From The Climate Realism

By Linnea Lueken

A recent article at LAist titled “The poor are in a very bad state: Climate change accelerates California’s cost-of-living crisis,” claims that climate change is increasing the cost of living in California. This is false. Climate policies in California are accelerating the cost of living much more than any modest warming.

The first example the LAist post gives is the fire outbreak from January 2025 in the Los Angeles area, particularly the Eaton fire, which “accelerated the decade-long displacement of tenants […] from Altadena due to rising housing costs.”

This is certainly something that happens, if a neighborhood is burned down it will make already high housing costs impossible to overcome because, simply, the houses are gone. And poorer people will struggle to rebuild. Nothing unprecedented about that.

LAist blames these fires on “an unusual lack of rain, a condition blamed on climate change,” and then backed this assertion up by referencing attribution studies: “Using weather data collected since 1950, scientists ran simulations showing the conditions that dried out the foothills were 35% more likely because of global warming.”

This is nonsense. Not only are attribution studies junk science, as discussed by previous Climate Realism articles here, here, and here, but the conditions that led to the dryness that contributed to the Eaton fire and others at the same time were not due to climate change.

The high, dry wind phenomenon that made the conditions very dangerous and prone to out of control wildfires in the Los Angeles area is so common it has its own name: The Santa Ana winds. These winds are well documented and not historically unusual, though the winds from that particular month were very strong, with some record high wind gusts.

Santa Ana winds are most common during the winter months, and cause vegetation to dry out rapidly, even if there was enough rain beforehand. In fact, there was a lot of burnable vegetation in the area at the time, a high fuel load, because the previous winter seasons had been wetter, and contributed to more plant growth. This means that when the winds came, they dried out a lot of fuel for fires when they were started by arson, in the case of the nearby Palisades fire.

Data does not indicate that the Santa Ana winds are getting more severe or common due to climate change, though there are some studies suggesting they could get weaker, but that has not appeared in data yet.

Several Climate Realism posts go into more detail about the Los Angeles fires, none of the available evidence points to climate change.

LAist pointed to more than just wildfire, saying that “[r]ising temperatures, the clearest impact of climate change, are driving up home energy costs.”

They went on to say that last year was the hottest summer on record for California, and every “day above 95°F increased the chance that the power to low-income households would be disconnected, as energy bills inch up an additional $20 to $30 a month, according to a 2022 UCLA study.”

Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) do not show that California’s number of extremely hot days is increasing beyond what earlier parts of the 20^th century saw, particularly the 1930s. (See figure below)

Looking at Los Angeles county alone, the trend is different, with more higher temperature days in recent decades, however this can be attributed to the Urban Heat Island effect, which is not a climate issue, but is due to human activity via urbanization.

LAist also pointed at drought and flooding as weather conditions that are getting worse in California due to climate change, but both of these are also incorrect or misleading. Annual precipitation data shows no long term trend for the state, nor does the number of extreme precipitation events. Drought is a bit more complicated, since water needs are also taken into account. California, especially around Los Angeles, is a very dry state. Most of the climate zones are mediterranean or desert, both naturally dry. Meanwhile, the population and expansion of agriculture (like vineyards) have been expanding and demanding more water. Even if meteorological drought is not worsening, meaning the amount of rainfall and snow the state is getting, increasing demand on groundwater and reservoirs will put a strain on state water supplies. But drought itself is natural for the state, and long term—especially paleontological—data show that repeated lasting droughts are not unusual.

Interestingly, the article authors begrudgingly admit that “California’s policies to discourage fossil fuel use add to costs,” saying that power bills and fuel costs are higher in California as the state attempts to “wean itself off oil and gas.”

This is the largest and most obvious reason for the high cost of living in the state, not a three-degree change in average temperature over more than a hundred years. High costs of electricity make it harder for the poor to afford sufficient air conditioning, and those costs rise much more rapidly than the average yearly temperature. A report by the Institute for Energy Research shows how over-reliance on expensive renewables like wind and solar have driven up costs across the board, and now California has the second highest electricity rates in the country, surpassed by only Hawaii, and pays more than double the national average. California is also the second highest in electricity importing, despite having ample natural resources in the form of natural gas.

The real cause of financial pain for the poor in California is not climate change, but the pursuit of climate policy.

LAist is simply pursuing a climate alarmist angle in this story, while downplaying the larger and frankly blatant influences on the state’s cost of living crisis. California is known for having some of the best climate regions in the world, the easiest to live in, and that has not changed. What has changed is the population, and the insidious growth of climate policies by state leadership, prioritized over public welfare.

---

California’s high cost of living stems primarily from a severe housing shortage, driven by restrictive land-use policies, local zoning laws, and delays from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—often used to block or delay new development.

Climate-related policies contribute indirectly to costs, particularly in energy, but they are not the main driver of unaffordability compared to housing supply constraints.

California’s median home price hovered around $870,000–$900,000 in late 2025, with forecasts predicting a rise to about $905,000 in 2026.

Monthly mortgage payments for a mid-tier home exceed $5,500, requiring an annual household income over $220,000 to qualify—more than double the state’s median household income of around $102,000.

This makes homeownership unaffordable for most residents.

Critics highlight CEQA as a key barrier: it enables lawsuits that delay projects, increasing costs and deterring builders.

Studies and reports note that CEQA has blocked or slowed infill housing and transit-oriented developments, exacerbating the supply shortage.

Recent 2025 reforms streamlined CEQA for urban infill projects to accelerate building and reduce costs. Other factors include high construction costs, limited land availability in desirable areas, and post-pandemic price surges.

Out-migration reflects this: California saw net domestic losses of over 200,000 people in 2024–2025, largely due to housing costs pushing residents to states like Texas.

California pursues ambitious climate goals, including renewables mandates (RPS), cap-and-trade, and building decarbonization.

These policies raise electricity rates—second highest in the continental U.S.—through investments in renewables, grid upgrades, and wildfire mitigation.

Critics argue that reliance on intermittent sources like solar/wind, plus regulations discouraging fossil fuels, drives up bills more than modest warming would.

However, analyses (e.g., from NRDC and legislative reports) indicate recent rate hikes stem mainly from wildfire liabilities, grid maintenance, and utility costs—not directly from clean energy mandates.

Policies like zero-emission building rules add upfront costs but can increase property values long-term, with programs aiding low-income households.

Climate impacts (e.g., hotter summers raising AC use, wildfires increasing insurance) add “hidden costs” to living expenses, worsening affordability for lower-income residents.