logo
"We're Going to Have Something Worse": What Dr. Lucy Jones Says Will Make L.A. More Fire Resilient

"We're Going to Have Something Worse": What Dr. Lucy Jones Says Will Make L.A. More Fire Resilient

Yahoo01-04-2025
The city's seismologist turned climate disaster expert wants better building codes but isn't waiting around for them.
For decades, seismologist Lucy Jones was best known for coming on live TV after an earthquake to reassure a shaky Los Angeles—and remind Angelenos to prepare for the "big one." But in recent years, she's been broadening her area of expertise. In 2016, Jones founded the Dr. Lucy Jones Center for Science and Society, which works with governments and nonprofits on disaster resilience plans, and not just for earthquakes, she says. "I've been moving more into the climate space because what's coming from climate change is going to be worse than what earthquakes could do to us."
In January, one of the worst-case scenarios that Jones had been preparing for came to pass as the Palisades and Eaton Fires ripped through different corners of L.A. County. A Pasadena resident and longtime Caltech faculty member, Jones watched as at least 235 members of her scientific community lost their homes in the Eaton Fire, leading Caltech to sign a master lease of a newly built apartment building to house 80 families. Now, as L.A. moves from response to recovery, Jones remains a trusted resource for her own colleagues as well as local policymakers working to restructure a society that can more quickly bounce back after a disaster. It's a topic she explored in depth in her 2019 book, The Big Ones: How Disasters Have Shaped Us (and What We Can Do About Them).
On a rainy March morning, as debris flows coming out of burn areas triggered emergency alerts, I met Jones at her former workplace on the Caltech campus. A small exhibit in the entrance of the Seismology Laboratory provided haunting echoes of previous calamities the region had faced. "Food rushed to ruined cities" screams the front page of a 1933 issue of the Los Angeles Times after the Long Beach earthquake killed as many as 125 people. With the fire-scarred San Gabriel Mountains before us, Jones explains how we can better prepare for worsening climate disasters and why the best way to recover from them remains the same: by forming even stronger community ties.
Dr. Lucy Jones: I first really heard about climate change in 1992. I was put on something called the Board on Natural Disasters, which was part of the National Academy of Sciences, advising on research about disasters. So I was the seismologist, and an atmospheric scientist came and talked about climate issues. Even then, he said, the first sign is going to be an increase in extreme events. When you raise a degree centigrade, you don't notice it so much, but that degree is heat. Heat is energy. We've increased the amount of energy in the atmosphere, and that amount of energy to drive storms has gone up.
And that's really changed [Los Angeles]. We're starting to recognize the inevitability of wildfires, and our ecosystems are all experiencing a slightly different climate than they evolved for. The way ecosystems shift is, you have a big wildfire, it kills all the plants, and new plants come in. It is, in a sense, natural. But in California, as I learned while working with fire ecologists, we do not naturally have wildfires during the strong northeast Santa Ana winds. Natural wildfires start from lightning strikes, which happen at a different time of year. So we've really changed the nature of fires in Southern California by adding more human sources of ignition.
That said, I think people underestimate how much you can make your house stronger. I was talking to a structural engineer who works for the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, which is funded by insurance companies in Canada. He was saying that the 2008 building code in California, which we still use, is really good—that it's still way ahead of all the other states. And there's not a lot that they would recommend adding to it. He said one thing would be requiring a five-foot apron of noncombustible material around the house. After talking with him, my husband and I are actually pulling out some plants near our house and taking down a wooden fence.
"I think wildfires are going to be what gets us to finally act on climate change."
—Dr. Lucy Jones
I'm not in Altadena, but I was a mile from the evacuation zone. We have a gorgeous 1948 midcentury modern with these really big windows and molding underneath. The embers did come down here. There was another fire that started up by the Trader Joe's in San Gabriel, which is as close to us as the Eaton Fire was. The neighbor's tree came down on our house because of the winds. We were getting ready in case we got evacuated.
In 2009 we were the first block evacuated in the Station Fire, which is part of why we left La Cañada. That fire was not wind-driven; it was heat-driven. It was in August, and it was 110 degrees. Nobody lost their houses. The L.A. County Fire Department did an amazing job. They stopped it in our neighbor's backyard. We were out of the house for three days and when we finally got home, it smelled like an ashtray. And then there were debris flows. We were trapped one day where one had gone down the Angeles Crest Highway. It was so disruptive. We decided to move after our kids left for college. We thought about moving to Altadena, because everybody lives in Altadena, because you want to be by the mountains. We loved living by the mountains. But I couldn't do it. I didn't want to go through that again.
Immediately after a fire, everybody's thinking about it. The danger also fades really quickly. We recognize the need for fire departments—we don't always recognize the need for fire building codes. Disaster response has an emotional connection. Prevention doesn't, because it's abstract, in the future, and coming out of an analytical side of the brain. I saw one study that said we spend $8 on response for every dollar we spend on prevention and each dollar spent on prevention saves $6 for response. It would be way more cost-effective if we were willing to do the prevention.
It helps. What is going to get us to focus on the danger? If it's catastrophic, if it affects a lot of people or future generations, or if it's a particularly awful way to die. So earthquakes really check a lot of these boxes. With earthquakes, you have absolutely no notice, and you're being trapped in a downed building as a fire comes through. Floods kill as many people as earthquakes in the United States, but who's afraid of the rain? It's predicted. You can see it coming. You have an illusion of being more in control, and all of those things make it feel safer.
Fires are somewhere in between. There's a type of fire weather, so we know when they might come. But fires are now spreading so fast. These wind-driven ones like what happened in Santa Rosa, Lahaina, or here have a pattern of starting in wildlands and moving through an urban environment, because the winds have gotten so strong. These types of fires are going to become a lot more common, and it's changing our perception. People are more afraid of fires now than they were a decade ago, and there's more belief in the inevitability of climate change, because we've seen the evidence. I have been saying for a few years that I think wildfires are going to be what gets us to finally act on climate change.
Philosophically, Americans have a really hard time with this. We are very individualistic. We don't like the government telling us we can do with our property. The government steps in when something becomes a life safety issue, but the problem is that those mechanisms are 30 years old. We don't like to fund regulators. We have a lot of people who try to get around them, and this is what happens when you don't fund them well enough.
One thing about climate right now is there are not going to be federal initiatives for a while, and one could take that as a reason to despair. But, in fact, a lot of what has to happen has to happen locally, and we don't have to wait for the feds. A lot of the local action is around housing issues. Enforcement of building codes is still a local jurisdictional issue. There are a lot of local jurisdictions that do not have an engineer in their building departments, and the chief building official is a political appointment, a developer or someone who comes out of the construction industry. I want the building code department to be the strongest department.
Yes, I just didn't think it was going to be within the next year. The thing about climate change is that this is an exponential growth curve—when we think about how it's changing, we're underestimating how fast it's going to happen. How will we cope if the next fire that does this literally burns down to the 210 freeway and then the next one burns down to San Marino? How far into the city can it go? We're going to have something worse than this, and we're going to have a lot of bankrupted people because they won't be able to rebuild.
Southern California doesn't do community very well. We're famous for our freeway culture. But I've been really impressed at how communities have come together and how much people want to do—there was this huge outpouring. Now it's starting to fade. People are recognizing there needs to be more.
But that's the idea: you are surrounded by community hubs. It could be a faith- or church-based community, or other sorts of organizations where people come together for their neighborhood. That sort of community then connects you back to people, and makes you want to stay with it as you're trying to deal with all of this. And then it's easy to figure out who's helping who. A couple of years ago, I had been asked by the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles to help them develop a disaster preparedness program for churches as part of their climate response. On the night of the fires, I activated a disaster cohort from that program and stepped in and helped. I realized how much better I just felt that I'd done something.
One of the things that we like to say is that disasters don't break systems. Rather, they reveal what's already broken. I can imagine a future in which we do this, in which we survive here, and we figure out how to restructure into something more sustainable. I can also imagine a future in which we don't.
Top photo courtesy of Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images
Related Reading:
What We're Watching Burn
The Grassroots Race to Save Altadena's Historic Batchelder Tiles—Before the Bulldozers Move In
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

NASA rover spots rock shaped like medieval helmet on Mars
NASA rover spots rock shaped like medieval helmet on Mars

New York Post

timea day ago

  • New York Post

NASA rover spots rock shaped like medieval helmet on Mars

NASA's Perseverance rover stationed on Mars spotted a dome-shaped rock with a striking resemblance to a helmet used during medieval times. The martian rock, captured by Perseverance's primary camera on Aug. 5, is pointed at the top and dome-shaped on top of a flared brim. It has a rough, textured surface covered in small bumps. 3 NASA's Perseverance rover spotted a rock shaped like a medieval helmet on Mars. NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASU / SWNS Advertisement The image was selected as Perseverance's best photo during its 234th week on Mars, though scientists working on its team noted it's not the first time the rover has encountered that type of igneous rock. 'This rock's target name is Horneflya and it's distinctive less because of its hat shape (which looks to me to be generally consistent with the pyramid shape we often see in of wind-eroded float blocks on the surface of Mars) and more because it's made almost entirely of spherules,' David Agle, a spokesperson for the Perseverance team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, told 3 Perseverance launched in July 2020. NASA/JPL-Caltech/ASUS / SWNS Advertisement The rock's odd composition will help scientists further understand how Mars' environmental history, including its 'internal processes,' formed the unique landscape over billions of years, the outlet reported. Perseverance's primary mission, though, isn't to collect baubles. The rover was launched on July 30, 2020 to search for ancient microbial life on the Red Planet to aid scientists in studying its habitability. Its research will help scientists get closer to sending a person to Mars as NASA inches ever closer to its final goal in the Artemis program, which seeks to establish a permanent base on the Moon to oversee the first astronaut landing on the Red Planet. Advertisement SpaceX CEO and former Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk is also eyeing interests on Mars with loose plans to launch uncrewed trips as early as 2028. 3 There are currently five NASA rovers on Mars. ESA/MPS et al. / SWNS In the meantime, Perseverance has been working overtime. It was first sent to survey the Jezero Crater to probe Mars' 'wet history' — a trek it only just completed in December 2024 three years after landing. Advertisement 'Conceivably, microbial life could have lived in Jezero during one or more of these wet times. If so, signs of their remains might be found in lakebed or shoreline sediments,' NASA says on the home page for the mission. NASA currently has four other rovers on Mars. Sojourner, the oldest and most antiquated of the five, landed on Mars in July 1997, according to NASA. The second-eldest rover, Opportunity, was originally built to last just three months on Mars. Instead, it pressed on for a staggering 15 years before shutting down in 2019.

The next 'Big One' on the San Andreas fault might not be the earthquake we expect, researchers say
The next 'Big One' on the San Andreas fault might not be the earthquake we expect, researchers say

Yahoo

time4 days ago

  • Yahoo

The next 'Big One' on the San Andreas fault might not be the earthquake we expect, researchers say

What could the next mega-earthquake on California's notorious San Andreas fault look like? Would it be a repeat of 1857, when an earthquake estimated at magnitude 7.7 to 7.9 ruptured the fault from Monterey County all the way through Los Angeles County? Would it be more akin to the great 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which began just offshore of the city and ruptured in two directions, toward Humboldt County and Santa Cruz County? Don't bet on an identical sequel. That's the implication of a study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The report, coauthored by scientists at Caltech in Pasadena, studied a massive earthquake that ruptured in the southeast Asian country of Myanmar on March 28 — on a fault known for being eerily similar to the San Andreas. The earthquake ended up rupturing a much longer section of the fault than scientists expected, given the seismology of the region. The implications of this study are that "earthquakes never come back exactly the same way," Solene L. Antoine, a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech and the study's lead author, said in an interview. "It came as a surprise that you could get such a long rupture," said Jean-Philippe Avouac, a coauthor of the study and a professor of geology and mechanical and civil engineering at Caltech. March's Mandalay earthquake devastated Myanmar, killing at least 3,791 people and an additional 63 people in Thailand. High-rise buildings were damaged as far away as Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam and homes were damaged in the Ruili area of China. Damage was estimated at $1.9 billion, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It was the most powerful earthquake in Myanmar in at least 79 years. The magnitude 7.7 earthquake ruptured an astonishing 317 miles of the Sagaing fault, a finding based on Antoine's analysis of satellite data showing earth movement after the quake. That's the longest seismic rupture ever documented on a continent. By comparison, California's 1906 earthquake ruptured 296 miles of the San Andreas fault; and the 1857 earthquake, 225 miles. Longer seismic ruptures have been found only on subduction megathrusts deep underneath the ocean. What's clear from the study is that while California's next "Big One" may share some characteristics of previously documented devastating quakes, it's unlikely to be an exact replay. As the recent experience in Myanmar shows, even well-documented faults can behave in surprising ways. The next step is to develop a model simulating earthquakes over many millennia for the San Andreas fault, which the authors plan to do in the future. But the San Andreas fault "is far more complex," Avouac said. "It's not going to come soon, because it's quite a heavy calculation." Still, such simulations would provide a model of "all possible scenarios so that we have a better view of the range of possible ruptures that could happen." For instance, maybe the San Andreas fault will rupture in smaller, separate earthquakes, Avouac said. Or it could be a much larger earthquake — rupturing the fault not just from Monterey to Los Angeles counties, but perhaps all the way into San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties, which would possibly exceed magnitude 8. Such a quake would be the largest simultaneous disaster in modern California history, with huge swaths of the state wracked by powerful seismic shaking all at once. By comparison, the 1994 Northridge earthquake's footprint was relatively constrained, severely affecting only a portion of Los Angeles County, especially the San Fernando Valley — related to its relatively smaller magnitude of 6.7. But while modeling previous activity on the San Andreas fault will provide a glimpse into the wide range of possible outcomes, it will not pinpoint precisely when the next great quake will strike. "We can't just expect the exact same thing to happen," Antoine said. "It is a matter of just showing what scenarios are possible, the diversity of scenarios and seeing what are the consequences of each of those scenarios." Sometimes, Avouac said, "it's quiet for a long time, nothing happens ... stress is building up, the fault is locked for a long time, nothing happens, and then, boom, you have a large earthquake." "And then you have other periods during which you have a lot of [seismic] activity, but these earthquakes are all smaller," Avouac said. But "smaller" earthquakes, in the minds of researchers, are still big to the layperson. In the study's simulations, there are periods where earthquakes around magnitude 7.7 are common. In other periods, earthquakes max out at magnitude 7.5 or so, but are more frequent. The entire length of the Sagaing fault — including areas that didn't rupture in the March earthquake — is 750 miles, north to south, from the Himalayas to the Andaman Sea, and helps accommodate the northward push of the Indian tectonic plate. The fact that 317 miles of the Sagaing fault ruptured in March was surprising to scientists. Only about 170 miles had been quiet seismically for more than a century, having last ruptured in 1839. Scientists call these "seismic gaps" — particular areas of a fault that haven't recently ruptured. Generally, scientists would've expected only this long-dormant 170-mile piece of the Sagaing fault to rupture, Avouac said, but not more recently ruptured sections. That includes a 100-mile stretch that ruptured in large earthquakes in 1929 and 1930, and a 50-mile stretch that went off in a pair of quakes in 1946 and 1956. Instead, even those fault segments ruptured in the big March earthquake. So what gives? A possible explanation is the Sagaing fault's extraordinary smoothness. "And people have observed that when the fault is very smooth, the rupture ... tends to propagate at a velocity" so fast that it results in an "extremely elongated rupture," Avouac said. The study also published the results of a computer model simulation looking at how earthquakes might rupture along sections of the entire 750-mile long Sagaing fault. The code, developed by study coauthor Kyungjae Im of Caltech, suggests that over a hypothetical 1,400-year period, there would be no repeatable patterns. In other words, earthquakes didn't seem to re-occur like clockwork, rupturing the same stretch of fault in a repeatable, predictable pattern. "There is complexity here. And this is because each time you have an earthquake, it redistributes the stress on the fault, which is going to influence the next earthquake," Avouac said. "There's a self-induced complexity in the process, and that leads to a bit of randomness." There is one certainty, which is bound to disappoint anyone who shares the hope that a "Big One" simply won't ever strike California again. "There will be an earthquake at some point," Antoine said. "If there is stress building up on the fault, the fault won't hold forever." Further research and observations are essential to refine models of future possible earthquakes, including from the Sentinel satellites, which are operated by the European Space Agency, the authors said. The other coauthors of the study are Rajani Shrestha and Chris Milliner of Caltech; Chris Rollins of Earth Sciences New Zealand; Kang Wang of the Washington-based EarthScope Consortium; and Kejie Chen of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China. Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.

The next ‘Big One' on the San Andreas fault might not be the earthquake we expect, researchers say
The next ‘Big One' on the San Andreas fault might not be the earthquake we expect, researchers say

Los Angeles Times

time4 days ago

  • Los Angeles Times

The next ‘Big One' on the San Andreas fault might not be the earthquake we expect, researchers say

What could the next mega-earthquake on California's notorious San Andreas fault look like? Would it be a repeat of 1857, when an earthquake estimated at magnitude 7.7 to 7.9 ruptured the fault from Monterey County all the way through Los Angeles County? Would it be more akin to the great 1906 San Francisco earthquake, which began just offshore of the city and ruptured in two directions, toward Humboldt County and Santa Cruz County? Don't bet on an identical sequel. That's the implication of a study published Monday in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The report, coauthored by scientists at Caltech in Pasadena, studied a massive earthquake that ruptured in the southeast Asian country of Myanmar on March 28 — on a fault known for being eerily similar to the San Andreas. The earthquake ended up rupturing a much longer section of the fault than scientists expected, given the seismology of the region. The implications of this study are that 'earthquakes never come back exactly the same way,' Solene L. Antoine, a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech and the study's lead author, said in an interview. 'It came as a surprise that you could get such a long rupture,' said Jean-Philippe Avouac, a coauthor of the study and a professor of geology and mechanical and civil engineering at Caltech. March's Mandalay earthquake devastated Myanmar, killing at least 3,791 people and an additional 63 people in Thailand. High-rise buildings were damaged as far away as Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam and homes were damaged in the Ruili area of China. Damage was estimated at $1.9 billion, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. It was the most powerful earthquake in Myanmar in at least 79 years. The magnitude 7.7 earthquake ruptured an astonishing 317 miles of the Sagaing fault, a finding based on Antoine's analysis of satellite data showing earth movement after the quake. That's the longest seismic rupture ever documented on a continent. By comparison, California's 1906 earthquake ruptured 296 miles of the San Andreas fault; and the 1857 earthquake, 225 miles. Longer seismic ruptures have been found only on subduction megathrusts deep underneath the ocean. What's clear from the study is that while California's next 'Big One' may share some characteristics of previously documented devastating quakes, it's unlikely to be an exact replay. As the recent experience in Myanmar shows, even well-documented faults can behave in surprising ways. The next step is to develop a model simulating earthquakes over many millennia for the San Andreas fault, which the authors plan to do in the future. But the San Andreas fault 'is far more complex,' Avouac said. 'It's not going to come soon, because it's quite a heavy calculation.' Still, such simulations would provide a model of 'all possible scenarios so that we have a better view of the range of possible ruptures that could happen.' For instance, maybe the San Andreas fault will rupture in smaller, separate earthquakes, Avouac said. Or it could be a much larger earthquake — rupturing the fault not just from Monterey to Los Angeles counties, but perhaps all the way into San Bernardino, Riverside and Imperial counties, which would possibly exceed magnitude 8. Such a quake would be the largest simultaneous disaster in modern California history, with huge swaths of the state wracked by powerful seismic shaking all at once. By comparison, the 1994 Northridge earthquake's footprint was relatively constrained, severely affecting only a portion of Los Angeles County, especially the San Fernando Valley — related to its relatively smaller magnitude of 6.7. But while modeling previous activity on the San Andreas fault will provide a glimpse into the wide range of possible outcomes, it will not pinpoint precisely when the next great quake will strike. 'We can't just expect the exact same thing to happen,' Antoine said. 'It is a matter of just showing what scenarios are possible, the diversity of scenarios and seeing what are the consequences of each of those scenarios.' Sometimes, Avouac said, 'it's quiet for a long time, nothing happens ... stress is building up, the fault is locked for a long time, nothing happens, and then, boom, you have a large earthquake.' 'And then you have other periods during which you have a lot of [seismic] activity, but these earthquakes are all smaller,' Avouac said. But 'smaller' earthquakes, in the minds of researchers, are still big to the layperson. In the study's simulations, there are periods where earthquakes around magnitude 7.7 are common. In other periods, earthquakes max out at magnitude 7.5 or so, but are more frequent. The entire length of the Sagaing fault — including areas that didn't rupture in the March earthquake — is 750 miles, north to south, from the Himalayas to the Andaman Sea, and helps accommodate the northward push of the Indian tectonic plate. The fact that 317 miles of the Sagaing fault ruptured in March was surprising to scientists. Only about 170 miles had been quiet seismically for more than a century, having last ruptured in 1839. Scientists call these 'seismic gaps' — particular areas of a fault that haven't recently ruptured. Generally, scientists would've expected only this long-dormant 170-mile piece of the Sagaing fault to rupture, Avouac said, but not more recently ruptured sections. That includes a 100-mile stretch that ruptured in large earthquakes in 1929 and 1930, and a 50-mile stretch that went off in a pair of quakes in 1946 and 1956. Instead, even those fault segments ruptured in the big March earthquake. So what gives? A possible explanation is the Sagaing fault's extraordinary smoothness. 'And people have observed that when the fault is very smooth, the rupture ... tends to propagate at a velocity' so fast that it results in an 'extremely elongated rupture,' Avouac said. The study also published the results of a computer model simulation looking at how earthquakes might rupture along sections of the entire 750-mile long Sagaing fault. The code, developed by study coauthor Kyungjae Im of Caltech, suggests that over a hypothetical 1,400-year period, there would be no repeatable patterns. In other words, earthquakes didn't seem to re-occur like clockwork, rupturing the same stretch of fault in a repeatable, predictable pattern. 'There is complexity here. And this is because each time you have an earthquake, it redistributes the stress on the fault, which is going to influence the next earthquake,' Avouac said. 'There's a self-induced complexity in the process, and that leads to a bit of randomness.' There is one certainty, which is bound to disappoint anyone who shares the hope that a 'Big One' simply won't ever strike California again. 'There will be an earthquake at some point,' Antoine said. 'If there is stress building up on the fault, the fault won't hold forever.' Further research and observations are essential to refine models of future possible earthquakes, including from the Sentinel satellites, which are operated by the European Space Agency, the authors said. The other coauthors of the study are Rajani Shrestha and Chris Milliner of Caltech; Chris Rollins of Earth Sciences New Zealand; Kang Wang of the Washington-based EarthScope Consortium; and Kejie Chen of the Southern University of Science and Technology in Shenzhen, China.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store