This post was originally published by Blue Tomorrow. Reprinted with permission.
It’s August here in western Washington State, which means two things: (1) I’ll soon be packing up for my return to New Orleans (class starts soon), and (2) the smoke blowing in from regional wildfires is making my nose burn.
Here in Washington, there are 16 uncontained wildfires burning more than 672 square miles and being fought by more than 7,000 fire personnel. The blazes are among 99 active large fires burning across the country. According to the National Interagency Fire Center, this year’s wildfire season exceeds the 10-year average for both the number of fires and the acres burned.
Appropriately, the news here is full of stories about personal loss, evacuation routes, fire-suppression strategies, and the brave firefighters who put their lives on the line to keep us safe.
But there’s a deeper story: Our broad approach to handling wildfire in the United States was designed for a climate that no longer exists. We must do better.
Here are four things worth knowing:
Yes, wildfire is inevitable, natural, and even biologically beneficial. Yes, there are many direct and indirect drivers, including flawed forestry, urban sprawl, a janky power grid, and bad weather.
But the backdrop has changed.
Our unraveling climate is making fire seasons longer and more intense. Warmer winters leave less snowpack, causing forests to dry out sooner. Summer heat waves desiccate vegetation. Some scientists believe climate change may increase the frequency of lightning, a common source of wildfire ignition.
Climate change doesn’t cause every wildfire. But it increases the odds of fire and the risk of catastrophic damage.
That matters because many of our policies (land use controls, building codes, forestry budgets, air pollution standards) are built around yesterday’s climate, not today’s.
Homeowner’s insurance typically spreads wildfire risk across large populations. That model collapses when catastrophic fires become more commonplace and more expensive.
Across the West, insurers have raised premiums, reduced coverage, or left some markets altogether. Nearly everyone I see who lives west of the Rockies complains to me about fire insurance. My sister in Nevada, my sons in California, my in-laws in Washington, the guy sitting next to me in a tiki bar last February in Hilo, Hawaiʻi.
State regulators are scrambling to balance affordable insurance with the financial realities facing insurers. Homeowners are chasing state-backed insurance plans, shifting more risk onto taxpayers. I get it. I live most of the year in flood-prone New Orleans, where my flood insurance is federally subsidized. (I’m not against insurance subsidies, per se, for either fire or flood — but that’s a longer conversation for the tiki bar.)
Insurance is the front line of climate policy, and we need to address it head-on.
Wildfire smoke can travel thousands of miles, exposing millions of people to unhealthy air. Outdoor workers — including farmworkers, construction crews, utility workers, dockworkers, and commercial fishers — often have little choice but to keep working.
Some states have adopted protections for workers exposed to extreme heat and wildfire smoke. Others haven’t. (In Texas and Florida, it’s actually illegal for cities to impose worker protections for extreme heat.)
Federal protections? Forget it.
You don’t see the connection until it starts raining. Burned hillsides send ash, sediment, nutrients, and pollutants into rivers that eventually reach estuaries and coastal waters. Salmon and shellfish habitat suffer. Reservoirs become harder and more expensive to manage.
Climate change is a stress test that shows flaws in our insurance markets, worker safety protections, and coastal management. Things worked better in the Former Times (not perfectly, but better). But those days aren’t coming back.
We need a new plan.
Showing 2,996 results
Robert Verchick | August 10, 2026
It’s August here in western Washington State, which means two things: (1) I’ll soon be packing up for my return to New Orleans (class starts soon), and (2) the smoke blowing in from regional wildfires is making my nose burn. Appropriately, the news here is full of stories about personal loss, evacuation routes, fire-suppression strategies, and the brave firefighters who put their lives on the line to keep us safe. But there’s a deeper story: Our broad approach to handling wildfire in the United States was designed for a climate that no longer exists. We must do better.
Terrill North | August 3, 2026
This is a hard moment for the work we care about. The rules that keep our air breathable, our water clean, our workplaces safe, and our government answerable to the people are under real pressure. Agencies are losing the authority to do their jobs. The idea that government should protect people when markets will not is being treated as if it were up for debate. And the communities that suffer most from pollution, unsafe work, and a warming climate are still the last ones invited into the rooms where the choices get made. I spent my childhood two blocks from a power plant grandfathered out of Clean Air Act protections in Texas and suffered from chronic bronchial infections while multiple family members and friends managed asthma. In law school, I learned to value the regulations and bureaucracy that could be made to protect people’s lives. So I am honored to join the Center’s work as executive director.
Robert Verchick | July 21, 2026
In this post and video, I discuss the 4th of July Clearwater incident in New York Harbor with Dan Farber, a law professor at UC-Berkeley, who specializes in constitutional and environmental law.
Brian Gumm, Bryan Dunning, Catalina Gonzalez, Federico Holm, James Goodwin, Rachel Mayo, Sophie Loeb, Tara Quinonez | July 3, 2026
As the United States reaches the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, we at the Center for Progressive Reform find ourselves reflecting on a history that is both extraordinary and in progress. We also recognize that this anniversary carries different meanings for different people. Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, puts it […]
Arvind Salem | July 2, 2026
On June 30, the House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) Subcommittee questioned Russell Vought, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Given the influential role that Vought has played in the Trump administration, both as a member and in shaping its policy agenda through Project 2025, the hearing provided a critical opportunity for conducting oversight.
Joseph Tomain, Sidney A. Shapiro | July 1, 2026
In Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held legislative limitations on the president’s power to fire administrators of independent agencies to be unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that because administrative power is “executive,” the Chief Executive must have the power to hire and fire the people appointed to head up all government agencies. Through this categorical approach to its “separation of powers” doctrine, the Court denied Congress a role in determining how best to implement the laws it passes, even though a) the Constitution is silent on whether Congress can impose restrictions on firing administrative officials, b) the legislature is a co-equal branch of government, and c) Congress is as or more accountable to the voters than the president.
Bryan Dunning | June 30, 2026
PJM, the regional transmission organization (RTO) responsible for grid operations in all or part of 13 Eastern U.S. states and Washington, DC, just asked the federal Department of Energy (DOE) to issue an emergency order under the Federal Power Act. In its request, PJM asked to allow for “large loads” (functionally, although not limited to, data centers located in the PJM footprint) to run emergency backup power generation between July 1 and July 2. This is in preparation for the extreme multi-day heatwave that is forecast for the eastern part of the country through the July 4 holiday weekend.
James Goodwin | June 29, 2026
With its June 29 decision in Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority takes another step toward building an imperial presidency on the ashes of the U.S. Constitution’s vision of a democratic republic. This clash over removal authority of independent agency heads was always meant as just the opening volley in this broader war. The end of the independent civil service, and even of administrative law itself, no longer seem improbable. The only real stopping point appears to be what the business community will tolerate, as today’s related decision in Trump v. Cook demonstrates.
Arvind Salem | June 23, 2026
Artificial intelligence (AI) is now used widely in the federal government. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, use cases of AI in the federal government doubled — and for generative AI, increased nine-fold — from 2023 to 2024. With this growing use of AI, the risk of systematic errors with potentially harmful consequences may increase.