Are Southern California's Wildfires a Harbinger of Worst Things to Come Under Climate Change?
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.
Follow Jeremy Jacquot on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jejacquot
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I've been seeing these wildfires ever since moving to CA 25 years ago. And my friends at that time said this was to be expected in the fall. So, to them it was nothing new. Fires always accompany the Santa Ana winds in October and November.
A lot of the problem is bad management. We allow dry brush to accumulate, we don't clean out the forest areas the way native people used to when they were managing the wilderness here.
And most of these fires are started by careless people.
I'm not saying global warming might not contribute, but the wildfire problem here is more about management than climate change, IMHO.
I can see one very real way in which global warming may be related to the CA wildfires.
I have spent most of my life in California. I remember that the end of October, Halloween, used to coincide with the beginning of the rainy season and with the start of the cold weather. Many Halloweens I took our children out trick-or-treating in heavy clothes and with umbrellas. It was not unusual to wake up to find frost on the lawns and roofs by mid November. Sometimes we would have huge snowstorms in the mountains in November, and the roads to Big Bear Lake would be closed until they were opened with snowplows.
In recent years, we are seeing the worst of the fires take place in November, during a time that used to be the rainy season. Last year the fire storms did not end until the end of November, and today, Nov. 18th, there are still fires out of control.
Two years in a row do not prove a trend, but our recent annual weather patterns have certainly been out of what I used to call the norm.
The answer: No.
The key to CA's big fires is how we manage fire and fuels in the US. Look right below CA's border into Mexico -- there, due to lack of resources, they allow fires to burn. BUT, these fires happen earlier in the season before the Santa Ana winds come, and while the fuels are little more moist. They don't get huge scary conflagrations there, because if and when a fire starts later in the dry season, the fuel is already burned off and can't carry a big blaze. In CA, fuel loads are massive and tinder dry by late summer. Add a spark and the Santa Ana winds, and the place just explodes.
This dynamic is nationwide -- the majority of our upland habitats in the US used to burn every few years on a massive landscape scale due to natural lightning strikes, and no one putting them out. There's a huge body of research on this. When Europeans came along, we brought our knee-jerk aversion to fire with us. Now, we've got brush fuels building up all over the nation, and we spend billions fighting monster fires every year because of it. The US has dozens of endangered plants and animals due to the lack of repetitive, low intensity fire in their habitats -- there's a whole suite of critters specifically adapted to this regime.
That's not to say climate change isn't happening and won't promote more and bigger fires -- it will, definitely. Just not
say chiro, you do know that not everyone lives leeward of the mojave desert right? ''This dynamic is nationwide.. ''
Yeah, I do know that. And, the dynamic is nationwide.
Again, virtually ALL of the upland habitats in the US used to burn regularly before European settlement. The Great Plains, the intermountain west, and the forests and prairies of the south and midwest. About the only area that appears to have been mostly fire-absent was the cold, moist New England states and probably the rain-saturated coasts of OR and WA.
All of the areas outside of New England have fire-dependent habitats that used to cover much larger expanses of the country. This has been verified by Gov't Land Office records, where the initial Colonial surveyors documented the habitats they encountered during the initial westward push. Some of these specific habitats include Ponderosa Pine (interior western mountians), tallgrass prairie (Great Plains and midwest), white oak savannah (MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, IN), and longleaf pine (all southern states).
If it is; The California led green thumb can stop it. After all the green movement has done a great job getting us all back to the land. Just imagine................Oh sorry, I forgot. America has to lead the world on the green front even if it means that we lose everything. From such weakness, (I mean leadership), the rest of the world will follow suit. My question to the green machine is... How far do we decline before you all are happy?
And your point (besides trolling) would be?
The Point
The people of this great country have mandated that American corporations, small business, and citizenry incorporate clean energy, conservation and do all effort we can to make our planet a better place to live.
Emerging markets have not. They are increasing their fossil fuel initiatives and curtailed environmental policies related to disposal of contaminated waste into the ground and watersheds. This is the JDIOTBD, (just dump it out the back door initiative). The related cost reductions will enable them to overcome the shipping costs of their products to America and keep the lowest price point to overtake competing American companies. You have to give it to them; they have adopted a capitalistic model. Unfortunately it is the model that America had in the beginning of the industrial age. No labor laws, environmental regulations etc.
Capitalism is alive and well in America. To keep it we must consider it a national security issue. We are in the fight of our lives and our hands are tied before going into the ring with the emerging market competition. Which begs other questions…
Is the integrity of the global economy more important than the livelihood of the American people? If the answer is no than is it too much to ask that we consider, at lest for now, consuming products from corporations that have their domicile in America? Or should we be the martyrs for the global economy?
Compose yourself, and your sentences while you're at it.
Global warming is absolutely real. And it is absolutely man made. But that has no logical relationship to these losses in CA wild fires. Why?
Wild fires are natural. That their frequency increases with drought conditions is natural. And that there is a correlation between (globally and in this case locally ) higher temperatures and droughts is natural.
But that houses burn down in these fires is not natural. These houses are lost because we build in areas which are prone to these fires. And we know it. The fire department can tell you, the insurance company can tell you that, the legislature knows it. Yet, we keep building.
If we take global warming seriously, and I hope by now enough people do, we need to adjust to it. To build a cinder box house above a steep, dry canyon full with dry grass and brushwork is an invitation for disaster and we need to stop it.
Good point. I've been trying to write a post about fires just south of the border in Mex!co (is that the offending word) -- deleted twice. They burn naturally there, but early in the year before the fuel is totally dry. Unlike CA, they don't put them out, so when late summer dryness and wind come, there's no fuel. And hence, no mega-fires in late summer.
True, one more way to deal with the problem. Let mother nature have her way.
Been to SoCal lately? Perhaps you've not noticed that it is pretty much ALL canyons and dry grass/brush. ..no? People have to live somewhere. To build houses near a coastline is not 'natural' ,either. To build houses in the Mississippi river plain isnt natural; building in tornado alley is 'an invitation to disaster', as well. We live where we live. Your point is as obvious as it is pointless, and therefore,..'quite lame'.
Well, there are different solutions to this problem.
1) Build houses away from these areas.
2) Meticulously clear the areas around these settlements.
3) Build with fire retardant materials and put in active fire suppression measures (like roof and wall sprinklers).
4) Spend more money on your firefighters. You might need them one day.
None of these is lame or pointless. They are the natural things to do, if you think about it.
Since we aren't doing either of these but keep building highly flammable houses next to poorly cleared brushwork we don't have to be surprised that we are losing billions of dollars every year to fires. Similar arguments can be made about building "straw" houses in hurricane alley. Maybe we need to teach our zoning planners what the meaning of the story of the three little pigs is?
OMG, Jeremy finally figured it out!!! We're all safe now.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
