Forest Fires: When More is Better
This just in: Smokey the Bear had it all wrong. Now it seems that only YOU can cause forest fires.
There’s mounting evidence that our fire suppression program over the last few decades has actually made forest fires worse. Instead of allowing frequent, smaller burns that remove brush and tinder from the forest floor, we allow it to build up year upon year. Then, when a spark hits, it has plenty of fuel to consume not just the debris, but to engulf mature trees.
Aside from the absolute destruction to the forest habitats and the homes surrounding the “managed land,” there’s some indication that this fire suppression program has a climate impact.
In covering a new study on fire suppression vs. prescribed burns, the New York Times wrote,
Wildfires can also contribute to climate change. Because they are much more intense than prescribed fires, they often kill many old-growth trees that store the most carbon, a consequence that hazardous-fuel reduction programs are meant to avoid…
“We know that prescribed fire can burn less fuel than a large, stand-replacing wildfire. The question was how much? Is it enough that it should be a management technique worth perusing if you want to store more carbon?” asked Wiedinmyer, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
The study, published in Environmental Science and Technology, found that widespread prescribed burns might have slashed fire-related carbon dioxide emissions in 11 Western states by an average of 18 to 25 percent between the years 2001 and 2008, and by as much as 60 percent in some forest systems.
The actual carbon dioxide emissions from fires during those years averaged anywhere from 22 million to 103 million metric tons a year, the study estimates. The latter figure is about double the emissions produced by California’s entire electric power sector, according to recent U.S. Energy Information Administration data.
The Time points out that these emissions numbers are contested, but even at the low end of the range, the volume of carbon is astounding. Any emission source that rivals the power sector deserves some serious study.
Does this mean the next generation of kids will grow up with Pyro the Deer?
crazy deer by dug ross
No. It most certainly does not. That’s just creepy.
Can't get enough? Try these related posts:
