Like many anguished Southern Californians, I spent the better part of this weekend obsessively checking local news websites and poring over the Orange County Register's extremely helpful fire map. Though I had been keeping a side eye on the wildfires that blazed through Santa Barbara a few days ago, I found myself paying much closer attention this time around because, truth be told, I had a personal stake in the outcome. To be more specific, my parents did: their home, located in a Yorba Linda suburb, was in the path of the fires.
I wasn't alone, of course. Many of my closest friends from high school, who now also live in the Los Angeles area, have parents or family members who live in Yorba Linda, Anaheim Hills and other cities touched by the flames. I spent several stressful hours Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning fielding calls from out-of-state friends and relatives who were concerned about the fate of my parents, who had been forced to evacuate Saturday morning.
In the end, thankfully, my worst fears proved largely unfounded. My parents were able to return Sunday afternoon to find a soot-covered, though largely intact, house. Many of their neighbors, however, were not so fortunate: at least 8 other homes on their street burned down, and they saw several other charred husks on their way back. I was particularly saddened to hear that one of my closest friends had lost her home during the fires.
Yet, as tragic as these wildfires have already been for countless families who have seen their homes go up in flames, they could, unfortunately, mark the beginning of a long, destructive trend. Though I would hesitate to directly link the wildfires to climate change, there is no doubt in my mind that it had a prominent role to play in sparking what many have described as the worst fire season in at least half a century.
I would first point to the series of record droughts and heat waves that have plagued Southern California over recent years. Parched grasses, when combined with warmer temperatures and strong winds, make for ideal combustion material. Indeed, according to a study published in Science in 2006, the number of wildfires since 1986 has quadrupled, and the area of forest burned has sextupled (when compared to the period between 1970 and 1986) -- the direct result, the authors say, of a spate of longer, warmer summers. Using a data set of past wildfire occurrences in the western United States, they calculated that the length of the active fire season has lengthened by 78 days and that the average burn duration of major fires increased from about 7.5 to 37.1 days.
Another study published that year suggested that warmer temperatures and higher emissions would cause Santa Ana winds to become stronger in November and December, making it more likely that coastal areas in Southern California would be affected by wildfires later in the year.
Even the Bush administration acknowledged the higher risk of wildfires when Gail Kimbell, the head of the U.S. Forest Service, said that warmer temperatures would increase the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires. A report commissioned by the agency found that the average number of trees destroyed by fires would increase in the coming years as a result of higher temperatures and stronger-than-usual Santa Ana winds. (The Forest Service has since released a plan for how to deal with the increased risk of wildfires.)
Though the future risk of wildfires may fluctuate as a function of a region's moisture, terrain and fuel supply -- indeed, a recent study published in Climatic Change predicted that wildfires could become more frequent in Northern California and less frequent in Southern California because of their differing topography and hydrology -- the larger problem, many experts warn, is that more and more cities are abutting wildland areas. This makes it harder for fire departments to commit sufficient resources toward both protecting homes and combating fires, something that became immediately apparent this weekend. (Of course, it wouldn't hurt if the Governator actually implemented all those fire reforms from the 2003 fires he has touted.)
A UC Berkeley report released this past week estimated the combined effects of climate change -- sea level rise, wildfires and other extreme weather patterns -- could cost the state $300 million to $3.9 billion a year (a figure that seems fairly reasonable in the wake of last week's destruction); the authors believe $2.5 trillion in real estate assets could be at risk. Even if the costs of mitigation prove equally high, it is difficult to argue with the authors' argument that the worst thing we could do now is to not do anything about climate change.
While it's never a good idea to fixate on the exact numbers, these studies and reports all point to a common trend: more, and more intense, wildfires in California over the coming decades. Though it may be too late to reverse these trends completely, there is still time for California and other western states to take the necessary precautionary measures to blunt their impact -- whether that be cutting emission levels, investing in new infrastructure or renewable energy projects or protecting vulnerable areas. Anything less could mean last week's events become a prelude for worse things to come.