The perverse policies that fuel wildfires(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
The perverse policies that fuel wildfires
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/02/05/the-perverse-policies-that-fuel-wildfires
170 comments
> but the number one reason is build up of vegetation on the forest floor that contributes to a ladder effect moving the fire from a ground fire to a canopy fire.
So to go off on a bit of a tangent, in a fantasy book from 1998* there was a fire mage who had been preventing wildfires for decades. When green mage (plants/trees/etc) finds out about this she chews him out about the dangerous conditions he's creating by not letting the buildup on the ground burn away. By the end of the book the wildfires have reached the forest and the fire mage dies trying to stop the resulting firestorm.
Now yes it's fantasy but the way ambient magic works in this series plus the way the whole situation was presented I just kinda figured this risk was well-enough known, so it's been weird to me over the past decade or so how it keeps coming up.
* Circle of Magic #3, Daja's Book
So to go off on a bit of a tangent, in a fantasy book from 1998* there was a fire mage who had been preventing wildfires for decades. When green mage (plants/trees/etc) finds out about this she chews him out about the dangerous conditions he's creating by not letting the buildup on the ground burn away. By the end of the book the wildfires have reached the forest and the fire mage dies trying to stop the resulting firestorm.
Now yes it's fantasy but the way ambient magic works in this series plus the way the whole situation was presented I just kinda figured this risk was well-enough known, so it's been weird to me over the past decade or so how it keeps coming up.
* Circle of Magic #3, Daja's Book
> Now yes it's fantasy but the way ambient magic works in this series plus the way the whole situation was presented I just kinda figured this risk was well-enough known, so it's been weird to me over the past decade or so how it keeps coming up.
It's been a well known risk for at least a century. Aldo Leopold began popularizing the idea of using prescribed burns to manage forests in the 1920s and by mid-20th century it was officially part of US Forest Service management practices. The problem has always been the people who live in and around fire prone areas. They've used public pressure, bureaucracy, and litigation to prevent State and Federal agencies from properly managing the forests since the post-war boom.
In California, for example, permits are managed by 35 different "Air Districts" created in 1947 each with their own local leadership that are easily lobbied. Residents can trivially grind any project to a halt because controlled burns are practically impossible, given California's pollution standards, without these permits and exceptions from the state Air Resources Board.
It's coming up now because the situation is so dire we need a concerted effort to sway public opinion towards the realistic solution. Now that insurance companies are giving up on these fire prone markets, the residents have no choice but to get with the program.
It's been a well known risk for at least a century. Aldo Leopold began popularizing the idea of using prescribed burns to manage forests in the 1920s and by mid-20th century it was officially part of US Forest Service management practices. The problem has always been the people who live in and around fire prone areas. They've used public pressure, bureaucracy, and litigation to prevent State and Federal agencies from properly managing the forests since the post-war boom.
In California, for example, permits are managed by 35 different "Air Districts" created in 1947 each with their own local leadership that are easily lobbied. Residents can trivially grind any project to a halt because controlled burns are practically impossible, given California's pollution standards, without these permits and exceptions from the state Air Resources Board.
It's coming up now because the situation is so dire we need a concerted effort to sway public opinion towards the realistic solution. Now that insurance companies are giving up on these fire prone markets, the residents have no choice but to get with the program.
>Residents can trivially grind any project to a halt because controlled burns are practically impossible, given California's pollution standards, without these permits and exceptions from the state Air Resources Board.
Do they realize how much pollution is produced in the California's uncontrolled forest fires? Laws should not be that stupid.
Do they realize how much pollution is produced in the California's uncontrolled forest fires? Laws should not be that stupid.
>It's been a well known risk for at least a century. Aldo Leopold began popularizing the idea of using prescribed burns to manage forests in the 1920s and by mid-20th century it was officially part of US Forest Service management practices.
Actually, the Native Americans historically started the practice.
Actually, the Native Americans historically started the practice.
That's why I said "at least." Those practices inspired Aldo Leopold (among others) but he was the one to do most of the work to convince US government agencies of their merit.
Is there a way to build permanent housing in parts of California that are prone to fires even with controlled burns? Even controlled fires pose a risk to habitation; if you were a semi-nomadic tribe (like the former residents before Americans brought western "Reason" and domestication to the west coast), you could move everyone out of the area to be burned, and then come back X many months/years later when wildlife and vegetation returned.
If, on the other hand, the area to be burned has "invested capital" and houses and land on it--essentially, private property, which has this strange quality of fixity even in the face of something as destructive as the earth (which never fails to dissolve it), how would you guarantee, without incredibly high insurance premiums, that people's houses wouldn't burn down.
And even if people are willing to pay the premiums, they would do so knowing that the government might decide, almost randomly (to them), to burn a chunk of forest right next to their house. They'd get fair warning, sure, but who wants to own a house that might burn down in 10 years because the state decides that its too much of a risk to have that patch of land burn naturally?
If, on the other hand, the area to be burned has "invested capital" and houses and land on it--essentially, private property, which has this strange quality of fixity even in the face of something as destructive as the earth (which never fails to dissolve it), how would you guarantee, without incredibly high insurance premiums, that people's houses wouldn't burn down.
And even if people are willing to pay the premiums, they would do so knowing that the government might decide, almost randomly (to them), to burn a chunk of forest right next to their house. They'd get fair warning, sure, but who wants to own a house that might burn down in 10 years because the state decides that its too much of a risk to have that patch of land burn naturally?
I live in a wooded area in Washington state, and I'm not too worried about my buildings, because I have a relatively huge clearing around my house and garage. And I don't live in my outbuilding that's kind of too close to the forest. But I'd still need to evacuate, somehow, if there were a forest fire. The smoke would be dangerous, I imagine utility power would be lost, and my generator is actually a couple trees into the woods.
Insurance companies could presumably do inspections of clearings and cancel or charge more if you don't have sufficient clearing, but municipalities aren't going to like the tree cutting that results.
Insurance companies could presumably do inspections of clearings and cancel or charge more if you don't have sufficient clearing, but municipalities aren't going to like the tree cutting that results.
What's hard to appreciate about wildfire is just how horrific conditions can be.
Yes, defensible space helps, but temperatures can exceed 1,000 to 2,000 F / 500 -- 1,000 C. Sustained exposure to that can damage all kinds of materials, let alone be difficult to survive. Even at considerable distance the radiant heat of even a smaller wildfire is quite palpable, something I've had personal experience of.
The fire will also reduce or remove available oxygen, there can be tornadic-ferocity winds (and what the winds blow), embers, and all manner of other threats.
Smoke is only one of your worries.
Yes, defensible space helps, but temperatures can exceed 1,000 to 2,000 F / 500 -- 1,000 C. Sustained exposure to that can damage all kinds of materials, let alone be difficult to survive. Even at considerable distance the radiant heat of even a smaller wildfire is quite palpable, something I've had personal experience of.
The fire will also reduce or remove available oxygen, there can be tornadic-ferocity winds (and what the winds blow), embers, and all manner of other threats.
Smoke is only one of your worries.
> Is there a way to build permanent housing in parts of California that are prone to fires even with controlled burns?
Absolutely. A good starting point is to look to Australia's regulations for construction materials, methods, water storage and setback/firebreak requirements, etc. for fire safety in bushfire prone areas.
While it may be picturesque to have your house or cabin nestled in amongst the forest, your fire survivability is Zero.
Absolutely. A good starting point is to look to Australia's regulations for construction materials, methods, water storage and setback/firebreak requirements, etc. for fire safety in bushfire prone areas.
While it may be picturesque to have your house or cabin nestled in amongst the forest, your fire survivability is Zero.
Even so, we lose plenty of houses because people want to live ‘out in the bush’ but don’t want to do all of these things.
The fact that people can go build a house in the middle of bush that's renowned, sometimes even evolved for, for fire, strikes me as nuts.
Especially when volunteer firefighters then have to risk their lives to save people with the lovely view. (Ditto California...)
Especially when volunteer firefighters then have to risk their lives to save people with the lovely view. (Ditto California...)
this happened with some East Coast settlers moving to California after 1870 or so.. many areas known for fire now were the sites of fine home building with expensive techniques and materials, plus the lower quality homes or whatever. English speaking people apparently did not get the memo?
I don’t know anyone working on wildfires in the United States for free. Not saying there is no risk, but they are paid and understand the risks. Some nice neighbors have their own contract fire crews, which are not cheap.
I know folks that are volunteer wildfire firefighters in Colorado and in California they were enlisting prisoners and paying them very low wages.
In Australia, "most" rural firefighters are volunteers, but have equipment and training providing by their local Government run rural fireservice (that has fulltime paid administrators).
The population density between Australia and the US is radically different though which changes the dynamic (deserts and marginal land exist in both, but Australia is particularly water challenged with no high mountains, so no major rivers).
The population density between Australia and the US is radically different though which changes the dynamic (deserts and marginal land exist in both, but Australia is particularly water challenged with no high mountains, so no major rivers).
Fun fact, NZ and Australian volunteer rural fire-fighters often fly in to help out with bad fire seasons in California. It's good practice.
Build it out of concrete blocks with a metal roof. The contents are almost certainly flammable, but the structure isn’t.
Concrete tends to get weakened by fire. So even if the concrete doesn't burn, the home may need to be rebuilt because the concrete has been dangerously weakened by the fire. Stone and brick can also be damaged by fire. They are more resistant to fire but in a really hot fire, they may not be resistant enough.
Does it really make a difference if after the fire the burnt-out structure is still standing with the dead owners in it?
Metal shutters, and the owners would be fine.
Sprinklers on the roof work pretty well too.
Sprinklers on the roof work pretty well too.
I'm not sure the conditions in the middle of a wildfire are conducive to continued breathing.
Assuming the windows are closed and any outside ventilation is turned off, there would be zero issues inside the house for the length of time required.
That said, sitting around in an active wildfire is a bad idea compared to not being there.
The biggest issue is usually fuel close to the structure (bushes or trees right next to the house), or openings in the structure like eaves. Rooftop sprinklers work decently well for wooden roofs, but it's more complicated than just installing them due to potential water pressure issues. Metal roofs shouldn't need them.
All it takes is a small hole in the armor though sometimes, and without someone there to watch it and fight it, it takes a big change in building styles to be 100% sure. Like cement structure + metal framing & roofing + minimal combustible furniture, etc.
The biggest issue IMO is that western style (really central european/north western european) construction tends to focus on greenery, windows, wood and natural materials, etc.
Spanish-Colonial style construction is better suited to these kinds of conditions, with some modifications (avoiding exposed beams, and dealing with earthquakes both major necessary changes).
[https://firesafemarin.org/articles/should-i-put-a-sprinkler-...]
That said, sitting around in an active wildfire is a bad idea compared to not being there.
The biggest issue is usually fuel close to the structure (bushes or trees right next to the house), or openings in the structure like eaves. Rooftop sprinklers work decently well for wooden roofs, but it's more complicated than just installing them due to potential water pressure issues. Metal roofs shouldn't need them.
All it takes is a small hole in the armor though sometimes, and without someone there to watch it and fight it, it takes a big change in building styles to be 100% sure. Like cement structure + metal framing & roofing + minimal combustible furniture, etc.
The biggest issue IMO is that western style (really central european/north western european) construction tends to focus on greenery, windows, wood and natural materials, etc.
Spanish-Colonial style construction is better suited to these kinds of conditions, with some modifications (avoiding exposed beams, and dealing with earthquakes both major necessary changes).
[https://firesafemarin.org/articles/should-i-put-a-sprinkler-...]
Houses are not airtight, even the absolute best, newest ones. The average house has a lot of air exchange with the outside world. It would not take long to be quite dead in the middle of a wildfire.
Wildfires tend to move fast. Active fire in the vicinity of a home for even an hour is very unusual.
As long as fuel is kept a decent distance and the house is closed up (and doesn't catch on fire), you'd be fine. SCBA would make sure you didn't get any red eyes from the little smoke that would get in.
If you have bushes and trees right up against the structure (or are in a tinder dry forest in a fully involved canopy fire), then you're having a different kind of party of course.
As long as fuel is kept a decent distance and the house is closed up (and doesn't catch on fire), you'd be fine. SCBA would make sure you didn't get any red eyes from the little smoke that would get in.
If you have bushes and trees right up against the structure (or are in a tinder dry forest in a fully involved canopy fire), then you're having a different kind of party of course.
If you live somewhere that the risk of being overtaken by a wildfire is not more or less zero, buying a firefighter's SCBA regulator and tank is not a horrible idea.
I’m assuming the occupants have enough wit to leave when wildfires threaten.
I loved that book series. It's about time I reread it I think.
I also recommend most of the sequels: The Circle Opens, another quartet where each of the four takes on their first students; The Will of the Empress, what happens after they return from their travels in the second quartet; and Battle Magic, which follows Briar's group on the return trip before The Will of the Empress, when they got caught up in a war.
I wasn't really a fan of Melting Stones, which mainly focuses on Briar's student and takes place at the same time as The Will of the Empress. If I remember right that book was also an experiment, written as an audiobook first then later released as a regular book, so that may explain why it doesn't feel as good to me.
The author has had another in mind for years too, a continuation of the problems Tris had been having from The Circle Opens onwards: she can't figure out how to make a living with her magic, because she refuses to use it as a weapon. Unfortunately, the author doesn't actually have the rights to this universe, so she has to wait for Scholastic to want another book.
I wasn't really a fan of Melting Stones, which mainly focuses on Briar's student and takes place at the same time as The Will of the Empress. If I remember right that book was also an experiment, written as an audiobook first then later released as a regular book, so that may explain why it doesn't feel as good to me.
The author has had another in mind for years too, a continuation of the problems Tris had been having from The Circle Opens onwards: she can't figure out how to make a living with her magic, because she refuses to use it as a weapon. Unfortunately, the author doesn't actually have the rights to this universe, so she has to wait for Scholastic to want another book.
The same around the world. Happening in Europe from Scotland to Greece.
The media attribute it to global warming which means noting gets done about it.
The media attribute it to global warming which means noting gets done about it.
It isn't mutually exclusive. Warming is a major cause of increased wildfires, and poor land use and overgrowth due to fire suppression make it worse.
The point is that the focus on global warming means no one will do anything about poor land management because that problem is not made public.
You can see what happens right here in the downvotes I have got. Just because I shift blame for something away from global warming to another cause, people feel they most downvote me.
Global warming is to blame in their minds is equivalent to no other cause can be blamed.
I partly made that comment to see how much a rational and reasonable comment would get downvoted for that reason. I think the experiment proved something.
You can see what happens right here in the downvotes I have got. Just because I shift blame for something away from global warming to another cause, people feel they most downvote me.
Global warming is to blame in their minds is equivalent to no other cause can be blamed.
I partly made that comment to see how much a rational and reasonable comment would get downvoted for that reason. I think the experiment proved something.
It's a matter of framing. We just have to move the discussion from "global warming increases wildfires, buy more EVs" to "global warming increases wildfires, let's improve our forest management to manage the impact (while also fighting against climate change)".
> "global warming increases wildfires, buy more EVs"
There is a profit to be made from selling EVs.
> "global warming increases wildfires, let's improve our forest management to manage the impact (while also fighting against climate change)"
Better forest management IS fighting climate change. Well managed land can be a carbon sink whereas fires release huge amounts of CO2 and are damaging in many other says. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27353-x bout just one region of the world
But doing this is costly and there is not much to be sold to do it.
There is always a lobby for doing something that that means someone can sell something. For things that do not increase sales, particularly things that involve not doing things (e.g. no cutting down forests) there is no equivalent lobby.
There is a profit to be made from selling EVs.
> "global warming increases wildfires, let's improve our forest management to manage the impact (while also fighting against climate change)"
Better forest management IS fighting climate change. Well managed land can be a carbon sink whereas fires release huge amounts of CO2 and are damaging in many other says. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-27353-x bout just one region of the world
But doing this is costly and there is not much to be sold to do it.
There is always a lobby for doing something that that means someone can sell something. For things that do not increase sales, particularly things that involve not doing things (e.g. no cutting down forests) there is no equivalent lobby.
Fighting wildfires is expensive, which means it's big business. There's absolutely business interests in keeping wildfires raging. Fire suppression means the government gets to purchase planes and helicopters, 3M can supply countless brand new sets of fire resistant gear every year considering how high wildland fire employee turnover is, Perimeter Solutions gets to sell Phos-Chek faster than they can produce it, etc.
Just to be clear, the point you are making is that there is a business opportunity in not having good land management.
Yes. There's business interest in getting legislators/officials distracted from what is really good land management, namely prescribed fires and public services around clearing combustibles away from infrastructure and homes.
[deleted]
Don't worry, nobody will do anything about global warming, either.
We've already blown right past the Paris accord, I'm sure we'll soon come up with a new accord that will set a target that we will also blow past.
In the meantime, invest in an air conditioner and an air purifier for your city home, and try not to own any summer dachas in heavily forested areas.
We've already blown right past the Paris accord, I'm sure we'll soon come up with a new accord that will set a target that we will also blow past.
In the meantime, invest in an air conditioner and an air purifier for your city home, and try not to own any summer dachas in heavily forested areas.
The problem is extremely public here in the western US.
It is how you say that and how you just state something very oversimplified like fact, almost like a climate denier. To start with
> "focus on global warming means no one will do anything about poor land management"
Gross generalization, a lot changed long and still lately, you are just saying: all lazy because of global warming excuses.. and then
> "Global warming is to blame in their minds is equivalent to no other cause can be blamed."
Any quote where someone official reasoned like that? Btw funny, seeing that actually you are the one here blaming "global warming" for something?
> "focus on global warming means no one will do anything about poor land management"
Gross generalization, a lot changed long and still lately, you are just saying: all lazy because of global warming excuses.. and then
> "Global warming is to blame in their minds is equivalent to no other cause can be blamed."
Any quote where someone official reasoned like that? Btw funny, seeing that actually you are the one here blaming "global warming" for something?
The problem is not made public...except in the New Yorker? Except by the president of the United States?
Shifting blame towards land management practices - not necessarily by you, but for example by that particular POTUS - is often an attempt to downplay global warming and the urgent need to do take steps to stave it off, rather than a good-faith attempt to reform land management practices. If people detect a whiff of that, that's what makes them downvote; given the present and future consequences of downplaying global warming and the urgent need to take steps to stave it off, and the push that's been behind that for the past, oh, fifty-to-seventy years or so, can you blame them? No one's against reforming land management to prevent forest fires.
Shifting blame towards land management practices - not necessarily by you, but for example by that particular POTUS - is often an attempt to downplay global warming and the urgent need to do take steps to stave it off, rather than a good-faith attempt to reform land management practices. If people detect a whiff of that, that's what makes them downvote; given the present and future consequences of downplaying global warming and the urgent need to take steps to stave it off, and the push that's been behind that for the past, oh, fifty-to-seventy years or so, can you blame them? No one's against reforming land management to prevent forest fires.
> is often an attempt to downplay global warming and the urgent need to do take steps to stave it off…
I mean so what…. I don’t see how having a conversation about taking a practical steps to avoid a disaster should be suppressed just because the person initiating the conversation might have a different opinion on a related subject.
I mean so what…. I don’t see how having a conversation about taking a practical steps to avoid a disaster should be suppressed just because the person initiating the conversation might have a different opinion on a related subject.
You or I may want to have a conversation about taking practical steps to avoid a disaster, but personally speaking I don't want to have it with a hypothetical interlocutor who is not having that conversation in good faith, but rather weaponizing it in an attempt to further their catastrophic political goals.
“The northwest might burn to the ground, people may die or be displaced, but god dammit we simply cannot give that political party a win (even if we win too).”
Yep, that attitude that makes perfect sense for society.
Yep, that attitude that makes perfect sense for society.
Downvoting someone on HN for arguing in bad faith isn't keeping "a political party" from having "a win", much less determining whether or not the PNW is going to burn down.
I am a pragmatist so I am “results oriented” instead of “intention oriented”. But if you feel the need to try and suppress comments on here because it creates suspicion in you around the intentions of the commenter that’s your thing. For what it’s worth, I won’t downvote anyone on here for anything or any opinion whether I agree with the opinion or the commenter’s intention.
Climate change is the skeleton key of doing nothing. "Climate change means there is a drought" Nothing we can do about it, not build desalination plants, or raise the cost of water, or eminent domain farmers' property who refuse to relinquish their century old "water rights". Literally just complain about climate change is all we can do.
All those things are incredibly expensive and/or unpopular.
That's why no one does them.
That's why no one does them.
Yup. Also, they aren’t clearly actually needed right now (in the way, say, a road is needed somewhere, or a fire truck).
When there is a clear causal connection, it will be easier. By then, it will be a pretty crazy mess.
When there is a clear causal connection, it will be easier. By then, it will be a pretty crazy mess.
The forest ecosystems in Europe have not evolved in the presence of regular fires afaik. Large parts of Germany for example used to be an impassable swamp before they were clear cut and drained for agriculture a few hundred years ago.
What are we to make of the photographs taken from fire lookouts that are used as evidence in this talk? Consider the Thorp Mountain photo from the 1930s. Prior to that, loggers had come in and largely wrecked that forest. The USFS GIS indicates that the area around Thorp Mountain is between 20-30% old growth, is mostly mature replacement forest. So a photo from the 1930s showing patchy forests would have been a reflection of the fact that industrial era Americans had already come through and taken most of the trees.
In addition to logging grazing was also happening throughout California, even in the high country for hundreds of years. This also decreased fire risk by eliminating fuel.
What's your source on even high, rugged country like that being logged out by the 1930ies at an industrial scale?
I am looking at the USDA Old Growth and Mature Forests GIS. Why do you doubt it? The Northern Pacific Railroad went right through that area, and Congress granted them lands 40 miles on either side of their route.
They could have easily stripped the lower areas fairly thoroughly, and left higher peaks alone. I'm not saying "I doubt it happened", just that I'm not convinced either way.
[deleted]
The 2022 Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak Fire in New Mexico was caused by controlled burns that got out of control. One part of the fire was from a controlled burn that was completed in January and then "reignited" in April!
In any case, some regions might have frequent episodes that are hot, dry, and/or windy so that techniques that easily worked a hundred years ago are no longer useful.
In any case, some regions might have frequent episodes that are hot, dry, and/or windy so that techniques that easily worked a hundred years ago are no longer useful.
Going back in time and not clear cutting all old forest on a whole continent would be a big improvement, too.
The new growth is much more likely to be devastated by fires. Trees are smaller, branches are lower, brush is thicker etc.
The new growth is much more likely to be devastated by fires. Trees are smaller, branches are lower, brush is thicker etc.
And in many places the trees that grow back are not the same species that were cut to begin with, and don't necessarily function in the same fire ecology, either because they have evolutionary advantages in clean cut environments or because they were planted for their supposely greater economic value.
We probably need different solutions for the pacific northwest and the southwest. From everything I've read, Chaparral tends to turn into grasslands if it burns too often. And Chaparral is the wildfire problem in the LA region.
His research looks pretty interesting:
https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/about/people/phessburg
https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/about/people/phessburg
>fires are more and more common and more and more devastating
Maybe some individual fires are more devastating, but the statistics don't really bear out the "more and more common" narrative.
According to the US forest service, the 5 year average for both number of fires and acreage burned is lower than the 10 and 15 year averages.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/fire/wofambrief/firest...
Same story in Canada where the number of fires and total burned acreage has been decreasing slightly over the past four decades.
https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb
Maybe some individual fires are more devastating, but the statistics don't really bear out the "more and more common" narrative.
According to the US forest service, the 5 year average for both number of fires and acreage burned is lower than the 10 and 15 year averages.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/managing-land/fire/wofambrief/firest...
Same story in Canada where the number of fires and total burned acreage has been decreasing slightly over the past four decades.
https://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/ha/nfdb
this is amazingly wrong. Fires occurred in California since 2017 of voracious nature. It made world headlines.
According to more up to date reports I got to from that website, none of those years were exceptionally bad. The worst one recently (2020), was slightly worse than 2017, and approximately equal to 2015. It seems to be a trend of more moderately bad years (and, probably just them happening in California when they normally happen elsewhere, so more headlines). Not particularly large individual years.
It does look like the 10 year average has come up a bit, as 2010s report lists the 10 year average at ~6.8 million acres and our current 10 year average is ~7.2 million.
Full report (PDF warning), page 13 for what I'm looking at: https://www.nifc.gov/sites/default/files/NICC/2-Predictive%2...
Link to more reports for other years: https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/predictive-services/intelligence
It does look like the 10 year average has come up a bit, as 2010s report lists the 10 year average at ~6.8 million acres and our current 10 year average is ~7.2 million.
Full report (PDF warning), page 13 for what I'm looking at: https://www.nifc.gov/sites/default/files/NICC/2-Predictive%2...
Link to more reports for other years: https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/predictive-services/intelligence
These numbers seem to support the grandparent comment that the absence of controlled burns was causing more fires that covered more area. 2023 was a ridiculously low fire year, and at least one reason for that is the last few years of destructive fires finally kicked in the political will to do controlled burning. https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2023
imagine for a moment, a firetruck driving down a street at 12 miles per hour; next to the truck is a dog from the firehouse, running along side.
What you describe is similar to "the dog decided to turn left at the corner, so things are better now"
The sheer number of people involved in fire response, and the deadly and immediate nature of their work, has natural links to military style leadership and organizational behavior.
No way, at all.. is "more controlled burning recently" the driving factor in the new stats.
The budgets and the size of the destruction, are hard for a person to think of.. in California
Real devastation was caused by "catastrophic" fires, burning at higher temperatures than previously recorded. Extensive forest die-off preceded these events in California. This is not over in one or two rainy years, since recent shrub growth is subject to die-off in a dry year and will burn.
What you describe is similar to "the dog decided to turn left at the corner, so things are better now"
The sheer number of people involved in fire response, and the deadly and immediate nature of their work, has natural links to military style leadership and organizational behavior.
No way, at all.. is "more controlled burning recently" the driving factor in the new stats.
The budgets and the size of the destruction, are hard for a person to think of.. in California
Real devastation was caused by "catastrophic" fires, burning at higher temperatures than previously recorded. Extensive forest die-off preceded these events in California. This is not over in one or two rainy years, since recent shrub growth is subject to die-off in a dry year and will burn.
You clearly feel very strongly about this, but maybe try not to assume that you are the only person who reeeeeally gets the scale of this stuff.
OP referenced North America, not California.
>We can't simply blame it all on PG&E and move on, a spark from a PG&E power line would not turn into a devastating megafire if the forest was healthy.
Correct. But we can blame PG&E for whatever negligence lead played its part in a forest fire, and enact legislation to make combat it.
Along with that, we can use controlled burns to mitigate the problem as well. It's well known that different indigenous tribes in North America did controlled burns for the positive effect it had.
Correct. But we can blame PG&E for whatever negligence lead played its part in a forest fire, and enact legislation to make combat it.
Along with that, we can use controlled burns to mitigate the problem as well. It's well known that different indigenous tribes in North America did controlled burns for the positive effect it had.
ToucanLoucan(4)
Lot another dollar in the Trump was right jar.
https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/08/20/...
https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/08/20/...
Trump was being Trump: simplify complex issues and claim there is an easy answer, blame everyone else and boost yourself.
It has long been recognized that overreaching burn prevention has led to the situation we are in. There are often "controlled" burns that get out of control. There are inhabited/developed areas within and next to the forests that don't want to deal with the smoke of the burn and the chance that it gets out of control. The total area is immense and so the costs of burning 30% of the state which is forest would also be immense. The point is: it is complicated and there are practical considerations why it isn't an easy fix.
The next thing is Trump said they should "rake" the forests, which is asinine. Finally, much of California's forests are federal land ... which Trump was responsible for. How many people did he send out to rake the forest?
It has long been recognized that overreaching burn prevention has led to the situation we are in. There are often "controlled" burns that get out of control. There are inhabited/developed areas within and next to the forests that don't want to deal with the smoke of the burn and the chance that it gets out of control. The total area is immense and so the costs of burning 30% of the state which is forest would also be immense. The point is: it is complicated and there are practical considerations why it isn't an easy fix.
The next thing is Trump said they should "rake" the forests, which is asinine. Finally, much of California's forests are federal land ... which Trump was responsible for. How many people did he send out to rake the forest?
God forbid people simplify complex issues.
Your cognitive dissonance is real. He proposed what the parent comment said. Either Trump and the parent comment were both wrong or they were both right.
Your cognitive dissonance is real. He proposed what the parent comment said. Either Trump and the parent comment were both wrong or they were both right.
Trump blamed California for not raking their forest, and presented it as a simple solution. Trump was not right, for three reasons. One doesn't rake the forest to solve the problem, there are reasons (political and financial) why doing a controlled burn on 1/3 of the state hasn't happened, and finally, most of that is federal land -- Trump's responsibility.
BTW, I lived in California from 1985-2003; this issue existed then, and for decades before my time, and it continues to this day. It was there when California had Republican governors, Democratic governors, Republican presidents, and Democratic presidents.
Complex issues have multiple layers, often on opposition to each other. When you claim it is a black and white issue, you (like Trump) demonstrate you don't understand the topic.
BTW, I lived in California from 1985-2003; this issue existed then, and for decades before my time, and it continues to this day. It was there when California had Republican governors, Democratic governors, Republican presidents, and Democratic presidents.
Complex issues have multiple layers, often on opposition to each other. When you claim it is a black and white issue, you (like Trump) demonstrate you don't understand the topic.
He was directionally right - clear out the underbrush. I'm pretty comfortable with the president not knowing the specifics.
I’m not an expert, so I could be wrong about this, but this sounds like a case of not addressing the elephant in the room. Isn’t the number one reason the changing climates as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Sure there are bad forest management, alien species, build up of vegetation on the forest floor etc. But are these actually the number one reason when the climate is a whole degree warmer on average, with prolonged droughts, with native species dying from said heat and droughts, etc.
This feels like another clear case of climate denialism.
Sure there are bad forest management, alien species, build up of vegetation on the forest floor etc. But are these actually the number one reason when the climate is a whole degree warmer on average, with prolonged droughts, with native species dying from said heat and droughts, etc.
This feels like another clear case of climate denialism.
>This feels like another clear case of climate denialism.
"Feels like" and "clear case" don't mix. Just say "I'm bluffing".
"Feels like" and "clear case" don't mix. Just say "I'm bluffing".
What is the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and how much has that changed in the past 100 years? Something worth looking into.
About 420 ppm, an increase of about 120 ppm in the past 100 years? This is a strange question since it is obvious that it’s heavily “looked into” and easy to look up, and simultaneously hard to figure out what rhetorical point is being made in asking people to cite it out of context.
0.04% vs 0.03%
Illustrates how silly the comment is that I was replying to.
Illustrates how silly the comment is that I was replying to.
Huh?
There are plenty of systems where the difference between 0.04% and 0.03% is dramatic, after all it’s an increase of 30% — and what matters is not the paltry decimal representation but rather the effects.
For example: consider concentration of sodium in human blood. The normal range is 0.31%-0.33% by weight. By 0.4% you’re pretty much dead.
Or consider chromium, an essential trace element: the normal amount is practically infinitessimal, in blood it’s 0.0000007% by weight, approximately. But not enough and you end up with diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
“0.04% vs 0.03%” is not an effective takedown of global warming.
There are plenty of systems where the difference between 0.04% and 0.03% is dramatic, after all it’s an increase of 30% — and what matters is not the paltry decimal representation but rather the effects.
For example: consider concentration of sodium in human blood. The normal range is 0.31%-0.33% by weight. By 0.4% you’re pretty much dead.
Or consider chromium, an essential trace element: the normal amount is practically infinitessimal, in blood it’s 0.0000007% by weight, approximately. But not enough and you end up with diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
“0.04% vs 0.03%” is not an effective takedown of global warming.
Exactly. Represented as decimal numbers, we could also say that is only 0.0004 vs 0.0003, which looks like even less. Seeing that there is a 30% difference is the important thing here.
I can look it up (and so can you) but it is irrelevant for this conversation.
This matters if you are a climate scientist and are constructing a model to make predictions or shape policy. But for this conversation, all we need to know is that the percentage has increased because of human activity (specifically as a result of fossil fuel extraction and usage for energy consumption) and this increase is enough to cause significant warming, shaping the climate, and escalating wild fire intensity and frequency.
This matters if you are a climate scientist and are constructing a model to make predictions or shape policy. But for this conversation, all we need to know is that the percentage has increased because of human activity (specifically as a result of fossil fuel extraction and usage for energy consumption) and this increase is enough to cause significant warming, shaping the climate, and escalating wild fire intensity and frequency.
More than 90% of forests are provoked by humans. Some are accidents. Other not. Starting in multiple locations at the same time; at night. The same pattern seen again and again and again In Chile, Canada, USA, Spain, Portugal, Greece... Coordinated and deliberated.
> the number one reason is build up of vegetation on the forest floor
Yeah, sure man.
123 killed in Chile and everybody is avoiding to see the huge elephant in the middle of the room painted with the word terrorism in uppercase letters.
We could remove every single leaf in the soil of the forest, and gasoline cans would still grow in the trees.
> the number one reason is build up of vegetation on the forest floor
Yeah, sure man.
123 killed in Chile and everybody is avoiding to see the huge elephant in the middle of the room painted with the word terrorism in uppercase letters.
We could remove every single leaf in the soil of the forest, and gasoline cans would still grow in the trees.
Isn’t the simple explanation the fact that non-human causes of wildfires are likely to start more than one in a given area?
- Lightning?
- Hot, dry winds + sparks from nearby power lines? (Debatably non-human, but usually not terrorists.)
At least in California we have forest ecosystems that practically require periodic fire for regeneration — seeds that require fire to germinate — suggesting forest fires have been common even on evolutionary timescales, long predating humans.
- Lightning?
- Hot, dry winds + sparks from nearby power lines? (Debatably non-human, but usually not terrorists.)
At least in California we have forest ecosystems that practically require periodic fire for regeneration — seeds that require fire to germinate — suggesting forest fires have been common even on evolutionary timescales, long predating humans.
There is a even simpler explanation. Follow the patterns
Starting multiple fire outbreaks (aiming to overpower the firefighters) is the standard procedure of every "professional" arsonist.
Arsonists also do fire "tours". They drive, lights off, a secondary road without traffic and stop each few minutes to start outbreaks. This would easily mimick a chain of fire sparks starting from power lines in the road, but we know better because night-vision drones of the Spanish police videotaped some people red-handed doing exactly this. And this idiots had a surprise waiting at the end of the road.
The problem is that most [1] of this people just are sent and paid for doing the job. When caught they fake mental issues and claim to act alone, but then you see that every single one of they follow exactly the same procedures, and know all the tricks to maximize the effect.
[1] Arsonists searching revenge is the other category. They are strongly focused on smaller areas owned by the target
Starting multiple fire outbreaks (aiming to overpower the firefighters) is the standard procedure of every "professional" arsonist.
Arsonists also do fire "tours". They drive, lights off, a secondary road without traffic and stop each few minutes to start outbreaks. This would easily mimick a chain of fire sparks starting from power lines in the road, but we know better because night-vision drones of the Spanish police videotaped some people red-handed doing exactly this. And this idiots had a surprise waiting at the end of the road.
The problem is that most [1] of this people just are sent and paid for doing the job. When caught they fake mental issues and claim to act alone, but then you see that every single one of they follow exactly the same procedures, and know all the tricks to maximize the effect.
[1] Arsonists searching revenge is the other category. They are strongly focused on smaller areas owned by the target
I'm not saying it's impossible that arsonists are starting some of these fires, and sure, some may be started in this way.
I'm just saying that "lightning" is a simpler explanation than "well-coordinated major conspiracy of terrorists that succeeds at keeping things under wraps"---and so when, in California, a bunch of fires are started in a bunch of places where lightning struck dry timber in a fire-reliant ecosystem, our initial assumption about the cause should maybe be "lightning".
I'm just saying that "lightning" is a simpler explanation than "well-coordinated major conspiracy of terrorists that succeeds at keeping things under wraps"---and so when, in California, a bunch of fires are started in a bunch of places where lightning struck dry timber in a fire-reliant ecosystem, our initial assumption about the cause should maybe be "lightning".
The largest Californian wildfire (2020) was attributed to lightning in an isolated area.
But there are solid proofs that link one arsonist (at least one) with the --second largest-- wildfire in the full history of California (2021).
Gary Stephen Maynard, an ex-teacher of criminology, was caught driving to several locations and setting multiple fires on public lands for no obvious reason.
He was not the only people linked with wildfires on California. Not at all.
This articles happily parroting that the problem is that we don't burn the forest enough, just add fuel to the future wildfires and groom the new pool of gullible puppets online.
And burning is not free. It has nasty undesirable consequences on soil and water storage that newspapers always forget to remind.
But there are solid proofs that link one arsonist (at least one) with the --second largest-- wildfire in the full history of California (2021).
Gary Stephen Maynard, an ex-teacher of criminology, was caught driving to several locations and setting multiple fires on public lands for no obvious reason.
He was not the only people linked with wildfires on California. Not at all.
This articles happily parroting that the problem is that we don't burn the forest enough, just add fuel to the future wildfires and groom the new pool of gullible puppets online.
And burning is not free. It has nasty undesirable consequences on soil and water storage that newspapers always forget to remind.
Both types of wildfires are also different on nature:
"California wildfires caused by humans are more dangerous than fires sparked by lightning"
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-06-22/california-...
"A 2017 study looking at wildfires fought by state or federal agencies from 1992 to 2012, found that people caused 84% of the blazes, adding an average of 40,000 wildfires per year across the USA".
"California wildfires caused by humans are more dangerous than fires sparked by lightning"
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2022-06-22/california-...
"A 2017 study looking at wildfires fought by state or federal agencies from 1992 to 2012, found that people caused 84% of the blazes, adding an average of 40,000 wildfires per year across the USA".
Look, your original post claimed “terrorists” but now you’re pointing to an article that merely says that most wildfires are caused by people.
I even included accidental human-started wildfires (sparks from powerlines) as an example in my original post, where I use the regrettable phrase “non-human causes” to refer to “fire not deliberately caused by a human”, and I should have been more clear. If there were no people in the forests, there would be fewer fires, yes.
It’s the conspiracy of “terrorists” claim that seems spurious. And again, sure, there may by lone criminals out there committing arson, but the claim that most wildfires are started by terrorists is what needs backing up, not the claim that there’s a human in the loop.
I even included accidental human-started wildfires (sparks from powerlines) as an example in my original post, where I use the regrettable phrase “non-human causes” to refer to “fire not deliberately caused by a human”, and I should have been more clear. If there were no people in the forests, there would be fewer fires, yes.
It’s the conspiracy of “terrorists” claim that seems spurious. And again, sure, there may by lone criminals out there committing arson, but the claim that most wildfires are started by terrorists is what needs backing up, not the claim that there’s a human in the loop.
I wonder how would you define what is happening in Chile at this moment
Well, It does not matter. This is not what the article says. Two important ideas in the article.
1) Most wildfires reported on USA (on a particular time interval) were started by an human. Natural wildfires are not so common as we think, even on ecosystems adapted to fire.
2) Natural wildfires and human wildfires seen to have very different dynamics. The second burn much faster and cause much more damages. If proven with more studies, this is a really powerful piece of knowledge.
Strangely, we are being spoon-feed by newspapers with the opposite idea: "nothing to see here", "This is how nature works", "humans should start more wildfires" and, implicitly, "arsonists are heroes doing gods work". And this is terrible advice.
After all this people that lost their lives, homes, all their life on wildfires started deliberately, claiming this just to sell a few more newspapers is extremely awful.
We need also to have in mind that wildfires fuel climate change, and accelerating climate change is exactly the opposite of what each scientist recommend for decades, so probably not a wise idea. Not if we want our species to survive for the next two thousands years.
Well, It does not matter. This is not what the article says. Two important ideas in the article.
1) Most wildfires reported on USA (on a particular time interval) were started by an human. Natural wildfires are not so common as we think, even on ecosystems adapted to fire.
2) Natural wildfires and human wildfires seen to have very different dynamics. The second burn much faster and cause much more damages. If proven with more studies, this is a really powerful piece of knowledge.
Strangely, we are being spoon-feed by newspapers with the opposite idea: "nothing to see here", "This is how nature works", "humans should start more wildfires" and, implicitly, "arsonists are heroes doing gods work". And this is terrible advice.
After all this people that lost their lives, homes, all their life on wildfires started deliberately, claiming this just to sell a few more newspapers is extremely awful.
We need also to have in mind that wildfires fuel climate change, and accelerating climate change is exactly the opposite of what each scientist recommend for decades, so probably not a wise idea. Not if we want our species to survive for the next two thousands years.
1) I'm not sure this is the right metric -- by acres burned, depending on the source, natural fires are comparable to human-ignited fires.
2) Fully natural wildfires are typically caused by lightning -- which of course often also means rain, humidity, or other moisture.
But the reality is that human fire suppression is actually quite effective most of the time. It does lead to debris buildup. It does lead to more intense fires--as does climate change and the widespread tree death associated with infestations and drought.
We don't seem to have a great idea of what these ecosystems were like before people, but it's not unreasonable to think that a lot of land would burn a little bit with quite some regularity, but not as intensively as these human-ignited fires because of the whole thunderstorm thing. It's also not clear that wildfires fuel climate change--after all they're not really carbon reserves: those tries will eventually die and decompose anyway, it's not like oil underground that had been locked away for millions of years. And, crucially, they'll regrow.
Lastly: why, again, with the conspirational thinking? "Claiming this just to sell a few more newspapers" as though the people writing these articles are knowingly lying, when almost all are just perpetuating what they hear from scientists/nonprofits/others. Why?
2) Fully natural wildfires are typically caused by lightning -- which of course often also means rain, humidity, or other moisture.
But the reality is that human fire suppression is actually quite effective most of the time. It does lead to debris buildup. It does lead to more intense fires--as does climate change and the widespread tree death associated with infestations and drought.
We don't seem to have a great idea of what these ecosystems were like before people, but it's not unreasonable to think that a lot of land would burn a little bit with quite some regularity, but not as intensively as these human-ignited fires because of the whole thunderstorm thing. It's also not clear that wildfires fuel climate change--after all they're not really carbon reserves: those tries will eventually die and decompose anyway, it's not like oil underground that had been locked away for millions of years. And, crucially, they'll regrow.
Lastly: why, again, with the conspirational thinking? "Claiming this just to sell a few more newspapers" as though the people writing these articles are knowingly lying, when almost all are just perpetuating what they hear from scientists/nonprofits/others. Why?
> why, again, with the conspirational thinking? "Claiming this just to sell a few more newspapers" as though the people writing these articles are knowingly lying, when almost all are just perpetuating what they hear
Fair point
Fair point
> More than 90% of forests
must say -> More than 90% of forest wildfires
must say -> More than 90% of forest wildfires
I'm glad our century+ of gross mismanaging our forests is getting more press. But I think we're still fighting deeply entrenched mindsets that fire is always bad. Across the west, our forests are fire-adapted and need to burn to be healthy, but we're still suppressing most fire and not doing nearly enough prescribed burning.
We're also up against a century of planting trees at 2x natural density after logging. Logging can be a useful management tool, but if we plant 2 trees for everyone we cut we're not building healthy forests, and we're just increasing fuel loads.
Meanwhile, climate change gets most of the press. Yes it is a contributing issue, but it's unfortunately being used to absolve the forest managers of accountability.
A good read is "The Big Burn" by Timothy Egan. It details how at its founding, the Forest Service knew the fire suppression regime they were creating was unhealthy. But it was the only politically possible path for them at the time.
We're also up against a century of planting trees at 2x natural density after logging. Logging can be a useful management tool, but if we plant 2 trees for everyone we cut we're not building healthy forests, and we're just increasing fuel loads.
Meanwhile, climate change gets most of the press. Yes it is a contributing issue, but it's unfortunately being used to absolve the forest managers of accountability.
A good read is "The Big Burn" by Timothy Egan. It details how at its founding, the Forest Service knew the fire suppression regime they were creating was unhealthy. But it was the only politically possible path for them at the time.
Well, once you've allowed hundreds of thousands of people to build houses there, which ones are you going to burn? Seriously, do something and they won't burn today. Do nothing and they burn. All over the pacific northwest there are millions of people who live in forested areas, which will burn without fire control.
You can do burns when things are wetter, but how many $Bs are you going to be liable for? Or you can just make the insurance unattainable.
You can do burns when things are wetter, but how many $Bs are you going to be liable for? Or you can just make the insurance unattainable.
>Meanwhile, climate change gets most of the press. Yes it is a contributing issue, but it's unfortunately being used to absolve the forest managers of accountability.
Forest management has become politicized. Massive blazes, homes destroyed, fire fighters dead are just props for political theater to push a political agenda.
Forest management has become politicized. Massive blazes, homes destroyed, fire fighters dead are just props for political theater to push a political agenda.
> We're also up against a century of planting trees at 2x natural density after logging. Logging can be a useful management tool, but if we plant 2 trees for everyone we cut we're not building healthy forests, and we're just increasing fuel loads.
I'm thinking that mother nature generally plants trees at far higher than 2X density.
I'm thinking that mother nature generally plants trees at far higher than 2X density.
Rather than piling on downvotes, I will respond to the valid question implied here.
Nature does plant trees densely. But most of them don't make it to maturity when the "natural" rhythm of wildfires is allowed to proceed.
Likewise the composition of species in the ecosystem also changes when the fire is suppressed.
Nature does plant trees densely. But most of them don't make it to maturity when the "natural" rhythm of wildfires is allowed to proceed.
Likewise the composition of species in the ecosystem also changes when the fire is suppressed.
With natural wildfire the Sierras would look a lot less dense than they do today:
https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/08/09/how-wildfire-restored-a...
> For nearly half a century, lightning-sparked blazes in Yosemite’s Illilouette Creek Basin have rippled across the landscape — closely monitored, but largely unchecked. Their flames might explode into plumes of heat that burn whole hillsides at once, or sit smoldering in the underbrush for months.
> The result is approximately 60 square miles of forest that look remarkably different from other parts of the Sierra Nevada: Instead of dense, wall-to-wall tree cover — the outcome of more than a century of fire suppression — the landscape is broken up by patches of grassland, shrubland and wet meadows filled with wildflowers more abundant than in other parts of the forest. These gaps in the canopy are often punctuated by the blackened husks of burned trunks or the fresh green of young pines.
https://news.berkeley.edu/2021/08/09/how-wildfire-restored-a...
> For nearly half a century, lightning-sparked blazes in Yosemite’s Illilouette Creek Basin have rippled across the landscape — closely monitored, but largely unchecked. Their flames might explode into plumes of heat that burn whole hillsides at once, or sit smoldering in the underbrush for months.
> The result is approximately 60 square miles of forest that look remarkably different from other parts of the Sierra Nevada: Instead of dense, wall-to-wall tree cover — the outcome of more than a century of fire suppression — the landscape is broken up by patches of grassland, shrubland and wet meadows filled with wildflowers more abundant than in other parts of the forest. These gaps in the canopy are often punctuated by the blackened husks of burned trunks or the fresh green of young pines.
It’s almost like we live in Elden Ring universe, where we didn’t let the tree burn when it should, and now we suffer dire consequences.
One thing that is hard for people to conceptualize is the difference between old growth forests (which are exceedingly rare) and secondary growth forests.
Replanted, secondary forests are what most people are familiar with. They tend to have one or two types of tree, maybe some scrub brush on the ground, and whatever fell over in previous seasons. These forests tend to be very vulnerable to wildfire. The ground gets dried out really quickly, the stuff on the ground is pretty minimal, and under summer conditions, it is a tinder box.
Most people have never actually been into a true old growth forest. The ground can have a few feet of wet moss, plants, and fungi that overtakes the fallen trees and breaks it down. The ground is usually soft, even in the dead of summer. Under really extreme conditions these forests can still be vulnerable, but they have far more robust defenses against fire than the secondary growth.
Water management is also a big piece of this puzzle. Rivers, creeks and lakes are supposed to spill their banks every spring and soak everything around it. When you divert, contain and withdraw trillions of liters of water, you are creating a lot of unintended consequences down the road. The soil can hold onto a lot of water over long periods of time --- especially if there is significant vegetation on top of the soil to protect it.
The discussion about controlled burning is important, but it pales in comparison to the broader conditions that are driving the trend.
Replanted, secondary forests are what most people are familiar with. They tend to have one or two types of tree, maybe some scrub brush on the ground, and whatever fell over in previous seasons. These forests tend to be very vulnerable to wildfire. The ground gets dried out really quickly, the stuff on the ground is pretty minimal, and under summer conditions, it is a tinder box.
Most people have never actually been into a true old growth forest. The ground can have a few feet of wet moss, plants, and fungi that overtakes the fallen trees and breaks it down. The ground is usually soft, even in the dead of summer. Under really extreme conditions these forests can still be vulnerable, but they have far more robust defenses against fire than the secondary growth.
Water management is also a big piece of this puzzle. Rivers, creeks and lakes are supposed to spill their banks every spring and soak everything around it. When you divert, contain and withdraw trillions of liters of water, you are creating a lot of unintended consequences down the road. The soil can hold onto a lot of water over long periods of time --- especially if there is significant vegetation on top of the soil to protect it.
The discussion about controlled burning is important, but it pales in comparison to the broader conditions that are driving the trend.
> Native Americans routinely burned the landscape—to foster the growth of useful plants, to clear space for farming, and to improve the conditions for hunting.
> ...
> In addition to maintaining parklike conditions, these managed blazes prevented fuel from building up, and so staved off larger, potentially unmanageable conflagrations.
Much of the world still operates like this. Check out the Chiang Mai, Thailand burning season[1].
The US and Canada are some of the only countries where wood is the primary building material. In the rest of the world, stone is used which doesn't catch fire so easily. That might help explain the fear of fires in the US.
1: https://thaifreu.de/chiang-mai/burning-season/
Much of the world still operates like this. Check out the Chiang Mai, Thailand burning season[1].
The US and Canada are some of the only countries where wood is the primary building material. In the rest of the world, stone is used which doesn't catch fire so easily. That might help explain the fear of fires in the US.
1: https://thaifreu.de/chiang-mai/burning-season/
And the Nordic countries (places where they have a lot of forest)
The government of Russia, home to the world's largest forest reserves, is trying to subsidize wood-frame buildings. Most modern buildings are made from stone, though, because of fire regulations[1].
1: https://nordregioprojects.org/blog/2021/02/02/wood-in-constr...
1: https://nordregioprojects.org/blog/2021/02/02/wood-in-constr...
I saw a section of Forest in Yosemite that is being managed according to modern forestry practices. The section has far fewer trees in it compared to the non managed section. Apparenlty there are too many trees in the Western US Forests, which also makes fires worse.
This is true. My region (Oregon's Willamette Valley) consisted of oak savanna and grassland prairies which were maintained by controlled fires set by the native tribes. Since European settlement, this ecosystem is 99.5% gone, having been lost to thick woodlands consisting mostly of Douglas fir and maple.
Visiting the region, you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem, but this is largely an artifact of 150+ years of fire suppression.
Visiting the region, you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem, but this is largely an artifact of 150+ years of fire suppression.
Why would tribal land management be "natural" but not more recent land management? It seems more like we just need to decide how we want the land to be and burn or not burn to achieve our goals.
That was why I used air-quotes. What is "natural" isn't always healthy, and I'd argue leaving ecosystems to nature is impossible these days. I'm advocating for responsible stewardship.
Maybe it’s not “natural”, but a matured land management practice. It’s 1000s of years of fire culture vs a couple of hundred.
Also, GP never made this assertion you're claiming if you read the actual comment
Also, GP never made this assertion you're claiming if you read the actual comment
The oak savanna was a highly constructed world managed by humans for acorn production and other reasons. What is "natural" and why do we desire it?
In this case "natural" might be better described as "sustainable". Of course it was natural, we are all part of nature.
The issue is the sustainability of these ecosystems and the impact on life around it. The indigenous peoples lived a much tighter connection to the land, with a give and take, recognizing the fundamental interdependence.
The theme for the last hundreds years has not been sustainability, but value extraction. Value extraction without regards to sustainability is a classic trade giving away long term success while gaining short term rewards.
The issue is the sustainability of these ecosystems and the impact on life around it. The indigenous peoples lived a much tighter connection to the land, with a give and take, recognizing the fundamental interdependence.
The theme for the last hundreds years has not been sustainability, but value extraction. Value extraction without regards to sustainability is a classic trade giving away long term success while gaining short term rewards.
> you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem
GGP's statement was talking about the appearance of the current state of these forests, not comparing two types of human intervention
GGP's statement was talking about the appearance of the current state of these forests, not comparing two types of human intervention
I get what you're saying, but "native tribes" were just part of the ecosystem as much as we are. The is nothing magical or pure about them.
The "true" natural state of a region is one without any management or intervention from anyone.
We are not "invasive" species and contrary to what the rocket man says, Earth is our home and we will not be anywhere else, so the only solution is to use our brains and judgment.
The "true" natural state of a region is one without any management or intervention from anyone.
We are not "invasive" species and contrary to what the rocket man says, Earth is our home and we will not be anywhere else, so the only solution is to use our brains and judgment.
The oldest known civilization on earth
I'm not claiming Australian Aboriginals are "magic" but holy shit did they do a great job of looking after ecosystems compared to any modern civilization?
I personally think there was some magic about their way of doing things. The oldest known civilization on Earth which some how didn't destroy the climate, pollute the ocean, poison fish stocks with mercury, kick start mass extinction events and litter the world with microplastics.
I've been to remote parts of Australia where they still have traditional land management practices going on. It's a wonderful thing to see. The forest was so beautiful and pristine looking, it was as if the whole landscape looked like a beautiful garden. It was more inspirational than any city I've seen.
As someone with young kids, I was thinking to myself how absurd our situation is. I wanted to feed my kid some tuna and then I realized that it's not healthy for them to eat it. Can you believe how freaking bad this is? We've poisoned the ocean so badly, kids shouldn't eat from it. It's like the whole of our civilization needs an honest performance review but we're not going to get one because we're also our own manager.
I'm not claiming Australian Aboriginals are "magic" but holy shit did they do a great job of looking after ecosystems compared to any modern civilization?
I personally think there was some magic about their way of doing things. The oldest known civilization on Earth which some how didn't destroy the climate, pollute the ocean, poison fish stocks with mercury, kick start mass extinction events and litter the world with microplastics.
I've been to remote parts of Australia where they still have traditional land management practices going on. It's a wonderful thing to see. The forest was so beautiful and pristine looking, it was as if the whole landscape looked like a beautiful garden. It was more inspirational than any city I've seen.
As someone with young kids, I was thinking to myself how absurd our situation is. I wanted to feed my kid some tuna and then I realized that it's not healthy for them to eat it. Can you believe how freaking bad this is? We've poisoned the ocean so badly, kids shouldn't eat from it. It's like the whole of our civilization needs an honest performance review but we're not going to get one because we're also our own manager.
You may have misread my statement. Dense evergreen forests in the valley weren't natural even before tribal settlement. The tribes innovated by practicing controlled burns, and part of this was due to wanting to survive; fires caused by lightning and other non-human causes are rare in the valley, so the "natural" state was catastrophic fires every decade or so as forests encroached and provided tinder.
GP didn't make any allusion to the 'noble savage' myth. The quote:
> you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem
They are speaking of the current state of the forests and how they would appear natural, not that one land management practice was more or less natural than the other.
> you'd think that dense evergreen forests are the "natural" state of the ecosystem
They are speaking of the current state of the forests and how they would appear natural, not that one land management practice was more or less natural than the other.
I'm confused. I first read an article along these lines over 20 years ago and it seemed a fairly intuitively solid argument with lots of evidential support.
Has it still not become official policy?
Has it still not become official policy?
The difficulty, as I understand it, is largely that doing these actions are not themselves risk free. And the risk is not at all easy to insure against, such that people do what they can to avoid taking on any actions that could lead to liability on them. Which leads to nobody having the courage to do it.
In the US, different agencies are responsible for different tracts of land. At a federal level, the BLM has understood the value of prescribed burns for many years now, although they're still wrestling with the result of decades of prior fire-suppression policies. Meanwhile, state agencies in fire-prone states are beholden to the voters of fire-prone states who don't want to be told that they can't have their cake (a year-round smoke-free residence in the lovely arboreal countryside) and eat it too (not having their house burn down in an unstoppable manmade maelstrom), so you can imagine how that's going.
> More prescribed burning, more metal roofs, better zoning—these are all steps that could make a significant difference at a local level.
We basically are, except for the zoning thing. Keeping people from living near forests is hard politically.
We basically are, except for the zoning thing. Keeping people from living near forests is hard politically.
They have to live somewhere. In much of the PNW, you basically have three landscapes: established cities, clear-cut farmland, and dense coniferous forests. City expansion starts with rural residences in the woods. If you want to get to the "paved over and non-flammable" stage, you gotta let the rural homesteads happen first.
You can educate or coerce homeowners to maintain defensible spaces, and they often comply. But in these regions, roughly 50% of the land is owned by the federal government, and another good chunk belongs to the state. Almost none of it is proactively logged, burned, or maintained in any other meaningful way. These big fires don't start in people's backyards, they start in the government-owned wilderness - and by the time they reach residences, they are so intense that a metal roof and some cleared vegetation around your home make little difference.
I suspect the pendulum had swung too far away from exploiting natural resources to conserving them at any cost. The solution probably isn't to tell people in the PNW "too bad, move to Iowa, Oregon is closed" - it's to decide where to maintain healthy forests and where to make room for safe development.
You can educate or coerce homeowners to maintain defensible spaces, and they often comply. But in these regions, roughly 50% of the land is owned by the federal government, and another good chunk belongs to the state. Almost none of it is proactively logged, burned, or maintained in any other meaningful way. These big fires don't start in people's backyards, they start in the government-owned wilderness - and by the time they reach residences, they are so intense that a metal roof and some cleared vegetation around your home make little difference.
I suspect the pendulum had swung too far away from exploiting natural resources to conserving them at any cost. The solution probably isn't to tell people in the PNW "too bad, move to Iowa, Oregon is closed" - it's to decide where to maintain healthy forests and where to make room for safe development.
It is never that simple. Some geographies naturally trap smoke in ways that make controlled burns disruptive to nearby communities. There must also be resources available in case controlled burns get out of control. All of this takes coordination and costs money. Going from a general agreement to a specific implementation is turning out to be difficult in many areas.
Depends where you go. I remember seeing controlled burns in the Gila Wilderness circa 1993.
Or you know, we could actually log the lands like these agencies were supposed to enable in the first place.
There's a lot of healthy logging that can exist on the spectrum between clear cutting and total preservation. So for conservationists to advocate literally letting the forests burn before considering even a bit of actual forest management is insanity. We're sitting on one of the largest reserves of renewable resources in the world, and we would literally rather let it burn to the ground.
Most of these forests in question (USFS and related agencies) shut down logging on these lands decades ago, mostly as an act of conservation hubris. And the irony is they are now spending more money on replanting and thinning than they ever did when they were getting paid to do it by logging companies.
Managed logging not only thins out the forests so that burns are less damaging. And trees being logged instead of burned not only reduce the carbon, they act as a store of it!
There's a lot of healthy logging that can exist on the spectrum between clear cutting and total preservation. So for conservationists to advocate literally letting the forests burn before considering even a bit of actual forest management is insanity. We're sitting on one of the largest reserves of renewable resources in the world, and we would literally rather let it burn to the ground.
Most of these forests in question (USFS and related agencies) shut down logging on these lands decades ago, mostly as an act of conservation hubris. And the irony is they are now spending more money on replanting and thinning than they ever did when they were getting paid to do it by logging companies.
Managed logging not only thins out the forests so that burns are less damaging. And trees being logged instead of burned not only reduce the carbon, they act as a store of it!
True but let's not pretend the logging industry has a long and rich history of good conservationism.
They are there ( obviously ) for the money, and clear cutting everything and "investing" by planting huge areas of mono cultures is anything but "less damaging"
Also, most of the timber doesn't actually burn during these fires, most get cut and sold as it's perfectly good wood if you don't let them rot in 1-2 years.
As always and anything, the virtue is in the middle. A good system where these companies can cut tree and be economical viable but also rules that keep the biodiversity alive and well. A long and not-corrupt department.. That's why these things are so difficult.
They are there ( obviously ) for the money, and clear cutting everything and "investing" by planting huge areas of mono cultures is anything but "less damaging"
Also, most of the timber doesn't actually burn during these fires, most get cut and sold as it's perfectly good wood if you don't let them rot in 1-2 years.
As always and anything, the virtue is in the middle. A good system where these companies can cut tree and be economical viable but also rules that keep the biodiversity alive and well. A long and not-corrupt department.. That's why these things are so difficult.
Sure, but it's the whole reason this model was set up in the first place! It's like we built a school for the kids and banned them from it for being uneducated.
There's enough forests in the US west for loggers to log bits and pieces of it and not return for a hundred years. Perfect for biodiversity. They have been forced onto dense monoculture lots out of necessity.
Unless we want to want to go back to the 80s and pretend plastic is more environmentally friendly than paper products (which was a real argument of the time), we shouldn't be so hostile to forestry concerns.
There's enough forests in the US west for loggers to log bits and pieces of it and not return for a hundred years. Perfect for biodiversity. They have been forced onto dense monoculture lots out of necessity.
Unless we want to want to go back to the 80s and pretend plastic is more environmentally friendly than paper products (which was a real argument of the time), we shouldn't be so hostile to forestry concerns.
This comment is being downvoted, however it seems sensible to me? Can someone who is downvoting offer a counter argument instead?
Yeah, it is in fact very sensible.
The following is an uncharitable take but here goes: the stereotypical social media conservationist will be 100% anti-logging because there's no room for nuance - you either love the planet or you're a corporate money grubber - while people who recognize that complex problems typically aren't black and white and who genuinely care enough about the environment to become informed on the topic generally agree that some amount of controlled logging is a very good thing.
The following is an uncharitable take but here goes: the stereotypical social media conservationist will be 100% anti-logging because there's no room for nuance - you either love the planet or you're a corporate money grubber - while people who recognize that complex problems typically aren't black and white and who genuinely care enough about the environment to become informed on the topic generally agree that some amount of controlled logging is a very good thing.
I will be even more specific - most modern conservationists are generally pro-logging! It's a renewals resource that's carbon negative!
Anti-logging activism is a holdover from a specific time in the 80s when we had no other environmental concerns other than to superficially preserve the beauty of nature.
Anyone who tied themselves to a tree to stop a logger is now in their 50s and 60s. A minority, but at a peak age to influence policy.
Anti-logging activism is a holdover from a specific time in the 80s when we had no other environmental concerns other than to superficially preserve the beauty of nature.
Anyone who tied themselves to a tree to stop a logger is now in their 50s and 60s. A minority, but at a peak age to influence policy.
> Anyone who tied themselves to a tree to stop a logger is now in their 50s and 60s. A minority, but at a peak age to influence policy.
Here in Germany, it's routine. 2021 had the Forst Kasten in Munich occupied to protest against a gravel strip-mining operation [1], and the Hambacher Forst adjacent to a lignite strip-mining operation is still occupied [2].
[1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-forst-kasten-k...
[2] https://hambacherforst.org/besetzung/waldbesetzung/
Here in Germany, it's routine. 2021 had the Forst Kasten in Munich occupied to protest against a gravel strip-mining operation [1], and the Hambacher Forst adjacent to a lignite strip-mining operation is still occupied [2].
[1] https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/muenchen-forst-kasten-k...
[2] https://hambacherforst.org/besetzung/waldbesetzung/
Problem is that you would have to do the logging in a very uneconomic way.
Basically you would want to leave the most profitable trees (big/old ones) and cut down all the small ones. This is because big trees don't really burn down and survive the fires for the most part. After a fire they provide a canopy stopping the forest from growing to be as dense in the future. With the less dense forest the fires after that won't be as intense.
Basically you would want to leave the most profitable trees (big/old ones) and cut down all the small ones. This is because big trees don't really burn down and survive the fires for the most part. After a fire they provide a canopy stopping the forest from growing to be as dense in the future. With the less dense forest the fires after that won't be as intense.
Determining trees for cutting is usually determined by the forester, not the logger. If the forest manager wants to leave the big trees, that's on them and their management plan.
All the more reason to have logging happen on publicly managed lands than private ones where "controlled wildfire burns" might not be a consideration.
All the more reason to have logging happen on publicly managed lands than private ones where "controlled wildfire burns" might not be a consideration.
Much of the land is not commercially profitable to log due to competition with much larger, less steep, and more uniform forests. Also, there would be significant externalities to those living there (you can argue with them, but there are millions), including wildlife disruption/movement, surface water contamination/flooding/landslide, road obstruction/damage.
Once you allow a significant number of people to live there, the easiest political thing is just to make the costs of insurance/rebuilding/maintenance so high that people move out.
Once you allow a significant number of people to live there, the easiest political thing is just to make the costs of insurance/rebuilding/maintenance so high that people move out.
From the official CRS report on the NFS lands (https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45688.pdf):
> Numerous interrelated factors, including statutory, administrative, biological, and market influences, may have contributed to the decline in timber harvesting on NFS lands. The effect of each individual factor is not settled, as is the effect of each factor over time. These factors occurred at varying points in time and may not coincide directly with observed harvest level changes. Some sources have noted that statutory changes added complexity to forest management and increasing litigation frequency, while also increasing transparency and public participation.48 Other sources have noted changing management priorities. Others have noted decreasing domestic demand, volatile prices, and the prevalence of less valuable timber due to high harvest levels in previous decades. The listing of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) under the Endangered Species Act in 1990 is often discussed in regard to declining timber harvest levels.
So, the declining demand for wood probably means the industry is probably pretty happy to use the tree farms they have developed over the years. But it still seems like they would be happy to log public lands if it was made more convenient.
> Numerous interrelated factors, including statutory, administrative, biological, and market influences, may have contributed to the decline in timber harvesting on NFS lands. The effect of each individual factor is not settled, as is the effect of each factor over time. These factors occurred at varying points in time and may not coincide directly with observed harvest level changes. Some sources have noted that statutory changes added complexity to forest management and increasing litigation frequency, while also increasing transparency and public participation.48 Other sources have noted changing management priorities. Others have noted decreasing domestic demand, volatile prices, and the prevalence of less valuable timber due to high harvest levels in previous decades. The listing of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) under the Endangered Species Act in 1990 is often discussed in regard to declining timber harvest levels.
So, the declining demand for wood probably means the industry is probably pretty happy to use the tree farms they have developed over the years. But it still seems like they would be happy to log public lands if it was made more convenient.
Is there a correlation between recently (last 10 years?) logged areas and wildfires? I watched Wasted Wood by Harvey Richards lately and was surprised to see how much waste is left on the forrest floor, 15-30% of the tree. Seems like it could be an unnatural dense source of flammable material.
The US is the world's biggest lumber producer and Canada is often #2 as far as I can tell.
I'm a woodworker and this movie from 1964 was fascinating. At one point it said 'one day the 16" board will be a museum piece' and I just laughed because it is too true! The only non-composite boards I have seen that wide are $100s of dollars per foot and have such funky grain, checking, cracking, or splitting that I'm sure would have been ripped down by traditional pre-industrial revolution carpenters.
The US is the world's biggest lumber producer and Canada is often #2 as far as I can tell.
I'm a woodworker and this movie from 1964 was fascinating. At one point it said 'one day the 16" board will be a museum piece' and I just laughed because it is too true! The only non-composite boards I have seen that wide are $100s of dollars per foot and have such funky grain, checking, cracking, or splitting that I'm sure would have been ripped down by traditional pre-industrial revolution carpenters.
Wasted Wood is available at the Internet Archive:
<https://archive.org/details/csfsc_000011>
<https://archive.org/details/csfsc_000011>
The wildfire problem is also a case of the long reach of short-term interests. We would be able to put up with short-term inconvenience in the form of smoke from smaller fires otherwise. Instead we produced a perverse result the opposite of what was desired. Attempts to reduce small problems lead to bigger problems.
Short post about the morals of that type of problem: https://unintendedconsequenc.es/morals-of-the-moment/
Short post about the morals of that type of problem: https://unintendedconsequenc.es/morals-of-the-moment/
Where I live wild fires are almost certainly the collision of two ingredients: drought and alcohol consumption.
whenever I feel frustrated I think to some of the people involved in this debacle for over 30 years
30 years of the idiocy of public bureaucracy and government politics getting in the way of a better world. the people on that fight are my personal heroes in withstanding frustration
30 years of the idiocy of public bureaucracy and government politics getting in the way of a better world. the people on that fight are my personal heroes in withstanding frustration
Could this problem be solved by giant tree condoms?
Is this one of Trump's unlikely broken clock moments[0]? (Ignore his, ahem, 'unsophisticated' wording for a second)
[0] https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/08/20/...
[0] https://www.politico.com/states/california/story/2020/08/20/...
I'm from the government I'm here to help!
There are a lot of reasons fires are more and more common and more and more devastating, but the number one reason is build up of vegetation on the forest floor that contributes to a ladder effect moving the fire from a ground fire to a canopy fire.
A lot more effort needs to be undertaken to build fire breaks and conduct controlled burns in the forests of North America to mitigate this problem and provide the fire the ecosystem evolved around and nutrients for new trees. It would also help beat back the various fungal and beetle pandemics in the western forests. We can't simply blame it all on PG&E and move on, a spark from a PG&E power line would not turn into a devastating megafire if the forest was healthy.