While Los Angeles residents sweat through record heatwaves and breathe in toxic wildfire smoke, city leaders have made a decision that could make the crisis worse. The proposed 2025–2026 city budget shifts public resources away from community-driven climate solutions and instead boosts spending on law enforcement, surveillance infrastructure, and Olympic preparations. This pivot abandons the city’s most vulnerable residents and places Los Angeles on the wrong side of the fight against climate chaos.
The budget cuts funding to programs designed to protect neighborhoods from extreme heat, reduce air pollution, and expand access to clean energy. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Police Department is set to receive more than $3.2 billion. That includes funding for 400 new officers, more surveillance technology, and increased patrol capacity.
This is not just a matter of priorities. It is a public safety issue in its truest form. But the danger is not crime. The danger is heatstroke, asthma, forced displacement, and energy blackouts.
Climate chaos is not theoretical in Southern California. According to the National Weather Service, the city experienced record-breaking temperatures in the summer of 2023, with downtown LA reaching 110 degrees Fahrenheit in August. The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) reports that heat-related deaths in the state have nearly doubled over the past decade, disproportionately affecting Black, Latino, and low-income communities.
This year is already off to a devastating start. Wildfire season began in February and forced more than 10,000 evacuations. Smoke triggered air quality alerts all over Southern California.
At the same time, electricity rates continue to rise. Customers of investor-owned utilities like Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric are paying as much as 39 cents per kilowatt-hour. Many working-class households are forced to choose between running an air conditioner and paying for groceries.
Instead of expanding programs that help people stay safe and lower their bills, the city is rolling them back.
The proposed budget cuts funding to the Climate Emergency Mobilization Office (CEMO), an initiative formed in 2019 to bring the voices of frontline communities into LA’s climate policy. CEMO played a key role in community engagement efforts and helped shape proposals for urban cooling, clean energy access, and environmental justice.
Other programs on the chopping block include neighborhood-based cooling initiatives, solar panel incentives for renters, and green job training programs. Many of these efforts were targeted specifically at communities hit hardest by air pollution and energy burden.
The Office of Climate Emergency, created to coordinate climate action across departments, is also being quietly phased out. In its place, the city continues to fund large-scale infrastructure that favors centralized, utility-controlled projects. Some of these are disguised as green progress, but they are often false solutions.
Among the most heavily funded climate initiatives in the city is a plan by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) to repower the Scattergood Generating Station with a blend of natural gas and hydrogen. LADWP claims this project is part of its path to 100 percent clean energy.
However, a growing body of evidence suggests this is a false solution. Burning hydrogen mixed with natural gas still emits nitrogen oxides (NOx), which are linked to respiratory illness. Hydrogen combustion can produce more NOx than methane alone under certain conditions.
A recent report by Physicians for Social Responsibility warns that “hydrogen blending may actually increase health risks for communities living near power plants or pipelines.” The report goes on to say that LADWP’s hydrogen plans could entrench fossil fuel infrastructure and delay the adoption of better solutions like battery storage, rooftop solar, and virtual power plants.
The budget is also heavily shaped by the 2028 Summer Olympics. The games have been classified as a National Special Security Event, triggering federal coordination with local police and homeland security agencies. This classification has given political cover for expanding LAPD budgets and surveillance infrastructure.
At the same time, residents in Boyle Heights, South LA, and East Hollywood are already reporting rising rents, evictions, and neighborhood sweeps. These areas are seeing public investment not in climate resilience, but in image-focused urban redesign and security upgrades.
The Olympics have historically brought displacement and environmental degradation. A report from the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University found that during the 1984 Games, many unhoused residents were forcibly removed from downtown under the pretext of public safety. Today, similar patterns are reemerging under the banner of “readiness.”
City leaders have described the budget as a tough but necessary rebalancing after pandemic-era spending. But this framing ignores the deeper issue. Los Angeles is choosing to fund police expansion and Olympic preparation instead of addressing the urgent threat of climate collapse.
According to a 2024 analysis by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), LA’s tree canopy has been shrinking in low-income areas, while heat vulnerability is increasing. Yet the city continues to underfund street tree planting and maintenance.
Meanwhile, calls to expand community resilience hubs, which provide cooling, clean air, and solar-powered backup during emergencies, have gone unanswered. These hubs are among the most effective local strategies to protect public health during heat waves, yet they are not prioritized.
There is no shortage of proven strategies that could help Los Angeles adapt to climate chaos while reducing emissions and building equity.
Cities like Oakland and Minneapolis have implemented community solar programs that allow renters and low-income households to benefit from clean energy without needing to own a roof. New York City has invested in block-level microgrids that keep power flowing during storms and heatwaves. Portland has prioritized green infrastructure like bioswales and urban forests to cool neighborhoods and prevent flooding.
Los Angeles could do the same. It could fund community-based solar and storage projects, expand incentives for renters, and create thousands of green jobs retrofitting buildings and maintaining urban forests. These are great solutions that reduce risk, improve health, and empower communities.
Instead, the city is locking itself into centralized, top-down infrastructure that keeps decision-making in the hands of utilities and developers.
Budgets are moral documents. They reflect what a city values and whom it chooses to protect. Los Angeles is not just missing the mark. It is actively moving in the wrong direction.
Public hearings are underway. Residents can demand accountability by contacting their City Council representatives, showing up to hearings.
This is not about slogans. It is about survival.
Climate chaos is already here. The question is whether Los Angeles will face it with justice and courage or with denial and delay.
The city has a choice. It can invest in false solutions that benefit a few and leave the rest behind. Or it can embrace better solutions that prepare us all for the future we are already living in.