for funding for Malden and Pine City after FEMA determined the damage “was not of such severity and magnitude to warrant the designation.”
FEMA offers both public and individual disaster assistance. Even considered together, the fires in Elk and Medical Lake did not meet FEMA’s $13 million threshold for damages to public infrastructure to qualify for public assistance funding, since most of the damage occurred on individual properties rather than downtown. FEMA’s individual assistance fund, meanwhile, is designed for uninsured and underinsured households, and approval is contingent on the county arduously tallying the number of victims who would qualify. By late September, Spokane County commissioners had managed to identify just 40 damaged homes without insurance — it generally takes several hundred to earn the approval of FEMA — with 200 homes still waiting to be assessed.
Though it doesn’t seem like it should take so long to gather evidence proving the extent of a fire’s damage, survivors have to report their own losses, a daunting, complicated, paperwork-laden process that is often far from mind while someone is reeling from the aftermath of losing everything they owned. Cooper later told Spokane’s KREM2 News that she believed it was a mistake “going to the government first” in pursuit of aid, rather than leaning into the grassroots support that was more immediately available to the towns. (Earlier that August, FEMA approved funds to help Washington specifically with associated firefighting costs.)
In October, about a month and a half after the Oregon fires, Inslee appealed directly to Biden, estimating that it would take $5 billion to address all the damage and seeking the presidential disaster declaration that would free up FEMA funds. Even then, community members had serious doubts about the federal government’s willingness to help. Malden’s experience aside, FEMA’s depleted coffers were a national news story by the fall of 2023. After the fire in Lahaina and Hurricane Idalia, which by September had already run the federal government $325 million in cleanup costs, there were legitimate concerns as to whether there would be enough money left to address the recovery efforts in Elk and Medical Lake, which remained off most Americans’ radars.
It took six months after the fire, until January 2024, for Biden to finally grant Inslee’s disaster request. In response to questions about the long delay, a FEMA spokesperson told me in a statement that “unlike the last administration, [the Department of Homeland Security] and FEMA remain focused on effective, non-political disaster response,” and that the agency will “continue to support Americans impacted by disasters no matter the size or scope of the disaster, or the state or jurisdiction they live in, allowing local governments to lead the response managed by their states.”
The community leaders in Medical Lake and Elk were not the sort to twiddle their thumbs while waiting for the feds to step in. ReImagine Medical Lake — Cooper’s organization — and Elk Strong swiftly formed the Spokane Regional Long Term Recovery Group, a nonprofit that aimed to coordinate recovery efforts across the two communities. “We went through the whole nine yards to make it official, and we tried to be extremely transparent,” Knapp told me. “We didn’t want to play favorites between Medical Lake and Elk.”
With Cooper as president of the SRLTRG, the group decided that no member of the 12-person board could have lost their home in the fire — a stipulation aimed at ensuring the group’s decisions were unbiased and even-handed. Similarly, the group maintained separate committees — Elk Strong and ReImagine Medical Lake — to ensure both communities received equal attention. Almost immediately, the SRLTRG also began working with the Innovia Foundation, a local community need organization, to distribute financial donations through nonprofits like the Country Church.
One of the highest priorities from the outset was providing housing to survivors, particularly in Elk. Even months after the fire, many were still living in inadequate shelters, potentially exposing themselves to toxins in the rubble of their former homes. But there was an even more immediate concern: the onset of winter.
“RVs are fun in the summertime, but in the wintertime, they’re cold,” Knapp said. “We set up an initiative to help winterize the RVs by putting skirting around them and insulating the water pipes underneath so that they wouldn’t freeze.” The recovery group also worked to restore power to the properties, purchasing meter boxes and digging ditches for the cables.
But much of the work of wildfire recovery happens on paper. “It’s a lot of tracking and helping people get back all their documents,” Cooper told me. “And then, ‘What’s your income status?’ Every funding mechanism has its parameters.”
Insurance, in particular, has presented a significant and persistent challenge for victims, as policyholders are required to supply an itemized list of lost items with details as specific as the size and make of, say, individual sweaters. “It’s so infuriating,” Peterson told me. “In some states, they don’t have to do the list, they just look at the house and go, ‘Yes, total loss.’” California, for instance, is pushing insurers in this direction. Peterson said that putting together her own list was a major stressor because “none of us thought, ‘Oh, I’ll go videotape or take pictures’” when evacuating their homes.
One of the most challenging long-term projects, though, is still the cleanup. In a wildfire, trees don’t necessarily burn entirely to ash; most remain as blackened, standing snags that are susceptible to toppling. (Falling snags are one of the leading causes of fire responder deaths, too, with burned-out trees accounting for as much as 30% of wildland firefighter deaths in a given year.) While the local utility, Avista, removed 5,000 at-risk trees in the Medical Lake area in the months following the Gray Fire, many of the properties in Elk are 20 acres or more, meaning there could be hundreds or thousands of dead snags on one piece of land.
Ng told me there’s an emotional element to the tree removal problem, too. Elk is home to a number of properties that have belonged to families for generations, and while mowing down acres and acres of dead trees is, in many cases, prohibitively expensive, it’s also “almost saying goodbye to a past chapter.” He likened it to deleting a voicemail from a loved one who’s since passed away.
Some people in Elk received new seedlings through a state-run reforestation program, but the funding has since run out. And the state never offered assistance planting the trees, even though many of the recipients were seniors or people who had lost all their tools and equipment in the fire.
Asbestos testing has been another hassle. “You have to get it if you’re going to get any kind of permits to rebuild,” Knapp told me. “You have to verify that you’ve tested and remediated any asbestos that may have been in play when the fire came through, and that’s very expensive.” Costs run between $1,000 and $3,000 for an inspection, and some owners haven’t yet gone to the trouble, meaning there are still toxic piles of rubble that are potentially leaching into Medical Lake’s shallow aquifer.
While Spokane County offers financial support for asbestos testing, Peterson — who struggled to get her own samples run because the local labs were too busy — said the program works on a reimbursement basis. “It’s frustrating to have someone look you in the eye and go ‘You have to get the asbestos testing’ when I just lost everything,” she said. “Now I need to put out how many thousands of dollars to get tested for asbestos? And then wait for reimbursement?” And while Cooper told me that only a small percentage of homes, perhaps 10%, actually tested positive for asbestos in Medical Lake, remediation is “astronomically expensive” — $60,000 to $80,000, in some cases.
Knapp also cited Washington State’s progressive building codes as an obstacle to people returning to their homes. “Out here in Elk, when you build a new house, you’re technically supposed to have an EV charging station,” he told me. “And you can’t use propane for heat anymore, because the tree-huggers say that it’s terrible. Well, that’s what they’ve been heating this house with for the past 50 to 100 years, and now you’re saying if I rebuild, I can’t use propane?” (In 2022, Washington passed a law requiring all new single-family homes to be “electric vehicle ready.” While propane isn’t outright banned, the state raised its building efficiency standards in 2023 so that “only heat pumps can satisfy them” — though, as we’ve covered here at Heatmap, a ban of that law is now being considered by the state’s supreme court.)
Sixteen months after the fire, in January 2025, Washington Senator Patty Murray helped to at last secure $44 million in disaster funds for Spokane County from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The hope is that the HUD money will fill in the gaps left by other federal and state grant programs, as well as continue to help the under- and uninsured. But it’s also difficult for fire victims to see the county, nonprofits, and long-term recovery group receive millions in allocations while they themselves haven’t received any direct payments. “People go, ‘Oh, you just raised $100,000, where’s my check?’” Knapp said. “It doesn’t work that way. We don’t write checks to people. There has got to be a need, and we have to actually pay for that need.”
For others, recovery has meant pursuing some form of justice. On September 27, just weeks after the fire, Singleton Schreiber, a national firm specializing in wildfire litigation, filed a lawsuit accusing local utility Inland Power & Light Company of negligence over failing to repair a faulty security light that started the Gray Fire. (A lawyer for Inland Power & Light did not return a request for comment.)
Dan Fruchter, a partner at Singleton Schreiber’s Spokane office, told me that the firm is now representing “hundreds of clients” as part of the Gray Fire litigation. “It’s critically important to represent the individual clients and to make sure that they’re able to recover for the full extent of the harm done by the fire,” he told me. But he sees his role as an attorney as having a second function, too: “Preventing or mitigating the next fire through changes to infrastructure and vegetation management.”
Investigators have traced some of the most devastating fires in the country back to utilities, including the fire in Lahaina, the million-acre Smokehouse Creek Fire in Texas, and the Camp Fire in Paradise. (Utility-caused wildfires are not a problem exclusive to the U.S., either; the Black Saturday bush fires in Australia in 2009, which killed over 170 people, were started by a power line.) “The bigger the entity — a utility, a local government, a railroad — the more responsibility they have to protect the communities that they serve,” Fruchter went on. Though the Gray Fire lawsuit is still in its discovery phase, the court has set the current trial date for next January.
In the meantime, now two years after the fires, Elk and Medical Lake continue to rebuild slowly. Cooper received mentorship from other mayors who’d faced fires in their communities and hopes she can give back in the same way to anyone who endures a similar disaster in the future. Since the fires, she’s learned to navigate funding challenges and the importance of organizing a long-term recovery group. “There’s this world of disaster recovery nonprofits and volunteers that you don’t even know are there until it happens to you,” she said.
Cooper also helped Republican State Representative Mike Volz introduce a bipartisan bill during Washington’s 2023-2024 legislative session that would have formalized a long-term recovery program statewide, providing everything from grant assistance to a resource directory for communities to refer to after disasters. In particular, the bill aimed to facilitate a process for long-term recovery groups, such as SRLTRG, to receive government funding. In Cooper’s view, it’s these local recovery groups that have the best success in getting money to the people and causes that need it, but the groups often struggle for grant money because the government doesn’t consider them legitimate. But the bill ultimately died in Washington’s House Rules Committee before it could be put to a vote.
Something has to change, though. There is no standard timeline for wildfire recovery, as every community rebuild is unique; yet, more often than not, the timeline spans years. The Urban Institute found that the average HUD Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery grant, which helps address long-term recovery needs following presidentially declared disasters, takes more than 20 months even to start distributing funds. Paradise, California — which burned six years ago — was still only 33% rebuilt, with less than half the population it had pre-fire, as of March 2025, and its mayor has called its recovery “a 20-year rebuild.”
In the words of a U.S. Forest Service analysis of community recoveries after wildfires, “a few studies indicate that distress can continue several years after wildfires have occurred” — with rates of depression among survivors potentially exceeding 50% and lasting for more than a decade. Ecological recovery can last even longer: In the case of Medical Lake, which was mostly made up of old-growth ponderosa pines, Washington Department of Natural Resources manager Steve Harris has said he expects it to take “at least a century” for a fully developed forest to grow back.
Any way you look at it, it’s a long road ahead. While the Spokane Long Term Recovery Group has helped rebuild eight houses — two in Medical Lake and six in Elk — for people who could not have otherwise returned to their homes, there are at least a dozen others who are still waiting on similar assistance. Insurance remains a persistent problem, too. Per The Seattle Times, insurance companies have declined to renew 161 of the 484 policies in Medical Lake and Elk with payouts exceeding $30,000, and local premiums have also increased. Two years on, there are still 102 open claims of 658 filed.
These, however, are not front-page problems, and it’s easy for the attention of state and federal officials — much less the public — to move on to the next catastrophe. “At first, after a disaster, you have a bunch of resources, a bunch of manpower, a bunch of volunteers,” Ng, the pastor in Elk, told me. “But as it goes on — six months, one year, a year and a half — everybody kind of goes back to doing what they were doing before.”
But fire weather isn’t going away. Washington state is at risk of a “mammoth fire” due to climate change, The New York Times recently reported, and Spokane County remains especially at risk. “You have the fuel load. You have to be ready,” Cooper said of the potential for future fires in Medical Lake. “Because it’s likely going to come again.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The Iran War laid bare the two energy regimes fighting for global dominance.
We have an Iran deal. We think. Since President Trump and Iran announced the arrangement on Sunday afternoon, its details have had a Heisenbergian quality — not even Israeli leaders seem to be sure what they are. From an energy markets standpoint, Trump told The New York Times on Sunday that the text guarantees “permanently toll-free” access to the Strait of Hormuz, but it remains unclear how and when the waterway will reopen.
What we do know is that some version of the deal is set to be signed on Friday. At the same time, the U.S. and Iran will start 60 days of “technical negotiations” to discuss Iran’s nuclear program and sanctions relief, according to Vice President JD Vance. “A lot of very important details” have yet to be figured out, Vance told reporters on Monday. If Iran doesn’t agree to give up its nuclear program in those talks, Trump told the Times yesterday, he would either order bombing to restart or make the United States “the guardian of the Middle East” in exchange for oil revenues. (So much for toll-free access! At least then CENTCOM could establish a hotline.)
Regardless, it may take weeks for Iran to remove its sea mines from the strait. Then ships and their exhausted crews will begin trickling out of the Persian Gulf. My colleague Matthew Zeitlin has the full rundown on what will happen next in Iran — and what it means for oil, natural gas, and the energy transition.
But let’s assume, for a moment, that the war really is over. What did we learn from the past 107 days of conflict?
Get Heatmap in your inbox daily.
For me, the most astonishing thing about the conflict remains that China, which used to buy 11 million barrels of oil a day from global markets, only imported about 7.8 million barrels a day in May. That’s just over 3 million barrels a day of demand, seemingly vaporized overnight. (For context, the world used about 104 million barrels a day last year.) China’s enormous domestic oil and gas stockpiles and its high concentration of electric vehicles seem to have produced the cut — as did a domestic increase in energy prices that helped dampen demand on its own.
For the past few years, climate and energy journalists like me have hammered that China’s solar, battery, and electric vehicle manufacturing complex is the real deal. But the war clarified that the world now has two real and rivalrous energy regimes. There is the oil-and-gas regime, heavily concentrated in the OPEC+ countries and North America, and there is the electricity-and-batteries regime, located in East Asia and especially China.
These systems are linked and interdependent, yet in competition for consumer demand — as well as policy-driven and infrastructural lock-in from countries. The United States is the lynchpin of the former system: Not only is it the world’s No. 1 producer of oil and natural gas, but it also (allegedly) guarantees security and freedom of navigation in the Middle East. China anchors the electric regime: Not only does it dominate the manufacturing of solar panels, wind turbines, lithium-ion batteries, and electric vehicles, but it also owns or refines the minerals essential to their production. While America can boast better petroleum engineers than anywhere else in the world, China has the manufacturing know-how necessary to spin off new innovations. Each country, in other words, dominates the stocks, flows, and knowledge that drive these planet-spanning regimes.
To be clear, I don’t agree with the interpretation — sometimes in vogue — that the United States is a “petrostate” while China is an “electrostate.” America has a much more diversified economy than most petrostates; oil makes up 10% to 15% of our dollar-denominated goods exports and an even smaller share of our overall exports. In Saudi Arabia, by comparison, oil is more than 70% of goods exports. Nor do I think “electrostate” evokes the reality that China, notwithstanding its world-historic renewables buildout, still gets 60% of its power from coal.
Much still unites these systems too — notably the petrochemicals sector, which produces from oil and gas the necessary inputs to solar, batteries, and EVs. But that’s why China’s coal-to-chemicals sector — which I previously discussed on our podcast Shift Key with the energy analyst Lauri Myllyvirta — has played such an important role during the past few months, allowing the country to cut crude demand without slowing down production lines. Given that the coal-to-chemicals industry is more carbon intensive than the sector it ostensibly replaces — and that India is already looking at developing its own version of the sector — I suspect we’ve only heard the beginning of it. We’ll examine it more in the days and weeks to come.
And it’ll take energy markets even longer.
The United States and Iran have agreed on a process that could result in the end of their armed conflict and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz. Both countries have signed the agreement, U.S. officials told reporters, though the text itself has yet to be released.
The markets, at least, are taking the deal and the promises that the strait will reopen at face value. Benchmark oil prices are now at around $83 per barrel, down slightly from $87 Friday, when traders expected that the U.S. and Iran would soon reach a deal.
“I hereby fully authorize the toll free opening of the Strait of Hormuz, and, simultaneously herewith, authorize the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!” Trump posted Sunday afternoon on Truth Social.
But that will not happen immediately. No matter what the United States and Iran say, it’s shippers and insurers who will make the final determination of whether the strait is truly open.
For that they will need assurances that Iran means it when it says that vessels are free to sail through, and that it won’t try to impose tolls or force ships through specific routes. “Are the Iranians going to try and control passage?” Robin Mills, chief executive officer of Qamar Energy and non-resident fellow at the Columbia University Center on Global Energy Policy, a consulting and advisory firm in the United Arab Emirates, asked me rhetorically.
This need for evidence of good faith on both sides was a theme of my conversations about the peace deal on Monday.
“The key problem isn’t whether or not the Iranians or the U.S. says the strait is open,” oil analyst Rory Johnston told me. “It is whether shippers — ships that are trapped in the Gulf, as well as ships that are waiting to move into the Gulf — have made the determination that the strait is safe for transit.”
Though some countries were able to divert substantial flows through pipeline networks to avoid the strait, that represented a relatively small amount of Gulf oil production. Johnston has estimated that of the 20 million barrels per day of oil and products that flowed through the Strait before the war, some 13 million to 15 million barrels per day worth of production have been “shut in,” meaning that they were never extracted from the ground.
Even with a peace process underway, the Gulf oil complex won’t be fully operational until ships can first get out of the Strait of Hormuz unencumbered, then get back in to pick up oil shipments, which Johnston estimates won’t happen until the beginning of next month. Some of this is just a judgement call, one that some shippers had already made before the weekend’s announcement.
“There’s been a fairly steady stream of ships that have been exiting the strait by going dark and traveling at night,” Johnston said, “so there is already an understanding for some shipping companies and some regional states that you can transit the waterway safely.”
The number of ships chancing a transit roughly correlates with the temperature of the rhetoric between the U.S. and Iran over the past few weeks. “A total of 29 verified vessel crossings were recorded through the Strait of Hormuz between 10 and 14 June,” according to the maritime analytics service Kpler said Monday. “The data aligns with reports of progress in U.S.-Iran discussions and supports the assessment that the Strait remains operational, although traffic volumes, route transparency and directional balance have yet to return to a clearly normalised pattern.”
The volumes getting through are still far off their pre-war totals, however. In the first two weeks of June, J.P. Morgan analysts estimated Hormuz flows at just over 5 million barrels per day, although about a sixth of that was likely Iranian shipments at risk of being interceded by the U.S. blockade. While that an improvement from around 3 million barrels per day in April and March, it was still well short of the 15 million to 20 million barrels per day of crude oil and petroleum products flowing through the strait before the war began in February.
The ships that have sailed the strait have largely hugged the Omani coast, according to Eurasia Group energy analyst Greg Brew, or else going through close to the Iran side, which is directly controlled by the country’s military. Three months’ worth of shooting (and mining), however, have made the central artery a no go. “There’s no certainty as to whether there are mines, how many there are, and where they are, and that matters in terms of restoring security of transit through the main waterway,” Brew told me.
The portions of the channel that offer safe passage “are not good routes for the largest ships, especially for big container ships and the largest tankers,” Brew added. Clearing the strait will likely involve navies from outside the region, including European fleets and “potentially” China, he said, many of which have ships in the area “specifically equipped for clearing mines.”
That process is likely to be iterative, Johnston told me. “It’s not like there are mines or there are not mines across the entire area,” he said. Instead, he told me, certain widths of the strait will be judged to be mine-free, allowing for safe passage, and that width will expand over time. Brew estimated that it will take two to three weeks to complete that process.
Getting the tankers back in should give oil producers the confidence to restart operations, Johnston said. “But then the challenge becomes how much upstream infrastructure was damaged,” he said. Even if the extraction infrastructure is functional, so-called “downstream” refining infrastructure could still be down, meaning that crude oil production could recover before refined products like gasoline or petroleum liquids begin returning to their previous levels.
As for how long it will take to get back up to full production, Brew told me that will vary country by country. In the short run, Gulf oil producers can pull from existing inventories of oil, with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which never fully shut down production, getting back to full flows in a few weeks. Iraq and Kuwait, which had to more severely curtail production, may take a few months.
Governments and companies will eventually have to rebuild their oil and natural gas stockpiles after drawing on them extensively to keep fuel prices from spiking. Among rich nations, inventories have sunk to levels not seen since depths of the post-9/11 conflict in 2003, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The United States’ Strategic Petroleum Reserve had around 415 million barrels of oil before the war began, and has since fallen to around 350 million barrels, the lowest level since 1983.
All told, Johnston told me, “well over” a billion barrels of global fuel reserves have been used up since the war began.
Refilling these inventories — or, for countries newly interested in energy security, establishing them — will be a long-run addition to demand for oil, which could keep prices from falling as sharply as they might have otherwise. “We’re probably going to have two, three years of structurally higher demand as people try to restock,” Johnston said.
But the course of the war has defied risks of prices spiking higher. “This war was the biggest supply disruption in history, and oil had a hard time staying above $100 a barrel,” Brew said. “That implies that the structural factors inside the market are more keeping prices low than pulling prices high.”
A new Searchlight Institute report joins a growing chorus arguing that corporate climate targets do more harm than good.
When Jane Flegal was working in market development for Frontier Climate, a $1 billion initiative to catalyze advances in carbon removal, she had what she called a “radicalizing experience.”
Frontier went out to corporate sustainability teams, selling them on large carbon removal offtake agreements with vetted startups that were developing technologies to suck measurable amounts of carbon directly out of the air. These were more expensive than the carbon offsets companies could buy to support forest conservation or clean cookstoves in Africa, but the investment would support innovation important for fighting climate change. In return, the companies would eventually be able to count the resulting carbon removal toward their net zero emissions targets.
Most companies, however, were more concerned about the cost. “We were trying to get companies to spend more than $1,000 per ton on a new technology we know the world needs,” Flegal told me. “Making that pitch to a corporation when they could also just go make the exact same claim with a $4-a-ton carbon offset credit was a crazy-making experience.”
The revelation, for Flegal, was that the prevailing paradigm for corporate climate action — a single-minded focus on carbon accounting — was not just inadequate, but actively harmful to bringing about the systems-level change required to decarbonize the economy. It incentivized companies to optimize for reducing their individual carbon footprints and failed to recognize the arguably more impactful contributions they could be making to systems change. “Most of the best things they could be doing are just not legible at all in the existing accounting frameworks,” she said.
Flegal fleshed out her critique in a paper published Monday by the Searchlight Institute, a center-left think tank where she is now a senior fellow. The data center boom has exacerbated these perverse incentives, she argues. Tech companies are pursuing corporate power purchase agreements to fulfill their individual clean energy commitments, but mostly failing to help break down the structural barriers to decarbonizing the grid, such as transmission constraints and interconnection backlogs.
The paper challenges the logic of treating a “complex, global, sociotechnical problem as if it were a matter of property rights,” where investors and the public expect companies to own their individual carbon messes. Flegal proposes some alternative measures by which to evaluate corporate climate ambition. One is the quality of a company’s investments — are they causing more clean energy or crucial climate infrastructure to get built than would be otherwise based on market conditions? How many miles of transmission have they financed, or policy proceedings have they influenced? She also calls for companies to be explicit about their theory of change and report how they are taking action consistent with that theory.
“I recognize that these are not perfect metrics, but let’s be real, neither are the ones we have today,” she told me. “The danger of the ones we have today is that they imply a false precision that could be worse for climate outcomes than just being honest about uncertainty.”
The climate community has always fought about carbon accounting, but recently the quarrel has reached a fever pitch. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol, a nonprofit that sets voluntary standards for how companies should measure their emissions, is in the middle of overhauling its rules, a process that has sparked major schisms over how to account for companies’ clean electricity purchases, the carbon stored in forests, and other complex aspects of corporate carbon bookkeeping.
At the same time, the Science Based Targets Initiative, a separate group that acts as an arbiter of whether companies’ climate plans are consistent with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, has been updating its own standard for “corporate net zero.” A third group, the International Organization for Standardization, is also revising its greenhouse gas reporting rulebooks.
The challenge across all of these efforts is developing standards that are scientifically rigorous but not so rigid as to discourage companies from acting. Companies are lobbying these revision processes to get the rules they want, but many experts worry the outcomes will enable greenwashing.
Flegal joins a growing chorus of thought leaders arguing that this system that feigns precision and prioritizes compliance with an impossible bottom line risks pushing companies away from doing anything at all. Some propose getting rid of individual carbon targets altogether in favor of more qualitative reporting, while others advocate for creating a separate space for companies to earn recognition for their harder-to-measure “contributions” to fighting climate change.
In September, Michael Gillenwater, the executive director of the Greenhouse Gas Management Institute, who has been working on carbon accounting issues for more than 20 years, called for a “paradigm shift” in corporate climate reporting. He and Derik Broekhoff of the Stockholm Environment Institute, another 20-year soldier in this space, argue that boiling down a company’s climate impact to a single inventory of emissions traps “companies in a ’doom loop’ where they are simultaneously criticized for not taking full responsibility for indirect emissions and for greenwashing when they attempt to address these emissions through market-based mechanisms,” such as renewable energy certificates.
They propose instead a “multi-statement” reporting framework in which companies would separate their actual, physical emissions from their investments in carbon offsets, renewable energy certificates, and other market-based tools for climate mitigation. This system reframes carbon credits from “compensating” for a company’s ongoing emissions to playing a more philanthropic role in achieving global net zero and “eliminates the perception that companies can be absolved of responsibility through offsetting,” they write. They also propose a third section where companies would report on remaining barriers to decarbonizing their particular business. Companies could set targets for each section individually, but would not be allowed to combine them into a single performance metric.
Robert Hoglund, the co-founder of the carbon removal tracking site CDR.fyi and head of climate at Milkywire, a corporate advisory firm, published yet another idea in a paper earlier this month. He and his co-author argue that the distinction existing frameworks make between a company’s “direct” and “indirect” emissions doesn’t actually illuminate what’s within its control to reduce. They recommend companies split their net zero targets into two categories, separating “unconditional” emissions cuts — those that are currently feasible — from “conditional” reductions, or those that depend on changes in policy, infrastructure, technoeconomics, etc.
Creating a conditional target “does not make it optional,” they write. “It creates an obligation to help build the world the target assumes. That means policy advocacy, supplier engagement, financing climate solutions, supporting carbon removal, and other system-changing actions are not side activities but flow from the target itself.”
The Science Based Targets Initiative published its new net zero standard this past week, and it appears to adopt at least some of the ideas Flegal, Gillenwater, and Hoglund proposed — namely, attention to systemic constraints. It shifts from looking only at absolute emission reductions to recognizing companies for putting their “best efforts” toward net zero. It stops short, however, of explaining how SBTi will judge what counts as a “best effort.” It also allows companies to use some kinds of carbon certificates to lower their emissions on paper.
Based on an initial read, Hoglund told me he thought SBTi made some positive changes. Flegal hadn’t had a chance to dig into them yet when we spoke. Another critic I spoke to was less pleased.
If Lisa Sachs, the director of Columbia University’s Center on Sustainable Investment, had her way, companies would get rid of net zero targets altogether. She published her own treatise on the subject in May, pointing out that corporate net zero “relies on a mistaken aggregation logic.” It assumes that if every company works to reduce, offset, or neutralize their own emissions, the efforts will sum up to global net zero. Like Flegal, she told me that not only is that impossible without systems change, but she fears that company-level net zero goals “disincentivize the things companies can and should do that would have maximum systems impact.”
While it’s relatively common today for companies to talk openly about the systemic barriers they face in decarbonizing, it’s much more rare for them to say what they’re doing about it. I asked Flegal whether she truly believed sustainability officers would be able to get CEO approval for investments in “systems change,” which is more difficult to break down into clear KPIs.
She pointed out that a lot of companies already make significant philanthropic investments, and this could be put in that bucket. In some cases, like when grid constraints are a barrier to powering a new facility, they could argue that investing in transmission lines is a strategic move and not just part of their climate commitment.
Actions like lobbying in support of regulatory reform and other policy changes seem like a harder sell. The investor-led initiative Climate Action 100+ tracks how companies are attempting to influence climate-related policy debates, and has consistently found that few companies — just 2%, in the latest count — align their lobbying activities with their climate goals.
Reading these papers took me back to 2019 and 2020, when many companies first made net zero commitments. In one sense, it felt like a sea change — all these powerful corporations publicly dedicating themselves to a net zero future — but it was also dubious. They all seemed to have a different definition of what “net zero” meant. For some oil and gas companies, it meant zero-ing out the emissions from their operations, but not from the oil and gas they sold. A lot of companies made the pledge without providing any details about how they would achieve it. SBTi started developing its first net zero standard in 2020 to address this problem by creating a common definition and set of expectations. While having SBTi validate a company’s net zero target is entirely voluntary, more than 11,000 companies have done it.
When I mentioned this history to Flegal and Sachs, they countered that the problem SBTi is trying to address is downstream of the actual problem — that a voluntary net zero framework for companies creates incentives that are not aligned with what really matters for decarbonization.
Both also raised the opportunity cost of the enormous intellectual and financial capital that has gone into refining all of these accounting methodologies and producing reams of reporting to comply with them. “All of these organizations and rule setters for the rule setters for the rule setters, I think we’ve gotten lost in the sauce a bit,” Flegal said.
“These frameworks have become a business — literally a business, in SBTi’s case,” Sachs said, since it has a for-profit arm that validates companies’ reporting for a fee. “I’d rather have a few leaders who raise the tide than to have 11,000 companies aligned with SBTi, and to be finding ourselves in five years figuring out another way to lower the standard.”