The recent Los Angeles wildfires are the most destructive in the region’s history. More than two dozen people have died, and tens of thousands have fled their homes. The damage extends beyond our species too: According to one survey, nearly half of evacuees from a disaster or emergency leave at least one pet behind. Wild animals die or flee their habitats during natural disasters as well, often with nowhere to go.

Fortunately, people are stepping up to help. Organizations are working tirelessly to rescue animals, and as local shelters reach capacity, some organizations are taking animals to nearby states; for example, the charities Best Friends Animal Society and Wings of Rescue relocated more than 80 cats and dogs from L.A. County to Utah.

The wildfires, and these responses, are a reminder that human and animal fates are linked, in part because of the effects of human activity. We might think that we should leave animals alone, but that ship has sailed — L.A., for instance, is home to countless animals and interacts with them all the time both directly, through animal control, and indirectly, through environmental management.

The effects that infrastructure can have on animals are particularly important and neglected. After all, our built environment shapes where animals can live and how they can behave, both during normal times and during emergencies including wildfires. We should ask: As we work to make our infrastructure more resilient and sustainable in the face of climate change, how can we make it safer for animals too?

I spent a year working with a team of experts to investigate how cities and other local actors can improve their infrastructure for humans, animals and the environment at the same time. This project culminated in a detailed policy report led by legal scholar Alisa White, which describes a number of low-cost, co-beneficial solutions that cities should consider and could achieve quickly. Here are some examples:

• More fundamentally, cities can establish an animal welfare office, as New York did in 2019. The city has also made progress in recent years on infrastructure (such as bird-friendly building policies), wildlife management (for example, non-lethal deer and geese management policies) and various other issues. Such progress illustrates that co-beneficial solutions for humans, animals and the environment are easier to find when policymakers create an official mechanism for considering animal welfare.

Of course, these proposals are only starting points. Every city has its own social, political, economic and ecological context and will need to adapt policies accordingly; for L.A. that will include a focus on both fires and floods to mitigate risks associated with its “hydroclimate whiplash.” We also still have a lot to learn about how to protect humans and animals at the same time. Even if we somehow made all the right decisions, many animals would still suffer and die from our extreme impacts on the environment.

Still, we should avoid letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We need to adapt to climate change now, and as we do, we should consider animals too. As we know from the wildfires, every life saved is a victory, but individual rescue is not enough. By building an animal-friendly infrastructure, we can embed compassion for animals into the basic structures of our shared society.

Jeff Sebo is an associate professor of environmental studies, director of the Center for Environmental and Animal Protection, and director of the Center for Mind, Ethics, and Policy at NYU. His latest books are “Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves” and the forthcoming “The Moral Circle.”