Fire and Rain: The Consequences of Changing Climate on Rainfall, Wildfire and Agriculture
Posted by Nate Hagens on February 21, 2008 - 11:00am
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: agriculture, climate change, drought, precipitation [list all tags]
The following is a guest post by TOD reader Doug Fir. 'Doug' graduated in the 70's with a BS and a MS in Fisheries, Forestry, and Agriculture. Presently, he and his family work a small hay, timber and livestock operation. The policies impacting climate change legislation are linked in complicated ways to energy depletion. If anthropogenic induced climate change ends up being real and urgent, it will have direct impacts on energy and food production. For these reasons we periodically post thoughtful analysis on the topic of climate change here on theoildrum.com.
The consequences of climate change are often presented in the media as coastal flooding after the melt of Greenland or Antarctic ice. That is the headline most often seen, however the real problems will be much more extensive. I'd like to look at some of those problems, in particular those of wildfire and agriculture, and provide a little background to better illustrate their severity.
Wildfire
One of the more dramatic effects will be the increase in the number, size and severity of wildland fires, of which we recently had a taste in California. "I think we can demonstrate higher severity, larger fires and certainly over the last seven to eight years, more frequent fires and a longer fire season," noted Abigail Kimbell, chief of the U.S. Forest Service. Fire is a natural process, releasing carbon compounds and bound nutrients, usually contributing to the health of an ecosystem in the less intense fires. Ponderosa pine, a major species in much of the west, is classed as fire tolerant, needing light fire to open the seed cones. However, climate change, compounded by years of fire suppression leaving elevated fuel loads, has set the stage for megafires. Steven Pyne, in his book Worldfire, notes four items in his prescription for large fires-abundant fuel and ignition, drought, and wind. Climate change, by changing precipitation pattern intensity and temporal distributions, will provide these.
Looking back at the worst wildland fires of the US, drought created the overall fire danger, the fuel situation and wind determined their size and severity. The Wisconsin Pestigo fire, October 8,1871, burned 1.2 million acres and killed over 1200 people, including the over 400 buried in a mass grave from the town of Pestigo. It was one of 3 major fires that day in the the Lake States, including the Great Chicago Fire and the Port Huron fire, the latter killing over 200. In common, the wildland fires had abundant fuel from leftover slash in the logging and agricultural activities of the North Woods.
The largest fire within the United States broke out in 1910. Known as the 1910 Burn, it consumed over 3 million acres in Idaho and Montana. Straddling the northern Rocky Mountains, it raced from near Washington, over the Bitterroot Mountains and down through Montana, killing 86 people. Nearly 100 years later, vast areas of this fire are still nearly bare of regrowth. Intense fires such as this, as opposed to less fuel-heavy natural fire, degrade the soil. The hot burns can cause extreme depletion of nutrients and organic material, leaving a nutrient poor soil that retards forest regeneration and is very susceptible to further loss via erosion. In 1910, the prescription of abundant fuel had been met in the prior years of discarded logging slash, and was ignited in a droughty, dry summer. Similar fires raced through eastern Washington and north Idaho a decade later, again spurred by abundant logging slash. A collection of stories from the 1910 Burn are here.
We often fixate on what started the fire. In the examples above, debate continues over a meteor shower in 1871, railroads spewing sparks, campfires left unattended; even milking a cow has created controversy. I've fought range fires caused by railroads, campfires, accidental fires, or not so accidental ones. It can be in the early spring, or seemingly wet summer before haying, or in the fall when conditions are ripe. Give it a little wind, and it will jump roads and rivers. Studies from Yellowstone National Park show that while man-made fires account for an average of 6-10 fires, lightning will have caused 35 a year. It doesn't matter the cause, fires have always cropped up.
Climate Change Consequences
Current climate change predictions for much of the West show increased precipitation in the winter or spring, along with earlier and drier summers. The IPCC and Hadley Centre's climate model predict warmer temperatures and their trends indicate increased winter precipitation for the western states. See figures below. The Climate Impact Group of the Pacific Northwest predict "Temperature increases occur across all seasons with the largest increases in summer. Most of the models analyzed by CIG project decreases in summer precipitation and increases in winter precipitation with little change in the annual mean." Long term, 2100, vegetation models show varying woody potential of the west but all cite the greatly elevated fire risks as the vegetation responds to the changing climate. The Climate Change Center of California predicts that "Although climate model results are inconclusive as to whether California's precipitation will change over the next century, all climate models show increases in temperature."


It is difficult to predict site specifics for the region, as so much is also determined by a particular site's elevation and aspect. Should these predictions come to pass, it is a perfect recipe for wildland fires. The west in general already has this overall precipitation distribution, and the vegetation has been selected to survive this moisture regime of little rainfall until autumn. Growth is concentrated in the spring, by summer, tree survival is predicated in large part by tapping deep soil moisture. Longer and more intense summertime droughts will overcome this ability, killing the trees outright or initiating disease mortality. Little snowpack for insulation in the late fall coinciding with a cold snap is very stressful for many trees and has been implicated in climate change mortality for western larch, itself a species with a relatively wide climatic amplitude and hence believed more resistant to change.
The wetter spring will encourage excessive grass and forb growth, only to quickly turn to tinder in the upcoming summer. With an arid climate, these fuels accumulate, and are of the most dangerous variety. Fire managers today prescribe piling and burning slash during the winter after a timber sale. Their primary concern is with material under 3 inches thick, just the size range likely to accumulate with wetter springs. The accumulation of the smaller fuels was part of the case in California fires this past autumn. Additionally here, a more intense fire quickly develops in part due to the density and higher oil content of much of the vegetation. The exotics cheatgrass and red brome, invading much of the west, have already been linked to faster fire cycles, and are cited as instrumental in elimination (by fire) of sage-bunchgrass communities. Although not specifically cited, I wonder about the role of knapweed, a very high oil content exotic which also is infesting the west.
Climate change, by altering precipitation patterns, changes the species composition in the forest. In interior western coniferous forests, the more water-loving firs are replaced by pines or Douglas fir during summertime heat and drought. As drought intolerant species are replaced, they are left to dry, providing fuel and awaiting the next conflagration. Disease outbreaks, as presently occurring with the pine beetle in the northern forests, leave wide swaths of fuel. Forest pathogens are showing a broader ability to infect multiple hosts when the trees are stressed. This is being seen in the west not only with the mountain pine beetle, but also with the spruce budworm shifting to Douglas fir and even hemlock, and with other pathogens. It won't be a peaceful succession to the next vegetation type. Fire will intervene to guide the process, and it will have abundant fuel.

Disease
outbreak in western montane forest
Disease outbreaks present a two sided coin, a distinction noted by researchers at the Fire Science Laboratory in Missoula, Montana. Initially, in their weakened, often dessicated disease state and shortly thereafter, these stands pose the greatest risk for major, swift crown fires. As the needles and smaller limbs drop from the tree, the danger for rapid crown fire lessens, but this fuel is not removed. It is added to the ground, where it's potential for soil debilitating fire magnifies.
A Washington Post series in response to the recent California outbreak highlights a new facet of fire problems. Exurban development is a scene that "bloats with inflammable structures amid an overgrown biota.", according to Pyne. He states that in the new age, fires "rush out of the reserves and into the exurbs." The firefighting response changes, from fighting the fire's advance to saving lives and structures. With climate change, as the author Fitch notes, the problems will only intensify. The solutions offered appear dubious to me. Prescription burning will not fly within such a concentration of wealth. Moving out of the environment is suggested, but even the fire researchers are shown to to have a predilection for the exurban environment.

The problem is not confined to the west, and as the eastern droughts continue, these concerns will ignite there. Ron Neilson, a bioclimatologist at Oregon State and a member of the IPCC, states "The Southeastern United States appears to be among the most sensitive regions in the world to increasing temperatures. It could convert from forest to savanna or grassland through drought, insect infestation, and massive fire." The east, with its higher rainfall and humidity levels, has relied in the past more on microbial decomposition to recycle excess vegetation. Drought and fire will help that change.
The fire situation is summed up by Thomas Swetnam, director of the Tree Ring Research Laboratory at the University of Arizona. "I see this as one of the first big indicators of climate change impacts in the continental United States. We're showing warming and earlier springs tying in with large forest fire frequencies. Lots of people think climate change and the ecological responses are 50 to 100 years away. But it's not 50 to 100 years away--it's happening now in forest ecosystems through fire."
Agriculture

Climate change induced shifts in precipitation will have their greatest effects in agriculture and our food supply. It is difficult to underestimate just how tied agriculture is to moisture regimes. We ignored this earlier in our original cultivation of the plains in comparably wet years, which led to subsequent disaster. We also find it today in reliance on depleting aquifers for irrigation or shifting production. We are teetering on the edge of food supply, and the solutions are not near as easy as the response rolls off your tongue.
Worldwide, people obtain around 70% of their daily calories from grains, specifically corn, wheat, rice, millet, and sorghum. We are down to the the lowest grain stockpiles, around 57 days of consumption, according to Lester Brown of WorldWatch Institute. Any rainfall changes can quickly eliminate the surplus. Skeptics may cite increased yields from elevated CO2 levels, but no amount of additional production from higher CO2 can compensate for drought. In addition, corn is what is termed a C-4 plant, and is less responsive to increased CO2. Preliminary research by Gill, Evans and others also indicate an upper, rather close limit to increased photosynthetic ability. They stress the flora has evolved at an average 220 ppm CO2 over the last 10,000 years and that as CO2 concentrations increase, "we see lots of changes in the way plants photosynthesize, the rate at which they lose water, how they use the nitrogen, and the microbial community in the soil." In part, the limit involves, at least in range and pasture, what is termed progressive nitrogen limitation, as the increased uptake ties up available nitrogen. As this proceeds, there can be a shift from microbial to fungal decomposition. The limitation presents many new problems for livestock grazing and carbon sequestration through biomass, although probably not important to fertilized agriculture.
A quick look at North America. Dryland agriculture is demarcated around 30 inches of yearly precipitation. Higher amounts allow the cultivation of corn and soybeans, less than this and yields drop precipitously. This relation between rainfall and yield should be underscored. From Iowa eastward we reap the bounty, farther west means either a shift to wheat or supplemental irrigation. Wheat dominates as you continue west, but the rainfall and yield decrease. Finally, there is strip farming, where it takes 2 years to grow a crop. Alternate strips, often a mile in length, are planted one year, while the adjoining strip is left fallow to accumulate moisture. This practice starts at about 15 inches precipitation, below around 10 inches and farming is not worth it. Rangeland, already interspersed, begins in earnest.
Montana
strip farming. Half of the land is left unplanted to accumulate
moisture for the following year.
Present mitigation efforts center around earlier planting to take advantage of increased temps and hopefully avoid withering midsummer extremes, crop species changes, shift of crops to more northern areas and finally additional irrigation. These mostly address the increased temperature aspect of climate change, not so much the drought or moisture deficits in major grain growing areas. Development of drought tolerant varieties is in its infancy. With only 5 grains supplying the bulk of our calories, the consequences of this agricultural loss are major..
The image of corn yields below highlights the problem of shifting grain production. Western counties, essentially along the state lines from Minnesota/North Dakota south to the Gulf, range from partial to complete irrigation. In the cornbelt of the midwest, high yields and total production are due to rain, but also to the amazing fertility of the soil. Irrigated production in the west such as along the Yellowstone River in Montana or the Snake in Idaho is evident, but these yields are well below those of Iowa. As we move production, we are unlikely to encounter such productive soils. The soils of the north are podzols, derived under coniferous forest and not near as bountiful.

With irrigation left to keep up our production, it seems analogous to oil if you will. Farming enters a sort of enhanced recovery, because we are unable to find significant additional arable land. Worldwide arable land per capita has decreased from 0.38 hectares per person to 0.28 hectares from 1970 to 1990, according to FAOSTAT, 1999. This difference has been made up primarily by irrigation. The irrigable land per capita has remained stable around 0.045, again according to FAOSTAT, 1999. We have been feeding the population increase in part by expanding irrigation acreage and to some extent increasing water use efficiency. Worldwide, we find 15% of farm land is irrigated.
There is a world of difference between irrigation practices in Asia and much of the rest of the world, and how the water is allocated. Asia accounts for 2/3 of the world's irrigated land. Nearly 70% of the grain in China, and almost 50% of India's grain come from irrigated land. In Asia there is mainly paddy irrigation of rice from surface water. To some extent, China and India have incorporated raised beds for corn and wheat within the paddy. However, the main crop remains rice in a traditional paddy system. While new varieties of rice from the Green Revolution have helped to triple yields, in both this and many other crop variety improvements, it often comes at the expense of root development. This makes the plant more susceptible to moisture stress. Reduced yields are becoming more common in dry season paddies due to insufficient irrigation water. These irrigation water supplies are dependent on rainfall to replenish either lowland streams and reservoirs, or mountain snow pack.
Most importantly, agriculture in the US is largely dryland, with irrigated land representing only a little over 15% of farmed land acreage. As might be expected due to its cost, it is concentrated in high value crops. The fact that irrigation represents represents a little less than 50% of the total US farm value is misleading, for the statistic is derived from the dollar value, not food or caloric value.
Percentage of United States Cropland Acreage Under Irrigation, 2002*
| Rice | 100 |
| Orchard | 82 |
| Potato | 82 |
| Vegetables | 69 |
| Dry Beans | 34 |
| Alfalfa | 30 |
| All Hay and Silage** | 16 |
| Sorghum | 10 |
| Corn for grain | 16.6 |
| Soybeans | 7 |
| Wheat | 6 |
| Oats | 5 |
*Computed values from USDA 2002 Census of Agriculture, Farm and Ranch Irrigation Survey
**Includes alfalfa, chop, silage, tame and wild hay.
Excluding rice, in itself a small US crop, grains are largely not irrigated in the US. Our farm grain productivity relies on rainfall, in spite of the extensive irrigation infrastructure. This is not likely to change with present water conditions. Although the thrust of irrigation technology and research is for increased efficiency, I doubt it can compensate for regional droughts. In addition, there are louder and louder voices clamoring for a piece of irrigation water, the largest recipient of water in the US and worldwide. Irrigation practices also have many other drawbacks, including climate change concerns heightened from rice production and the salinization of cropland. Irrigation appears woefully inadequate to address the agricultural concerns of climate change.




Excellent overview of global warming related drought issues in the U.S. Note that other countries are also exhibiting the same problems, such as Australia, and Russia, to name a couple.
General:
- http://ag.arizona.edu/OALS/ALN/aln55/ednote55.html
Russia:
- http://research.uwb.edu/jaffegroup/publications/Siberia.pdf
- http://fire.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/research/climate_change/activites/firebear_e...
- http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/may/31/environment.russia
Australia:
- http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-89023209.html
Last year, 60 Minutes did a good story on mega-fires in the western US:
There's some amazing footage of forests turning into deserts: blackened tree trunks rising from the new desert floor.
Very bad news.
Anyone remember the mega fires in the amazon rainforest last year?
"South America chokes as Amazon burns"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/south-america-chokes-as...
"Roberto Smeraldi, head of Friends of the Earth Brazil, said the situation was out of control: "We have a strong concentration of fires, corresponding to more than 10,000 points of fire across a large area of about two million sq km in the southern Brazilian Amazon and Bolivia."
Thanks for your support.
http://reddit.com/info/69if5/comments/ (env)
http://digg.com/environment/The_Effects_of_Climate_Change_on_Rainfall_Wi...
http://reddit.com/info/69ih2/comments/ (business)
Nice article, thanks Doug Fir.
Climate change effect on agriculture is the most under-appreciated, significant and potentially catastrophic aspect of AGW we're facing. Our food system is dependent upon and adapted to specific climatic parameters. When everyday weather steps out of those bounds, yields will plunge, it will take years to adapt, and never again will we produce the same foods in such quantity.
Backyard gardens and highly diversified operations will have some immunity, but not the big industrial ag. producers. A false Spring followed by a late freeze or a mid Summer hailstorm and there goes that years crop. Late freezing in the spring has devastated crops in the Pac NW in recent years.
ELPF: P is for produce some of your own food, F is for fireproof your residence.
So what do you all suggest for those us us with wood siding? What's the most cost-effective option? Hardi-Plank is one thing that comes to mind, but are there better options?
Assuming your roof is ok, I would take care of your flammable vegetation within 30 foot minimum, 100 feet when you can, and spend the money on other things. Maybe get a galvanized stock watering trough or other water storage device, and a Mark II or similar portable pump if your fire department is not really close. I'm in the same situation, but the fire station is only a mile away.
We have fruit and nut trees on drip irrigation as our 'edible landscaping', so that's how we take care of vegetation within 100 feet of the house. The rest is open pasture out to around 1000'. And we are in the northern tip of Virginia, so we are not as hard pressed (yet) for precipitation as the US West. It's another story entirely, however, south of us; most of the rest of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida are in various categories of drought (or at least unusually dry), even in the middle of winter. See the Drought Monitor for details.
FD is < 1mi away here too, I'm not worried about their responding if it is just my place. The scenario that worries me is a forest fire sweeping through the mountains and into town - they would just be overwhelmed with that. We're not near the periphery of town, so we'll probably be OK. Still, I am hoping to be able to afford to do some remodeling in a few years, and I might want to go ahead and replace the siding anyway (and use that as an opportunity to beef up the insulation while it is accessible).
WNCO,
First, get rid of composition ngle or shake roofs and go to metal.
Second, clear around your house and buildings. The California Dept. of Forestry used to recommend 30'; they now recommend 100'.
Third, have sufficent water stored (or in a pond) to be able to start initial fire control or to provide water to fire tankers. I live beyond the "exburbs" and in the boondocks. We have had fires around us and it always scares the crap out of us. But, it is great to see a helicopter dipping out water from a pond on the corner of our property and know that that water could be used to save our place.
Lastly, I'd worry about the siding.
BTW, we also have a written evacuation plan so we won't have to waste time deciding what to take or do.
Todd
Thanks for the advice. No shake roof, I'm not insane! I would like to replace the shingles with a metal roof, hope to be able to do that in a few years.
I've got a few trees too close to the house that will need to go eventually. I hate to do that though, we do benefit from the shade. Since we're not so arid out here compared to CA, I think we're safe with 30', and I might even take my chances with less with a few of the really important shade trees.
hardi plank is the way to go
As for your shade trees, I put two impact sprinklers on the roof of my house during fire season and they take care of my shade trees. well I hope they do, as I haven't had the opportunity to load test this contraption.
Northern California is great but can be stressful during fire season
Hi Earl,
Ain't that the truth. In fact, it can get downright surreal. There was a fire on a ridge a few miles south of us a few years ago. We got out lawn chairs to watch to be sure it stayed going west to east and not north toward us. It was wild watching the insane four engine water bomber pilots come in at a 45 degree glide path and fly down toward the valley. Those people have more guts than I'll ever have. At the end of their run, they had to do a quick pull-up or crash into the ridge on the other side of the valley.
There have been lots of other fires over the years but you never get used to it.
Todd
Defensible space. Depends on one's surroundings. Non-flammable horizontal surfaces. Beware of flammable underpinnings - i.e. decks, porches, carports. Here's a controversial one: DO NOT EVACUATE - STAY AND DEFEND YOUR HOUSE! Have the ability to maintain water pressure when the grid goes down. Sprinkler on the roof is a great idea. Get to know the local firefighters - make sure they know where your house is. Have a clear and accessible driveway. Do not have evergreen shrubs near your house - they become incredibly powerful blowtorches when aflame. Also no woodpiles, gas tanks, lumber or any other piles of flammables. This includes automobiles.
Imagine every single plant and object around your house on fire at the same time - could you stop that from catching your house on fire?
Hi G2S,
A controversial view, as you say. I can appreciate the strong desire to remain with your property and do whatever you can to protect it, but you're really putting your life at great risk and at the end of the day, your life is worth far more than any worldly possession. Collect up the photos and any other cherished belongings to take with you if you can (but only if time permits), close the door and let your insurance company worry about the rest.
CNN interviewed three guys who stayed behind to protect their adjoining properties in one of the recent California fires and although they were well equipped to fight the fire and executed their game plan flawlessly and thankfully came through it OK, even they admitted it was foolish to have remained behind. So, I agree, do whatever you can to minimize the risk to your home, but if authorities are calling for your evacuation, I would suggest to you the only sensible option is to leave.
Cheers,
Paul
I found this post most informative and well written. Thank you!
Good article. A big factor that it seems you did not cover is the early spring rains at altitude in regions that depend on snowmelt for irrigation.
One of the most catastrophic events in these regions is a warm spring with rain in the mountains that melts the snow. This leads to devastating floods followed by drought later in the summer. It seems to me looking at your graphs that these events may become the norm not the exception over time.
Thanks. You are correct about warm spring rains on snow producing floods. With irrigation directly from streams, mid summer flow is dependent on contributions from above around 5000 ft, depending on latitude, if I recall correctly. Irrigation from reservoirs can fill and capture some of the flow, but it is much better to "store" that water on the ground, rather than having to pass it through the system.
I've also heard that both less snowpack accumulation overall and earlier melt from higher than normal temperatures (before irrigation season) are also other aspects to this problem;
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Jan97/water.hrs.html
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-01-water-c...
http://ccc.atmos.colostate.edu/newsapr1.php
The essay models above predict precipitation, they don't specify form. I don't think we'll see near the pack in the future either.
We've been very fortunate this year, after years of precipitation deficits, to get the snow we have. For lower elevations, the form difference has been often just a few degrees. The storms come in from the Pacific, moist and relatively warm.
Sea levels get all the attention, but rainfall changes are the real threat of climate change. Africa is going to be at severe risk, with about 95% of their agriculture being rain-fed. A study from Stanford estimates that rainfall disruptions triggered by climate change may reduce the yield of crops like maize by as much as 30% in Southern Africa over the next two decades.
Excellent article, Doug, thanks.... and GliderGuider has just made the comment I was going to; precipitation changes are going to be HUGE compared to sea-level rising. It won't be a matter of people getting their feet wet, it'll be famines.... and here I include the loss of glacier-fed river water in some of the world's most populous areas.
Every time some idiot asks "what if a warmer world will be better?" I cringe; we, the rainforests, the coral reefs, and our economies are all evolved for a fairly narrow range of conditions. We won't simply see productive farmland moving north, we'll see what we're starting to see: significant contextual change. Everything we're used to is well-tuned for the conditions which have been 'normal' over millenia. Yes, the world, life, and even humans will try to adapt, but it won't be pretty.
One thing. In the article he says that trees in West survive in the Summer by tapping groundwater, and that in the future this will become more difficult. surely if that graph is right and rainfall in Fall, Winter and Spring is considerably higher there should be a more water in the ground for trees to tap come Summer, and they should survive.
I believe it comes down to the tree species, their density, and the fact that summers are predicted to be both drier and warmer than normal. Well spaced Ponderosa pines will fare much better than tight stands of fir.
Which is behind much of the current push for forest thinning. The thinned stand is much better able to survive, and produce higher yields, while lessening fire danger. Additionally, thinning can allow more snow to reach the forest floor and reduce interception losses, yet still provide shade to regulate melting.
What is an 'interception loss' and how does it reduce moisture levels?
Interception loss refers to the amount of precipitation, both rain and snow, that is captured by the forest canopy and evaporates. It varies with respect to tree species, and storm amount/intensity.
Speaking from experience in the NE, rather than the west - in a dense coniferous forest, much of the snow ends up on the tree limbs, not on the ground. Imagine those pretty Currier and Ives pictures. Of a 12 inch snowfall, as little a 3-4 inches, depending on temp/wind/humidity, will accumulate under dense evergreens. This snow largely sublimates - goes directly from solid to gas into the air. Never has an opportunity to recharge groundwater.
RE tapping groundwater. In the eastern deciduous forests, if there is a wetter than normal spring, the trees will put on more foliage than normal and this will potentially exacerbate any summer drought conditions (see Atlanta 2007) because the trees are sucking out the ground water at a greater rate than normal lowering the water table and drying up the lakes. If the wetter springs/drier summers situation holds for the east, this might bring about more megafires in areas that are not accustomed to this type of disaster.
In southwestern BC, where I live, we're starting to see failures of mature balsam fir, with the moisture stress of dry summers seen as the cause.
It seems to me that an answer to some of these problems is in the making. The advances in cellulosic ethanol mean that, quite possibly, we can afford to start pruning the dead trees, and most of the flammable foliage out of our forests. By using fast pyrolysis methods we will, also, produce biochar which aids in moisture retention, and allows for the utilization of much less fertilizers.
Oh; Great Article. I feel like I learned a lot.
with biomass yes it just may be profitable for loggers to clear out the underbrush when they log. that would greatly cut down on the fuel.
Biomass to ethanol is a possibly feasible future technology, but biomass to electricity is an existing technology with two plants currently selling power to the grid in my part of northern California. A third plant in Weed, Ca. is going through CEQA.
Yes, taking out dead trees would reduce the fire danger and provide feedstock for gasification. However, the forest service put out a contract bid a while back to take out dead trees and there were no takers. Maybe the situation has changed economically, but you have to have a cost effective way of removing the trees.
Of course, you're right, Calguy; it's all about the economics.
The economics (and, the technologies) ARE, however, changing. Maybe, Next Year, there will be a Taker.
It's not just about the economics. The quantity of dead wood in some places has overwhelmed the industry's ability to take it out.
The current outbreak of the mountain pine beetle (MPB) in British Columbia is an example of the effects of climate change on forests. The warmer winters and longer growing seasons of recent years are the proximate cause of the extended outbreak. MPB larvae overwinter under the bark of pine trees. In the early stage, the larvae are vulnerable to cold winter temperatures, but late-stage larvae can withstand temperatures close to –40ºC. With a longer growing season, more larvae reach the cold-hardy stage before winter sets in, and with fewer cold winters, more survive through to the following year.
Huge areas in the centre of B.C. have close to 100% kill of lodgepole pine, the favoured host of this beetle. Over 4 million hectares, about 10% of the province’s total land area, have been classified as moderate to severe kill for lodgepole pine, a species used for decades in replanting interior forests. B.C.'s forest service estimates that about 80% of the province’s mature lodgepole pine will be dead by 2018. Almost any flight over the southern part of the province where the ground is visible shows masses of red, dying trees and brown dead ones. By 2005, over 400 million cubic metres of wood had been affected. That's just too much to take out over a few seasons.
As Doug Fir suggests, the risk of fire in beetle-killed forest is increasing. I'm glad I don't have to fight these fires for a living, because the signs point to worsening conditions. When these forests burn, the wildlife are lost and decades worth of carbon sequestration goes up into the atmosphere in a few days.
In speaking with state foresters for the preparation, BC and the mountain pine beetle was cited time and again. Thanks for your discussion.