Global warming and wildfires

Guest Post by Michael J.W. Stickings

The deniers will continue to deny, not just at their own peril but at the peril of us all, but global warming, and climate change more broadly, continues to wreak havoc with our daily lives. Researchers have already connected global warming to stronger hurricanes like Katrina and Rita and to extensive heat waves in the U.S. and Europe, and now, according to CNN, researchers are linking it to devastating wildfires:

Global warming could stoke ferocious wildfires that will be more difficult and costly to fight and might drastically alter the environment in parts of the world, some scientists warn.

Approximately 1,000 scientists and forestry officials who gathered in San Diego for an international wildfire meeting that began Monday urged policymakers to consider the effects of global warming when managing wildfires.

The wildfire season that just ended in the U.S. was the most severe — and expensive — on record with more than 89,000 fires scorching 9.5 million acres, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. The U.S. Forest Service spent $1.5 billion fighting those fires — about $100 million over budget.

Wildfire season typically peaks in late summer and early fall. Climate change is being blamed for a longer fire season and some even predict the possibility of a year-round fire season.

However much the deniers try to write it off as bad science, or as pernicious theory with no basis in reality, global warming can no longer be considered some distant abstraction. It is very real. And if incremental temperature increases and the slow melting of the polar ice caps don’t arouse much public concern, certainly not enough to arouse the attention of politicians, perhaps the onslaught of ever more destructive hurricanes and wildfires will do the trick.

Sad to say, but the prime motivator in people’s lives is often nothing other than narrow and immediate self-interest. Such is human nature. Planetary disequilibrium is simply too remote for most people, for people with the incapacity to think and feel beyond themselves. They would rather have their taxes cut and satisfy their basest material desires than make the necessary sacrifices to save the planet and safeguard the well-being of future generations.

But what if their houses are being flooded, as in New Orleans? What if fire is overrunning their houses, as in California? Will these manifestations of global warming not arouse their self-interest? Will they not finally compel our leaders to act?

Global warming is for real. Now or later, we’ll have to deal with it far more seriously than we’re dealing with it now, when most people can go on living in blissful ignorance. But it will only get worse. And, as it does, so will its manifestations. Think about that when you turn on CNN for news of yet another weather-related disaster.

What I fail to understand is, whether one believes in climate change or not (I do, BTW), why is trying to protect the planet a bad thing?

This is especially true of radical Christians — according to them, didn’t God create the Earth? If so, shouldn’t protecting God’s creating be of the utmost importance? I know there is a shift on the Christian far right to become more environmentally conscious, but one would think that it would’ve happened a whole lot sooner.

And for the capitalists, one would think that green technologies would be an area of explosive growth potential. Especially in terms of renewable energy — you build something with a one time cost that winds up paying out without much else other than maintenance (as opposed to say, oil, which requires continually investment in terms of drilling and finding new sources).

So, on both the theological and monetary levels, taking care of this problem seems to make a great deal of sense. Of course, it makes too much sense, which is probably the problem …

  • Just to clarify, Katrina is definitely responsible for the destruction of South Louisiana and the Mississippi-Alabama Gulf coast, but not the flooding of New Orleans. That distinction goes to the federal government, as embodied by the incompetent U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, whose deficient designs are directly responsible for the failure of the levees in New Orleans. Not to take away from your excellent post, but sometimes we in New Orleans wonder whether Global Warming is a secondary threat to the Corps of Engineers! OK, maybe not, but you see my point.

  • Mr. Moses-
    Please remember the “Libertarian” element of the opponents – anything that the government does is bad, QED.
    Next, you can’t have something bad (big gubmint) getting in the way of someone making money! It’s ther God-given right as AMERICANS to make money, dammit!!!
    Even if they are from England or Australia.

  • Unfortunately the public at large is easily misled, being too uninterested to actually go to the trouble of understanding scientific concepts. So a hurricane season that’s relatively mild (or lucky) like this year feeds into the idea that last year was an anomaly and things are just fine.

    Fortunately there are governments (unlike ours) who are taking the threat seriously. Most of them, actually. Tony Blair recently made some very strong comments regarding science in general and the need for governments to base their policies on sound science. His position was a virtual slap in the face to Bush’s modus operandi.

    The good news is that we have the technology to halt our global warming gas emissions in the quite short term (shameless plug for my upcoming book—would some of you CB regulars care to critique the draft? If so, email me at [remove the “nospam” here]: nospamprezlindsay@gmail.com). The bad news is that politicians will have to forsake their fossil fuel industry buddies to do it. It’ll take a great deal of pressure, but Mother Nature is already providing a lot of it. It’ll be up to us to provide the rest.

  • Sorry, that close parenthesis shouldn’t be part of the email address above, I should’ve left a space in there. Remove that and the nospam if you want to contact me.

  • The American West, which has been the area of fastest growth in the U.S. for some time, will be particularly susceptible to these fire driven events. We are already seeing a dramatic shift is snow levels in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and that will cause a shift in water supply in the ecosystem from snowfall to rain dependent. Snowfall dependent systems act as a storage system that slowly release water into the watershed, while rainfall offers more temporary benefits.

    A dramatic shift in the source and replenishment of water supplies could lead to rather quick environmental changes such as forests dying off en mass causing a huge store of tinder dry fuel to accumulate. Couple this with warmer winters that don’t kill off insects, such as the spruce and pine bark beetles that are devastating forests in the Rocky Mountains, and you have a great recipe for fire. Warmer sea surface temps will also act as a significant generator of winds, such as the already fire-prone Santa Anas or northwestern chinooks, so we are seeing variables coming together that could contribute to severe fire storms in susceptible areas. Climate change is no fooling. Imagine what greater fire or hurricane damage will do to our collective property insurance premiums as conditions heat up.

  • Please remember the “Libertarian” element of the opponents – anything that the government does is bad, QED.
    Next, you can’t have something bad (big gubmint) getting in the way of someone making money! It’s ther God-given right as AMERICANS to make money, dammit!!!
    Even if they are from England or Australia.

    Hehehehe … 🙂

    The thing is, free-market capitalists should LOVE going green. Again, there’s a ginormous, untapped market — almost everyone I know, including most of the conservatives, would buy green products if they were more readily available.

    The initial start-up may be more than other industries, but after that the costs are exceedingly low, creating a larger return in the long term.

    And the PR value of being an environmentally friendly company cannot be overstated.

    Now, should the government do something about the energy industry? Well, yes. But there has to be some sort of benefit (read: $$$) for them to do it. Not sure if that’s some sort of tax credit or what, but I think the government could step in, provide some tighter regulations, and do it all in just the short term until the jackasses running these companies see how profitable the whole thing can be. After that, the government can back out of it a bit.

    Of course, if I were king, I’d get an army of accountants to strip the federal budget of all the damned useless pork and spend a huge chunk of that money on alternative fuel technologies for everything — power, autos, etc. (the rest I’d dedicate to education). It would eliminate oil dependency (a national security issue, IMHO), save our environment and, once complete, we could use the moeny on other programs.

    But I’m just a nutty tree-hugging progressive, so …

  • I hate seeing an article like this without the clear statement that there are economically viable policies we can put into place to reverse CO2 emmissions and those of other green house gases which would put America on the top of the world economy again. Without such a clear statement then Deniers go straight to being Despairers.

    Don’t give them a chance to do that. I don’t have the links you need to sites about CO2 mitigation, but I’m sure they are readily available.

    And petorado is correct that we are giving up Wealth to aquire Income.

  • Global warming is just one of the problems that threaten to end life on earth or at least turn the clock back a few million years. They’re related to each other as one might expect.

    Fossil fuelers get their political power from their customers, us who insist on burning energy for fun. We have the best government money can buy.

  • Unholy Moses…
    Speaking as one who trawls through fundie nonsense on a daily basis,
    I can answer your question about the radical rightwing christians.
    The reason they don’t really care about protecting the environment
    is that they believe the world is ending soon.
    -When- exactly is “soon”?
    They have no specific answer, but don’t feel they need one, either.
    Besides, they figure they’ll be raptured and brough to heaven by angels,
    and only the wicked sinners will be left behind on earth… wo why care if it’s being destroyed, right?

    They are very scary people…
    and there are a helluva lot of ’em.
    They also tend to listen to preachers who
    advocate theocracy.
    All in all, a nice bunch!

  • But what if their houses are being flooded, as in New Orleans? What if fire is overrunning their houses, as in California? Will these manifestations of global warming not arouse their self-interest? Will they not finally compel our leaders to act?

    But I think a big part of the problem is that there have been floods in New Orleans before and fires in California were a regular event before there was such a thing as global warming – so I don’t know how one uses these sorts of events as “proof” to anyone that global warming exists or is a problem – especially those with economic self-interests at stake. It could be just as easily passed off as a land use problem – we build in areas that we shouldn’t, so these sorts of problems could be avoided if we just built where the wildfires and floods wouldn’t affect houses. So how do we convince these people that the problem is real?

  • HairlessMonkeyDK–
    Yeah, the whole Rapture crowd is a rather large issue. Of course, I’m no theologian, but isn’t there something about the Rapture about it being God’s choosing of when it will happen? If so, wouldn’t hastening it be against God’s will? Or do they just chalk it up to “anything and everything that happens is God’s will, so there!”?

    DDD–
    Great point. The deniers all point out that there have always been wildfires, floods, etc., and that it’s either all part of a cycle, or that we don’t have enough info going back enough years, or that it’s just people’s fault for living where they do (since, apparently, living near large numbers of trees is … bad, I guess).

    Regardless, there’s a large (and ever-increasing) amount of scientific data that proves humans are screwing stuff up. So we all need to either show them that the data is real (though not sure how), or come up with some emotional angle (since they apparently don’t respond to reason).

    Maybe if we showed video of fetuses being burned in a wildfire the right would take it more seriously …

    Okay. That was probably over the line. 🙂 But I think it’s not that far from the truth — some angle that people can relate to has to be taken.

  • Damn … that first paragraph reads like crap. Let me try this:

    Yeah, the whole Rapture crowd is a rather large issue. Of course, I’m no theologian, but isn’t there something about the Rapture being God’s choosing? You know, when and how it will happen? If so, wouldn’t hastening it be against God’s will? Or do they just chalk it up to “anything and everything that happens is God’s will, so there!” reasoning?

    That’s better.

  • As the hairless monkey said, the fundies think Jesus will clean up the mess, so they really can’t be bothered with it. But more importantly, the greenies have historically been a thorn in the sides of all their favorite moronic leaders, so they hate what the greenies say no matter what.

    How stupid are the fundies regarding the environment? Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior Lames Watt said in 1981:

    “My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns.”

    and this should also give a clear picture of the kind of mindset we’re up against:

    “I never use the words Democrats and Republicans. It’s liberals and Americans.” — James G. Watt, 1982

    So you see, we’re not even Americans to these people, and they could care less about the environment.

  • Unholy Moses, According to Ann Coulter, Xians not only have the right, they have the DUTY to put their own selfish concerns ahead of other species with which they share the earth, because the Bible tells them in Genesis 1:28:

    God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

  • op99–
    What Coulter doesn’t realize is that “having dominion over” and “utterly destroying” aren’t the same thing. Of course, she’s a genetic mutant who should thank whatever god or gods she believes in that she wasn’t aborted.

    Harsh? Yes. But tell me the world wouldn’t be better off without her.

  • Unholy Moses sez:

    there’s a large (and ever-increasing) amount of scientific data that proves humans are screwing stuff up. So we all need to either show them that the data is real (though not sure how), or come up with some emotional angle (since they apparently don’t respond to reason).

    The problem is that not enough of them are being presented with an immediate threat. The way to get around that is to tell them that their KIDS are being threatened. That works to some degree.

    But as to your last idea, I swear when I drive by the fertility clinic, I can hear thousands of embryos screaming. But the fundies don’t give a damn about them though, otherwise they’d be outside picketing, right?

  • Hairless, the numbers are not nearly as bad as they seem to be.

    evangelicals – 30 milliom and shrinking
    opposites – 42 million and growing
    hypocrites – 228 million

    93% of Americans who go to church only do so to keep up appearances. One day they will simply fail to show.

    Have you seen this: http://www.hoax-buster.org/sex

    Did you know that the level of testarone in boys is dropping from generation to generation? Don’t you wonder why? Have anything to do with global warming?

  • Even if they don’t believe that the threats posed by global warming (or, indeed, global warming itsel) aren’t as bad as we say or as immediate… Why does it make sense to act on the basis of 1% possibility in War on Terror but not in War on Global Warming?

    Let’s assume, for the sake of an argument, that we’re not yet in dire straits nor will be in the next 20 yrs –the consensus of the scientific world can, probably, be explained away by everyone losing their minds all at once. But, even if taking care of the Earth isn’t necessary, surely it can’t *hurt*? So, it’s a gamble; don’t we take the same gamble when we buy life insurance (where, BTW, can I buy global warming insurance? Does anyone know?)?

    Bill (@19), regarding the dropping testosterone levels (and it’s corollary — dropping population levels). I remember reading some yrs ago — 10 maybe? — about a study that had been done in Northern Europe.

    They considered countries with similiar climates: Finland, Estonia, Denmark and Sweden. The findings were inconclusive, but the speculation was that it was the foods more than anything else. The more “civilized” countries (Denmark and Sweden) were consuming foods which were more highly processed and more “homogenised”, as well as more fad-prone. None of those trends reached Estonia (which was just getting over being a part of the USSR) and not much of it reached Finns (stubborn cusses all). So, foods there remained traditional and more in synch with what their genes — developed over millenia — needed.

    And before anyone points out that in “civilised” Europe birth rate is dropping for other (economic/by choice) reasons, this was a study of couples who *wanted* children, but were unable to have them.

  • Also, the fundies believe that God will always provide what they need, since they are true believers in God, so there is no possibility of running out of anything, or dying of any environmental disaster or…

    you get the picture.

    Proof that there are two varieties of the genus Homo: Homo sapiens and Homo sap.

  • Comments are closed.