-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
President Trump argued last month that Canada should pay damages — or face additional tariffs — for the wildfire smoke recently “poisoning” American air, and claimed that he strong-armed Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney during the World Cup final in New Jersey, telling Carney he needed to stop the fires.
To Trump and the Michigan members of Congress who recently declared in a letter that their “patience has run out” with Canada over the wildfire smoke: I get where you’re coming from. As a Canadian, I’d love nothing more than to stop the haze drifting over the border. The air is thick, the sunsets are unsettling and your constituents — just like ours — are coughing through summers that are no longer what they used to be.
But here’s the thing: Demanding compensation while gutting climate policy is asking Canada to put out the fires while Washington keeps adding more fuel.
The smoke blanketing part of the U.S. isn’t just a forest management problem. It’s a climate problem. Canada’s 2023 wildfire season was the worst in our history, with more than 45 million acres burned — an area considerably larger than Michigan. And by July 17 of this year, another 5.9 million acres of land was lost to fire.
Yet Washington continues to dismantle previous efforts by the U.S. government to tackle climate change. Trump and his team are greatly accelerating fossil fuel development while dismantling many of the policies designed to limit its effects. They have rolled back clean energy initiatives, weakened environmental review and loosened critical methane regulations. The administration is even paying companies to dismantle massive wind turbine projects that would have delivered clean energy to millions, all in the name of a Luddite ideology that makes life on our planet less tenable.
The result will be high greenhouse gas emissions, a faster-warming climate and more summers filled with wildfire smoke blanketing the skies.
The changes under Trump are not minor technical tweaks. They are political choices that will increase emissions and lock in new fossil fuel infrastructure, making the conditions that drive today’s severe wildfire seasons that much worse. If you think the smoke is bad now, just wait until those projects start operating at full capacity.
Trump is now threatening Canada with tariffs and demanding damages for pollution while his administration expands the industry principally responsible for heating the planet. The members of Congress who wrote the letter to Canada voted for policies that are making the smoke problem worse. The audacity is stunning.
The letter points to shortcomings in Canada’s forest management, and argues that Canada has underinvested in thinning forests, fuel reduction, prescribed burns and enforcement against arson. Canada should certainly do more to prevent and fight wildfires. More than 5,300 firefighters were battling the fires, and Canada should commit additional funding to preventing these blazes before they start, while strengthening preparedness and emergency response.
But forest management alone cannot address the hotter, drier conditions that are making fires more intense and more difficult to control — that requires confronting the underlying crisis. As emissions rise, Canada’s forests are following the same trajectory as in California: a warming climate is leaving them hotter, drier and primed to burn. The atmosphere does not recognize borders, and certainly doesn’t care about presidential threats. It makes little difference whether the pollution comes from Texas, Pennsylvania or Alberta. It contributes to the same warming that dries forests and intensifies fires across the continent.
Wildfires are also one of North America’s fastest-growing public health threats. The smoke now choking the air contains PM2.5 particles — tiny pollutants that can penetrate deep into the lungs and bloodstream, raising the risk of asthma and serious cardiovascular disease, while contributing to premature death. In 2023, more than 120 million Americans were exposed to wildfire smoke for prolonged periods, including communities across Michigan.
Children, seniors and people with preexisting health conditions are especially vulnerable, particularly in rural areas where hospital closures and underfunded clinics leave too many people without adequate care.
An angry letter won’t protect those communities. Neither will a tariff or a demand that Canada write a check. You need policies that cut emissions through a shift to cleaner energy while helping communities adapt to what’s now an annual crisis.
The smoke drifting south may come from Canadian forests — but the political winds making it worse are also coming from Washington. Unless the United States changes course, next summer will probably look just like this one. Or worse.
To the people of Michigan and the rest of the United States: If you’re tired of breathing wildfire smoke every summer while lawmakers blame Canada instead of tackling climate change, speak up. Demand an end to new fossil fuel projects.
Unless we dramatically reduce emissions, the smoke will keep coming — every summer, every year. And no tariff will stop it.
Felix Horne is a senior expert with Climate Rights International based in Ottawa.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The article argues that blaming Canada and demanding tariffs or financial compensation for wildfire smoke is misguided, noting that recent threats by President Trump to add “pollution costs” to tariffs on Canadian goods ignore the shared, cross-border nature of the crisis.[2][18] In this telling, political theater—letters of outrage and tariff threats—does little to protect residents breathing hazardous air.
Building on scientific evidence, the piece contends that worsening wildfires are fundamentally a climate problem, not just a forest management failure, pointing to research showing that human‑driven warming is creating hotter, drier conditions that lengthen fire seasons and increase burned area across North America.[1][3][11][15] The article suggests that Canada’s recent record‑breaking fire seasons mirror trends in the western United States, where climate change accounts for roughly half of the increase in fire‑vulnerable areas since the 1980s.[3][6][7]
The article criticizes the Trump administration for rolling back climate and clean‑energy policies while expanding fossil fuel production, arguing that these choices lock in higher greenhouse gas emissions and more severe future wildfire seasons.[7][13] It further suggests that dismantling wind projects and weakening methane regulations, as documented by climate and policy advocates, directly contradicts calls for Canada to curb emissions and fires.[7][13]
At the same time, the piece acknowledges that Canada should improve wildfire prevention and response, including investing in thinning, fuel reduction, prescribed burns and emergency preparedness, but insists that such measures cannot fully counteract the underlying climate trends driving extreme fire behavior.[1][10][16][19] The article emphasizes that forest management must be paired with rapid emissions cuts to meaningfully reduce future smoke‑filled summers.[1][7][16]
The article highlights wildfire smoke as a growing public‑health emergency, noting that fine particulate pollution (PM2.5) from fires is now responsible for a large share of Americans’ exposure to harmful air and is linked to increased respiratory and cardiovascular risks.[7][16][20] It stresses that children, older adults and people with preexisting conditions—especially in rural areas with limited healthcare—face disproportionate harm from repeated smoke events.[6][7][16]
The piece underscores that the atmosphere does not recognize national borders, pointing to episodes in which Canadian communities have also issued air‑quality alerts because smoke from U.S. wildfires drifted north, reinforcing the idea that both countries are simultaneously victims and contributors to fire‑driven pollution.[5][6] It argues that focusing on where the smoke originates, rather than on shared responsibility for climate action, obscures the continental scale of the problem.
Finally, the article urges U.S. residents to demand an end to new fossil fuel projects and push for policies that slash emissions and build resilience, echoing research that identifies rapid greenhouse gas reductions and large‑scale clean‑energy deployment as the most important steps to curb future wildfire risk and smoke exposure.[1][3][7][16] In the article’s view, without such changes, summers filled with wildfire haze will become a persistent feature of life in both countries.[4][6][11]
Different views on the topic
In contrast, President Trump and some Republican lawmakers have publicly framed the issue primarily as a failure of Canadian forest management, accusing Ottawa of “willful negligence” and insisting that Canada should be held financially responsible for smoke that drifts into U.S. cities.[2][9][12][18] These statements portray tariffs and demands for compensation as appropriate tools to force Canada to “do something” about its fires and to recoup what Trump describes as billions of dollars in damage to American communities.[2][18][21]
Related commentary from Trump and allied politicians stresses national responsibility and border control, suggesting that Canada has not properly maintained its forests and brush and that the United States is being “invaded” by “filthy” and “unhealthy” air.[8][12][18] This perspective centers on cross‑border accountability rather than shared climate drivers, arguing that Canada must invest more aggressively in thinning, fuel reduction and enforcement to prevent smoke from entering U.S. territory.[2][9][17]
Some policy voices and analysts, while acknowledging climate change, place stronger emphasis on land management and development patterns as primary levers, highlighting the accumulation of fuels in forests, decades of fire suppression, and the expansion of homes into high‑risk wildland‑urban interface areas as key reasons wildfires have become more destructive.[16][19] From this vantage point, strategies such as prescribed burns, mechanical thinning and land‑use planning are prioritized over sweeping fossil‑fuel phaseouts as the most practical near‑term solutions.[10][16][19]
There are also viewpoints that caution against attributing worsening wildfires mainly to climate policy failures, noting that natural climate variability, lightning ignitions and human activities such as arson or accidental starts play substantial roles, and arguing that the evidence on climate change’s influence should be interpreted with care.[19][14] These analyses tend to call for a balanced approach that includes adaptation, improved fire science and targeted management, rather than framing federal fossil‑fuel expansion as the central cause of recent smoke emergencies.[16][19]
Additionally, some stakeholders focus on immediate air‑quality and economic concerns rather than systemic emissions cuts, supporting measures like air‑quality alerts, filtration systems and targeted disaster spending while warning that aggressive climate regulations could impose significant costs on industry and consumers.[10][16] In this view, tariffs and trade pressure on Canada are defended as a way to offset economic losses from smoke‑related disruptions without fundamentally reshaping U.S. energy policy.[2][9][18]
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Senator Allen has put his money on fire mitigation and bringing stakeholders together in communities up and down the state to reduce their risk and stay insured. In this episode, Host Kate Cagle speaks with Allen about his plans.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
Modern LA earned its first smoggy nickname 450 years ago, as the “bay of smokes.” At the La Brea tar pits, we take a short walk through a long history with curator Regan Dunn, who explains how and why the first Angelenos would have set fires that filled the broad bowl of LA and foretold the curse of smog.
