If we’re serious about reducing carbon emissions, we need to address a significant source of emissions: wildfires.
What do we think causes more carbon emissions, thinning trees from the wilderness landscape or letting them burn?
Wilderness fires release significant carbon emissions. Scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and the University of Chicago analyzed greenhouse gas emissions from just California wildfires in 2020. They found California's wildfires that year ranked as the state's second-leading source of carbon emissions, thereby counteracting the progress made by decreases in emissions from other sectors.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Forest Service states that “overgrown forests, a warming climate, and a growing number of homes in the wildland-urban interface” increase wildfire risk. The National Forest System (NFS) estimates between 5 million and 11 million acres need immediate attention across the western United States. Many other agencies and groups share a stake in the wildland fire mitigation strategy, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, The Nature Conservancy, the Intertribal Timber Council, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.
Of the nearly 13 million acres across ten forest landscapes identified in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, NFS plans to treat around 1.3 million acres through 2026. After 2026, there has yet to be a currently identified plan for treatment. Future administrations will have to consider funding for the remaining treatment needs. The NFS plan states, “In coordination with other Federal agencies, Tribes, States, and other landowners, the goal remains to treat 20–40 percent of these landscapes.” The plan further states, “the Forest Service and our partners are still well short of the resources necessary to complete the work called for in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy.”
As a nation, we must consider at least three questions regarding the mitigation of wildfires and reduced carbon emissions.
Are we committed to reducing carbon emissions?
Wildfires counteract the progress made by decreases in emissions from other sectors. In other words, if we take steps that we think will cut emissions, such as incentivizing electric vehicles and other measures, but fail to mitigate the impact of wildfires, what do we accomplish?
Suppose we decide we are committed to reducing carbon emissions. Does it logically follow that we would apply social and legislative pressure to support activities such as mechanical thinning and logging of forests? Consider Bureau of Land Management activities. A Google search for “BLM logging” yields several returns similar to:
A legal challenge to the commercial logging of…has prompted the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to delay two timber sales there and to put off related fuels-reduction work aimed at reducing fire danger…. - Shaun Hall, Rogue Valley Times, June 7, 2023
Environmental groups aiming to protect the environment and threatened species, such as the spotted owl, are inadvertently increasing carbon emissions by taking legal action against federal agencies responsible for forest treatment. This legal action delays forest fuel reduction efforts, leading to more intense wildfires when that fuel ignites.
There is no easy solution. The wilderness firefighters have a valid perspective, and so do the environmental groups. As a result, the question “Are we committed to reducing carbon emissions?” doesn’t have a simple answer. If the answer is ‘yes,’ we need to increase thinning of national forests. This answer would mean accepting some damage to soil and habitat.
If we are committed to reducing carbon emissions, would we justify using taxpayer dollars to reduce the emissions that result from wildfires?
Old-growth forests have the most valuable trees, both from a wood product standpoint and a carbon reduction standpoint. Removing the financial incentive for logging companies to take the most valuable trees off the landscape could necessitate taxpayer dollars to incentivize the companies to perform mechanical thinning. Mechanical thinning removes small trees, deadfall, and other smaller objects, but it is not profitable.
Logging makes money. Mechanical thinning costs money.
Suppose we restrict logging companies’ financial incentives by barring the take of the most valuable wood, and we still want to reduce forest fuel to mitigate the impact of wildfires. In that case, we must pay for thinning with taxpayer dollars. As noted above, the Wildfire Crisis Strategy identifies that “the Forest Service and our partners are still well short of the resources necessary to complete the work called for in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy.”
When we commit to reducing the fuel load of our forests and perform the treatments, the results are long lasting. The fire risk could go down for decades, depending on fuel type.
How will we pay for it?
Suppose we are committed to reducing carbon emissions, and we choose to primarily mechanically thin and not log wilderness areas (except in overgrown regions). How will we pay for the mechanical thinning and other necessary forest treatment?
The Wildfire Crisis Strategy states the forest areas in question would “receive an investment of $131 million in fiscal year 2022 from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.” This funding is well below the level necessary for treatment that would significantly mitigate the impact of wildfires.
In contrast, the federal budget directs orders of magnitude more funding to other climate and clean energy sources. The March 9, 2023 fact sheet providing details of the federal budget outlines:
The Budget provides $16.5 billion to support climate science and clean energy innovation, proposing $5.1 billion to fund a broad portfolio of research to improve understanding of our changing climate and inform adaptation and resilience measures across multiple agencies, including the Department of the Interior, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce, National Science Foundation, and others.
Suppose we make substantial gains in reducing carbon emissions through changing energy production sources, improving heavy industry emissions, and streamlining transportation but fail to mitigate wildfires. In this scenario, we would make little progress towards reducing carbon emissions.
The reality of the situation is, of course, murkier than this analysis. Carbon emissions from wildfires are challenging to separate from emissions from other sources, as highlighted by UC-Irvine professor Steven Davis:
Analyzing the amount of carbon dioxide released during wildfires is difficult for Earth system scientists for a variety of reasons. Rugged, smoke-enshrouded terrain hampers satellite observations during a combustion event, and space-based measurements are not at a sufficiently fine resolution to reveal details of CO2 emissions. Models used to simulate fuel load, fuel consumption and fire efficiency work well under ordinary circumstances but are not robust enough to represent extreme wildfires, according to the researchers.
But no matter the view of this muddy situation, Dr. Davis also found wildfires are setting records for carbon emissions:
Steven Davis, UCI professor of Earth system science, led a study of carbon dioxide emissions from forest fires in recent decades. In a paper in the journal Science, he and his colleagues shared some shocking findings. “According to our measurements, boreal fires in 2021 shattered previous records. These fires are two decades of rapid warming and extreme drought in Northern Canada and Siberia coming to roost, and unfortunately even this new record may not stand for long,” he says.
To reduce carbon emissions, we must mitigate the impact of wildfires. If we don’t reduce the effects of wildfires, carbon emissions from wildfires overcome any gains we make in other carbon emission reduction areas.
To mitigate wildfires, we need to reduce the fuel load across our national forests and other timbered regions. This reduction will improve wilderness firefighters’ ability to contain wildfires.
To reduce the fuel load across our forests, we must thin our forested regions mechanically.
Mechanically thinning forested regions is not profitable. As a result, we will have to use taxpayer money. If we refuse to use taxpayer money, we could make the treatment of forested regions possible by approving logging.
We must move taxpayer funds for mechanically thinning forests from climate science or other experimental efforts to wildfire mitigation. While climate science is essential, we can’t ignore the immediate need to mitigate wildfire emissions.
May God bless the United States of America.
Thanks to Bill Casey, wilderness firefighting living legend, for his time and perspective out in the mountains! At 78, you’re an inspiration to us all for still carrying your heavy ruck.
Share this post