Fiddling While the West Burns

| More
rolf

Once you’ve witnessed a wildland fire, you’ll never forget it.  The haze that filters sunlight, casting a strange, darkened light.  The dramatic flare-ups that consume trees like matches.  The massive plumes of smoke that mimic mushroom clouds.  And maybe most of all, the pervasive smoke that gets everywhere, creeping beyond closed doors and sticking to clothes.

While fires are an important part of the natural balance in some American ecosytems, scientists tell us global warming is setting up hotter, drier conditions that could lead to more large, dangerous fires. Weather and climate are very complicated phenomenon, so there's plenty of science being to understand this; you can read more here and here.

The Station Fire burning near Los Angeles

This means more people and property at risk, more firefighter lives on the line, and more taxpayer dollars sapped by expensive emergency responses.

What can be done?  Fire experts tell us we need to spend more money on preventative measures – things that improve our safety, save money, and lower the likelihood of dangerous conflagrations in the future.  There is a long list of those measures, from creating fire-resistant “defensible space” around buildings, to the controlled burning of fire-dependent wildlands.

However, one of the most important preventative measures is receiving less attention: fighting global warming.  We can, and should, stop run-away temperature rise from making droughts, heat waves and fires worse.

A home destroyed by the Station Fire near Los Angeles


The moment to do this is now.  Away from the smoke-shrouded mountains of southern California, international leaders are struggling to create a climate treaty.  The deadline for this is rapidly approaching in December when UN climate talks wrap up in Copenhagen.

The main problem preventing progress is a lack of leadership from developed countries in two key areas: (1) commitments to serious cuts in pollution and (2) substantial funding to fight global warming and its effects in developing countries.

The first one is pretty straightforward.  In order to fight global warming, developed countries need to cut climate pollution aggressively.  So far, few have shown any real commitment to this.  Instead, countries like the U.S. have set weak targets, then filled them offsets to outsource green jobs, cleaner skies elsewhere.  In a recent media interview, Representative Rick Boucher (R-VA) summed up the effects of offsets on pollution reductions succintly: “…an electric utility burning coal will not have to reduce the emissions at the plant site.  It can just keep burning coal.”  Needless to say, loopholes and outsourcing won’t get us where we need to go.
 
The second commitment, providing funding, does not mean another big bailout fueled by taxpayer dollars.  If properly designed, cap and trade systems make big polluters pay for their pollution instead of lining their pockets with windfall profits.  For a total of $140 billion worldwide, this funding would allow us to protect the world's most vulnerable people from the worst impacts of climate change, help developing countries “leapfrog” dirty energy development and stop deforestation (a leading source of climate pollution).

Now is the time for President Obama to step up and provide leadership.  In gatherings later this month at the United Nations in New York and the G-20 in Pittsburgh, world leaders will have an historic opportunity to make real progress towards a climate deal.  If they act like poll-watching politicians instead of real leaders, our future may be left out high, hot and dry.

Comments:

Permalink fincemay [Visitor] on September 08, 2009 at 22:22
Wow...very interesting article guys..thanks so much.
Permalink coleymitchell [Visitor] on September 09, 2009 at 22:26
Interesting article. Although I am all for the Greenpeace cause, I do have a problem with bad reporting. The Reuters article that you cite is referring to forest fires themselves as a contributing factor to global warming, not a byproduct of global warming itself. The article refers to fires that are intentionally sent to clear land in places like the Amazon. So my question is, how do you justify the correlation between humans setting fires intentionally and the theme of your article that global warming is causing more forest fires. Empirical data (I encourage people to research this) shows that cooler temperatures in the Pacific are what attribute to dryer conditions on the West coast (not the other way around). If someone could explain these contradictions in greater detail I think it would be of benefit for everyone.
Permalink veronycha [Visitor] on September 10, 2009 at 04:39
Good article...
Permalink jeffpalmor [Member] on September 10, 2009 at 05:24
it so terrible
Permalink rolf [Member] on September 11, 2009 at 17:21
Hi coleymitchell -- thanks for catching that mistake; having too many tabs open on my browser, I accidentally included the wrong link in my original post! You'll see a few links above about global warming and increased fire risk. The causes of wildland fires are complicated, involving weather, terrain, fuels, ignition sources, etc. That said, there is a growing body of science showing that changes in precipitation as well as temperature extremes forecast as effects of global warming could increase the frequency and severity of fires. The ocean temperatures you refer to (and corresponding El Nino and La Nina events associated with them) affect different regions of the world differently. As warm waters shift to the western Pacific, colder surface temperatures are found in the eastern Pacific. Likewise, precipitation shifts. It is important to note that a rise in global sea surface temperatures is thought to enhance the El Niño phenomenon; the fact that El Niños have been more frequent and intense in recent decades as global temperatures have risen does not contradict that hypothesis. On a side note, increased precipitation doesn't always mean a tame fire year. Timing matters a bunch. For example, wet winters and springs can increase growth of flammable, herbaceous vegetation, that help spread surface fires during hotter summer/fall months. Complicated stuff. But, when we look at cycles and systems (not a snapshot of temperatures in one region) it is increasingly clear that a rise in overall global temperature (global warming) spells trouble for fire-prone areas in the U.S.

You must have an account and be logged in to post comments. Log in or create an account for the Greenpeace member center here.

About Me

rolf
San Francisco, CA USA

A life-long tree hugger, Rolf Skar has worked on forest conservation efforts for more than ten years.  He serves as a senior forest campaigner with Greenpeace based in San Francisco.

Contact Me >

Invite rolf to your Personal Activist Network

Syndicate XML

Categories




702 H Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 462-1177
youtube   myspace   facebook