The economic toll of the Los Angeles fires goes far beyond destroyed homes

After decades of mounting damage from climate-driven natural disasters, researchers have compiled numerous misery-filled datasets that trace the economic fallout over weeks, months and years.

The fires still burning in Los Angeles are certainly among the costliest in America — but there is no perfect equivalent, making it difficult to predict the final cost.

The main reason is that wildfires have typically ravaged more rural areas, consuming fewer structures and attacking smaller metropolitan areas. The Los Angeles fire is more like a storm that hits a major coastal city, like Houston or New Orleans, causing major disruption for millions of people and businesses.

“It looks a lot more like the humanitarian situation of a flood or a hurricane than the wildfire that people see in the hills,” said Amir Jina, an assistant professor at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of California. University of Chicago, which studied the situation. economic impact of climate change.

On the other hand, several mitigating factors could lead to lower costs and a stronger rebound compared to other locations. The film capital’s industrial wealth and diversity, along with other natural advantages linked to geography and climate, could allow Los Angeles to avoid the worst-case scenario.

Estimating probable economic losses is difficult at this stage. Weather data company AccuWeather proposed a figure of between $250 billion and $275 billion, although a Goldman Sachs report said that estimate was high. (Refusing to provide a breakdown because its methodology is “proprietary,” AccuWeather said it considered numerous factors, including long-term health impacts as well as short-term losses in the value of public companies exposed to disaster.)