It's Only The Environment After All
Climate Change And The Burning Of America
by Tom Kenworthy
Dan Oltrogge started fighting wildfires in 1984. By the time he
retired from the National Park Service in 2011, he had served as the
head of fire and aviation at Grand Canyon National Park, as the
commander of one of the nation’s 20 Type One incident management teams
that respond to the largest fires, and as one of just four area
commanders in the federal incident management system.
Starting around 2000, Oltrogge began experiencing fires of a scale
and intensity he never expected to encounter. Fires like the
Rodeo-Chediski in Arizona in 2002 — at 467,000 acres, the largest in the
state’s history — and 9 years later the Wallow, which surpassed the
Rodeo-Chediski and set a new state record of 538,000 acres.
“We never imagined we would be on a fire of a half million acres in
the lower 48,” said Oltrogge. “Now they’re becoming commonplace.”
Huge, explosive fires are becoming commonplace, say many experts,
because climate change is setting the stage — bringing higher
temperatures, widespread drought, earlier snowmelt and spring vegetation
growth, and expanded insect and disease infestations.
Scientists and fire experts speaking on a recent conference call
organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists say the nation is moving
into an era when massive and destructive wildfires of the kind that
occurred only sporadically over the last century will now be a regular
occurrence. “Within the next few decades we anticipate these [forest]
systems being as dry on a regular basis as the major fire years of the
last century,” said Anthony Westerling of the University of California,
Merced.
“We are now completely certain that there is a climate signal in the
observed fire activity,” added Dave Cleaves, climate adviser to the head
of the U.S. Forest Service. “Fire, insects, disease and moisture stress
are all being linked more closely by climate change.”
Wildfire
statistics
compiled by the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, offer
sobering confirmation. The seven largest fire years since 1960 have all
occurred since 2000. In 2006, 2007, and last year, the toll exceeded 9
million acres, an area roughly equivalent to Maryland and Rhode Island
combined.
This
year’s fire season, while running behind 2012 in terms of acreage lost
thus far, is proving particularly destructive and tragic in some places.
A year after the
Waldo Canyon fire set a new standard for destructiveness in Colorado by burning nearly 350 homes in 2012, this June the
Black Forest Fire destroyed more than 500 just a few miles away. And the June 30
Yarnell Hill fire
in Arizona killed 19 members of a Hot Shot firefighting crew when they
were overrun by flames, the deadliest wildfire in 80 years.
There is no single reason for the recent transition to more frequent
and explosive fires, says Oltrogge. For one, too many people are
“deciding to build communities where there will be big scary wildfires.”
And there is too much fuel built up in forests where frequent
low-intensity fires once thinned out underbrush but where decades of man
suppressing natural fires has resulted in overcrowded stands of trees
now vulnerable to catastrophic fires. Plus, emphasizes Oltrogge, “I can
tell you as a matter of fact that climate change is a key contributor to
what we’ve been dealing with the last 10 to 12 years.”
That’s hardly an outlier opinion. In
congressional testimony
two years ago, Thomas Tidwell, the head of the U.S. Forest Service,
told lawmakers that his agency faces conditions of higher temperatures,
earlier mountain snowmelt, and much longer fire seasons, which “our
scientists believe … is due to a change in climate.”
Tidwell again delivered that
message
yet again to Congress last month. Large fires in excess of 10,000 acres
are seven times more common today than four decades ago, Tidwell said.
The fire season is two months longer. In 2012, he said, “over 9.3
million acres burned in the United States. The fires of 2012 were
massive in size, with 51 fires exceeding 40,000 acres. Of these large
fires, 14 exceeded 100,000 acres.”
And that comes with a huge price tag.
The cost of federal firefighting efforts, borne largely by the Forest
Service and the Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, has
also risen dramatically. At the Forest Service, firefighting now often
eats up
40 percent of the agency’s annual budget. In a little more than a decade, fire staffing at the Forest Service has more than
doubled. During the decade of the 1990s, federal firefighting costs averaged less than
$1 billion a year; since 2002, the annual cost has averaged more than
$3 billion.
There is little prospect of those costs declining. In fact, a
report
released last month by Headwaters Economics concluded, “These changes
will all contribute to escalating wildfire protection costs for all
levels of government.”
Federal efforts to reduce fire risks — through thinning of small
trees and underbrush and by setting what are known as ‘prescribed fires’
to cut down on those small fuels that can lead to large catastrophic
fires — were accelerated around the year 2000, when spending on what is
known as the hazardous fuels reduction program run by the Forest
Service and Department of Interior
tripled.
But spending on fuels reduction since 2011 has declined, and in its
budget request this year, the Obama administration has sought a cut of
more than
30 percent,
the third year in a row it has proposed substantial reductions to
Congress. The administration’s request for hazardous fuels reduction for
next year is just $297 million.
Wildfire preparedness has taken another hit as a result of automatic
budget cuts under sequestration, which cut spending from $500 million
last year to $419 million this year. A
report
released this spring by House Appropriation Committee Democrats found
that sequestration would mean the Forest Service would have 500 fewer
firefighters this season, and 50-70 fewer fire engines and two fewer
aircraft.
Increasingly, lawmakers are calling on the Forest Service and
Interior Department to spend more on preventive measures in order to
eventually reduce firefighting costs. “You can spend more modest amounts
on the front end, with preventive kinds of efforts, or you can spend
your time investing substantially more money trying to play catch-up as
these infernos rip their way through the West,” said Sen. Ron Wyden
(D-Oregon) last month.
Even
with stronger financial support, the job of treating forests to reduce
wildfire is enormous. The federal government is currently treating about
3 million acres a year, but Tidwell, the chief of the Forest Service,
told Congress
in June that between 65 and 82 million acres of Forest Service lands
“are in need of fuels and forest health treatments — up to 42 percent of
the entire system.”
Across all federal land holdings, 231 million acres are at moderate
to high risk of damage from wildfires, according to a 2011 Congressional
Research Service
report.
“Since many ecosystems need to be treated on a 10-35 year cycle …
current treatment rates are insufficient to address the problem,” the
report found.
Attacking the escalating expense of fighting fires is a difficult problem.
This is due in large part to the fact that the federal government,
which shoulders most of the firefighting expense, has little power to
control Americans’ urge to move into the woods because land use
decisions are a local and state responsibility.
A key reason that wildfires have become more destructive, and
fighting them more expensive, is that millions of Americans have made a
conscious decision to move close to wildlands that are susceptible to
fire — known by the infelicitous phrase the wildland-urban interface, or
WUI.
“The number of housing units within half a mile of a national forest
grew from 484,000 in 1940 to 1.8 million in 2000,” Tidwell testified to
Congress last month. Another
1.2 million
live within national forest boundaries, a nearly four-fold increase
from 1940. Even with all that development near and in the forest, only
about one-sixth of the WUI is developed, leaving plenty of room to make
the situation worse.
Protecting those structures during fires has become the de facto
number two priority of federal firefighting efforts, after protecting
human life. According to Headwaters Economics’ recent report, “in a
survey of [Forest Service] land managers, some estimated that 50 to 95
percent of firefighting costs were attributable to protection of private
property.”
Further complicating the matter is the fact that knowing that federal
firefighters will make valiant efforts to save homes “removes
incentives for landowners moving into the WUI to take responsibility for
their own protection and ensure their homes are constructed and
landscaped in ways that reduce wildfire risks” according to a
report by the Department of Agriculture’s Inspector General.
Ray Rasker, executive director of Headwaters Economics, said in an
interview that a huge part of the problem is the fact that “there is no
cost accountability for those who build in the WUI,” whether its
individual homeowners or the local government bodies who make the
development decisions about sewers, police coverage, roads and other
issues.
“There are a lot of questions they ask about okaying a new
development,” says Rasker. “But they don’t ask, ‘when we get a bill from
the feds are we going to be able to afford our share of the
firefighting costs?’” That’s because in most cases, they don’t have to
share those fire costs. If they did, said Rasker, it would be much
easier for local government to say no to development in the WUI.
“Eighty four percent of this land is still not developed,” Rasker
says. “If you think it’s expensive now, you’re in for a big surprise.
Fires are twice as big, they are burning twice as long. That’s the cost
trajectory we are on.”
Climate change is altering the fundamentals in the West, bringing
higher temperatures, earlier snowmelt that extends the fire season,
severe and prolonged drought, and insect infestations that kill millions
of acres of trees. Combined with scant evidence that policymakers at
all levels of government are attacking the problems of fuels and
population shifts into the WUI, there seems to be little prospect that
the growing extent of wildfires will be stemmed.
A
paper
released last December by the Forest Service, part of the government’s
National Climate Assessment, looked at the effects of climate change on
U.S. forest ecosystems. On the subject of fire, it presented a stark and
sobering conclusion: by mid-century, wildland fires will be burning
twice as much acreage as they do now.
It's Not Like We Don't Have Another One
When
a study in 2008 found that children, on average, do not like clowns,
many people were surprised. The rest of us weren't because we never
liked clowns, either. Sometime over the past 50 years, clowns in popular
culture moved from funny to downright horrific, which is indicative of
how an audience sees them. Smithsonian looks at the history of clowns,
and finds that depressing, creepy, and/or frightening clowns are really
nothing new. The happy children's clowns of the mid-20th century were
somewhat of an anomaly, because clowns were never all sunshine and
smiles, from court jesters to Grimaldi to Pagliacci to Emmett Kelly to John Wayne Gacy.
The
makeup of the U.S. armed forces has changed considerably since the days
of the draft. The all-volunteer military is a self-selected group that
must must pass higher entrance requirements than ever before. Various
reports and polls give us a snapshot of what the overall active-duty
population is like. For example, they are more educated than ever.
