Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Are the Wildfires in California Related to Global Warming?

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. Posted October 23, 2007.


Environmental journalist Bill McKibben explains the connection between raging wildfires and our warming planet.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

AMY GOODMAN: As we continue on this issue of global warming, what does global warming have to do with the fires raging in Southern California?

More than a half a million people in San Diego County have been ordered to evacuate. Over 900 homes have been destroyed. At least one person has died. Another thirty-seven people have been reported injured, including seventeen firefighters. The fires extend from the Mexican border to Santa Barbara, the most devastating fires in San Diego County. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has declared a state of emergency.

Bill McKibben is a leading environmentalist and one of the leading forces behind Step It Up. In 1989, he wrote the book The End of Nature, one of the first books to describe global warming as an emerging environmental crisis. His latest book is called Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. Bill McKibben, joining us from Boston, welcome to Democracy Now!

BILL McKIBBEN: Amy, it's good to be with you, as always.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. The fires in Southern California and global warming, is there a connection?

BILL McKIBBEN: I'm afraid that there is. This is the kind of disaster that we see more and more of as we begin to change the basic physics and chemistry of the planet we live on. One of the people leading the really brave rescue effort out there yesterday said, one of the San Diego authorities said, this is the driest it's been in at least ninety years. It's dry because they've had terrific heat and not much rain. And those are just the conditions for that part of the world that all the modeling suggests come about when you begin to raise the temperature.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to ask you about Tom Swetnam of the University of Arizona, one of the ecologists there. He has written about the connection to global warming. He published a study in the journal Science, saying global warming has increased temperatures in the West about one degree, and that's caused four times more fires.

BILL McKIBBEN: This is the problem. Things don't work in a linear smooth relationship, you know? You raise the temperature a little bit, and you begin to get very large cascading effects. So, for instance, across much of the West in Alaska, warmer temperatures have brought with them infestations of new kinds of insects. Those insects have killed off hundreds of thousands of square miles of forest. That forest catches fire once those trees die.

All that burning forest sends yet more carbon into the atmosphere. On and on and on. We see the same kind of dynamics playing out now with this drought in the Southeast, with the ongoing drought in the Southwest. And, of course, the US has been hit less hard by these changes than much of the rest of the world so far.

What's important to remember and the reason that we spend all our time organizing now, trying to change all this, is that so far human beings have raised the temperature of the planet about one degree Fahrenheit. The computer modeling makes it very clear that before the century is out, unless we take very strong action, indeed, we're going to raise the temperature of the planet another five degrees Fahrenheit. So, take whatever you see now, multiply it by five, and then toss in all those cascading effects that come, as we exceed one threshold after another.

AMY GOODMAN: And yet, we hardly see, with the massive coverage of what's going on in California, which is very significant, these fires raging in Southern California, the words "global warming" mentioned.

BILL McKIBBEN: Well, it's like Katrina. I mean, the sheer horror of it in the moment is so enormous that it's hard to focus on causes. That's why we've got to be building that movement all the time, doing the kind of stuff that Ted Glick is doing in Washington, doing the kind of stuff that at stepitup2007.org we're doing all across the country, as we get ready for our next round of big nationwide protests on November 3rd.

It's only, you know, when we're able to take a step back -- I mean, you know, the people in California today can't be concentrating on global warming; they've got to be concentrating on getting people out of harm's way and fast. My aunt was evacuated yesterday afternoon, and I'm worried sick about her. But the rest of us can't be in there --

AMY GOODMAN: Where does she live?

BILL McKIBBEN: She lives near San Diego. The rest of us can't be in there fighting fires, you know? We're thousands of miles away. What we can be doing is trying to put out, or at least damp down, the big fire that's causing all these other effects, and that's global warming. And that can only be done with federal action soon. That's what we're pushing for on November 3rd.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to New Orleans for a minute. You mentioned Hurricane Katrina. They are experiencing a massive rainstorm, at least eight inches yesterday. The forecast: it will continue. Mayor Ray Nagin closed City Hall. They closed the schools. They told people not to drive in the streets. The waves, they were afraid, would inundate the buildings that have just been cleaned up from Hurricane Katrina. That connection?

BILL McKIBBEN: Warm air holds more water vapor than cold air does, right? That means that in arid areas, you get more evaporation and hence more drought. And we're seeing that around the world. Once that water is up there in the atmosphere, it's got to come down someplace. In wet areas or in big storms, we see way more precipitation. The number of storms that drop more than two inches of rain in a twenty-four-hour period has grown by something like 25 percent, the real gulley washers.

We're -- to call it "global warming" is correct, but almost a misnomer. What we're really doing is adding immense amounts of energy to a system, and that energy is expressing itself in all kinds of ways: more evaporation, more precipitation, higher wind speeds, rapid melt of ice across the Arctic and across every glacial system that we know about, on and on and on.

It is -- you know, we used to think that we were still a decade or two away from the real emergency. That's what we would have said twenty years ago, when I wrote The End of Nature. Now, we understand, the modeling makes clear, that the planet was more finely balanced than we've understood. What we've done so far has been enough to throw every physical system on earth out of kilter.

What we're fighting for now is not to prevent global warming. There is going to be some global warming; there already is. What we're fighting for now is to keep that miserable and difficult century of global warming from turning into an absolute catastrophe that rewrites the geology and biology of this planet for eons to come.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill McKibben, in the Southeast, several states are in the midst of a major drought. As of last week, seventy-one of North Carolina's hundred counties were in exceptional drought, the federal government's highest classification. Georgia has declared a state of emergency, appealed for federal aid. The drought has also affected large swaths of Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina?

BILL McKIBBEN: When you increase the temperature, what you're really doing -- I mean, if I say the temperature has gone up one degree, it doesn't sound like much, but that masks enormous increases in the extremes, much longer and stronger heat waves. You know, we keep having one record warm year after another across this globe. And that doesn't happen without consequences. The earth is a physical system, and those inputs start to change the outputs pretty darn dramatically.

AMY GOODMAN: The action that you're planning as one of the lead forces behind Step It Up on November 3rd, can you talk about what your demands are? You say the federal government has to take action.

BILL McKIBBEN: Absolutely. We're talking about three things at stepitup2007.org. One of them is the same call for an 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 that we called for last spring, when we organized 1,400 demonstrations in all fifty states. Those demonstrations were very successful in getting that demand deep into the agenda. It went from being a kind of radical and fringe idea to being very much part of the legislative mix that's reflected in what Congress is thinking about now.

Second demand is that we need an immediate moratorium on new coal-fired power. No such thing, at least at the moment, as clean coal; it's dirty where it comes from, and it's dirty when we burn it. And that -- you know, if we build any significant percentage of the 150 coal-fired power plants now on the books, then the discussion about dealing with global warming is moot; we will put so much carbon in the atmosphere that we can't control it.

Third thing, we need to make sure that the big economic transition that's coming with global warming, with fighting global warming, the move to a new set of energy sources, doesn't leave behind the same people that our last economy left behind. So we're stressing very hard this Green Jobs For All campaign.

What we're trying to do this time is find out which of our politicians are actually going to become leaders. People who go to the stepitup2007.org website can use the nifty new invite tool devised by my colleagues, all of whom are twenty-two and twenty-three and who actually know how the internet really works, and with this neat tool, they can easily invite their senators, congressmen and the presidential candidates to come appear at one of these hundreds of rallies that will be taking place across the country on November 3rd. They can find out where in their community people will be gathering to make their voices heard.

We need a movement as strong, as willing to sacrifice, as morally urgent, as passionate, as the Civil Rights Movement was a generation ago. If we don't get it soon -- and we have a real time limit here -- if we don't get it soon, then we're not going to be able to force the changes that we need over the power of the very strong vested interests that would like to keep things the way they are, even though it's now destabilizing the planet in the most powerful and most tragic ways. Those pictures of that smoke pouring out of those canyons in California should remind us at the deepest level what's at stake and what we can do to help right now.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill McKibben, you mentioned Congress. What about the presidential candidates, the Democratic presidential candidates? What about the Democrat-led Congress, both the House and the Senate? What are they doing to deal with this crisis?

BILL McKIBBEN: They're getting closer. They've started. We haven't done anything about climate change for the twenty years that we've known about it -- I mean, literally zip, zilch, nothing in Washington. Finally, this year there's legislation on the table. There's very good legislation from Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Henry Waxman. That bill is being watered down at the moment by Senator Lieberman of Connecticut and Senator Warner of Virginia.

It's a big fight as to what kind of bill will go through. It may not matter, unbelievably, at the moment, because President Bush is going to veto whatever happens. We do need, however, to get the framework for strong legislation, and then we need to make sure that whoever wins the presidency really steps up to this challenge.

AMY GOODMAN: What about before? What about before? This is the chance that constituencies have all over the country to make demands of candidates, and then afterwards -- I don't want to say "hold their feet to the fire," given what's happening right now.

BILL McKIBBEN: Well, I think that would be, in fact, an appropriate and correct thing to say right now. That's what we're trying very hard to do. Look, the presidential candidates, the Democrats, have so far mostly said the right things. After our demonstrations on April 14th, all the leading candidates signed onto this Sanders bill for an 80 percent reduction. However, none of them have yet shown that they're determined to make this the central organizing principle of their presidency, which it pretty much has got to be.

This is the biggest thing human beings have ever done, and if we don't get on it right away, none of the other issues will matter. We'll find out on November 3rd which of these people show up to talk to America about this question, and we'll find out what they say, whether or not they're going to go beyond saying the right thing and starting to work and offering solemn assurance.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill McKibben, we have to leave it there. I want to thank you for being with us. November 3rd, declared a day against global warming. They're stepping it up.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, bill mckibben, step it up, wild fire

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
80% by 2050
Posted by: civilsociety on Oct 24, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's pretty apparent that a climate crisis is well underway. It's also pretty apparent that most people could care less.

Don't think that technology alone is going to pull us out of this one and as far as getting people to meaningfully conserve there's a deep hot place downunder that will freeze over before that happens.

And to think that the developing countries like CHina and India and others are going to cut back their consumption patterns while for the past 100 years we have been egregiously using fossil energy and now that it is a problem they aren't going to partake??

Preparation for a certain amount of self sufficiency and disaster survival will be the watchword for our future. It has begun. Be certain of that.

Now, how many of you personally have begun making significant changes in your driving patterns, your electricity use, your purchasing habits and your activism in the political arena to effect changes??

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 80% by 2050 Posted by: Iconoclast421
Climate Crisis
Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com on Oct 24, 2007 12:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet asks the question if the wildfires in Southern California is related to global warming. My answer is yes.
Each year in this state the we always seem to have a warm fall or winter; temperatures reach well into the nineties in January! And in Los Angeles, the news media shows people here driving convertibles with our top down while other parts of America have a normal winter of near freezing temperatures with ice or snow.
And people do know that cities act as one large carbon factory which causes the temperature to rise. All week long the temperature has been higher than 85. It is generally like this in L.A. each October when the gusty Santa Ana winds howl.
But global warming IS a big concern. More people live in cities everywhere (there is an excellent post in this site about Cairo) and the migration of people from rural to urban seems irreversable. It's a huge problem in Third World countries where they may have one core city like Manila, Bangkok, Caracas or Nairobi. People go where the jobs are.
Anyway, there's no denial we do have a crisis on our hands, one in which could not be solved by war. The planet is getting warmer, and perhaps the next fire wil be bigger than the one that happened here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» WAR Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: WAR??? Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: WAR??? Posted by: matti
Really
Posted by: sickoflibs on Oct 24, 2007 1:46 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really do not know how you all can think that this is Global Warming. Not only have I heard it several times in the last couple of days. You can not turn on the news without hearing it. It is BS. There have been fires in California for hundreds of years. It is dry there. The winds are normal. Will you people please start looking at history and stop pointing your fingure at every weather change as "global warming'. If it is Global Warming it is natural, It is what the earth does. Freaking look at history, Please I beg all of you to stop this crap.

If you want to be scared about mans invovlement in weather start worring about science playing with hurricanes, that could do more damage than anything else that they think we are causing.

If man caused this fire it was Arson. Period.

Now all you have to do is figure out how to blame President Bush for it. I bet he lit the match. Yeah, that's it , that's the ticket.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: eally Posted by: snowbird
» one word Posted by: mazel
» Time to get past grade school science Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: eally Posted by: Lauren
» RE: eally Posted by: AussieGeoff
» RE: eally manmade by the CFR Posted by: futurefarm
» Bush's agenda is much hotter than 1 degree! Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» yep Posted by: Iconoclast421
combination of several things
Posted by: richholland on Oct 25, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1.global warming is a natural fact.
2.the sun is an important parameter
3. pollution of the earth due to our lifestyle is a fact.

But according to the well written book"Collapse"by Jared Diamond the end of a civilisation is mainly due to the ELITE, The upper/upper class trying to maintain their luxury life and even trying to make money out of the fear of the people??

The average european is still amazed about the USA hysteria around natural disasters.
The european commissions assured us;
Oil enough for the next 50 years,
Sealevelraise under control for at least 100 years.
So please go on holiday, around the world live is to enjoy..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» More of the same crapola Posted by: ReallyBearish
» RE: combination of several things Posted by: Iconoclast421
This is how it works -
Posted by: Constitutionalist75 on Oct 25, 2007 8:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Planet Earth is alive, a system of swirling masses of air and water always interacting in the changing weather we see every day, sunshine, clouds and rain, out of which grow rain forests that keep everything in balance by breathing in carbon dioxide and exhaling oxygen.

But it's a delicate equilibrium of chemical opposites, so too much pollution pumped up into the air by thousands of coal-fired power plants and jet plane exhaust have tipped that balance away from predictability, so no more seasonal "lady rain" but sudden floods, no more dry season, but crop-destroying drought and wildfires, and massive storms like Katrina, and huge tornados, until the slowly evolving ecological order we depend on is replaced by extreme weather chaos.

Yet, we humans are addicted to an ever-growing population and its ever-expanding profit economy. We need more and more of everything, on and on forever, always more, never less, and that is our collision course with the Earth's ability to support us - and no one can stop it in time before the Earth is exhausted, like those bees who are driven like slaves to produce more honey until they simply drop dead. Thus, as we go on demanding more from the Earth, it will die from pollution and overwork.

But Bush and Cheney have arranged a short-course, a quick path to their Biblical Armageddon and total ecocide by extending their Iraq War to Iran involving Russia, so the resulting World War Three and nuclear holocaust will increase global warming quite a lot, I imagine ( ! )

Obviously, people don't want to think of such a horrible thing, so they go back to their daily entertainments, like their cute little demonstrations, and trust it will all work out for the best in the end - and it will - only without the human race or life on Eath. Sister Mars, soon we join you in planetary death! At least then the Cosmic body will be safe from the greed and stupidity of this predatory human race!

Yet, stubbornly, even I hold out hope to the last - If Saving the Earth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» John Talbot Ross Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: John Talbot Ross Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: This is how it works - Posted by: usuallyright
» Some mythical equilibrium? Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: Some mythical equilibrium? Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: This is how it works - Posted by: Lauren
» RE: This is how it works - Posted by: Constitutionalist75
» RE: This is how it works - Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Right Wingers: Please Just Use Some Common Sense
Posted by: rjgwood on Oct 25, 2007 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always think it is so hilarious when right wingers try to pretend that they are the sane, rational thinkers...

Ok, right wingers, try reading this really, really slowly so you catch on:

what happens when you turn your thermostat up in your home and all of your doors and windows are closed?

Answer: The temperature increases!

Very good. Now, the earths environment is also a closed environment, also. We have what is called an "atmosphere."

This atmosphere keeps our air surrounding the earth. When mankind builds a lot of heat producing factories, it is like turning on the heat in a closed up house: the temperature will rise.

Now, couple that with some other stuff that would be way to much for you to comprehend: the increase of CO2 in the environment which, the increase in the greenhouse effect because of the large whole in the earths atmosphere, and you get some very tremendous warming action, WHICH IS CAUSING THE POLAR CAPS TO MELT YOU IDIOTS!!!!

Sorry, for loosing my patience, my dear right wingers, now, the other thing that I want to address is your big misconception about the scientific process, you know, the one you repeat about how scientists used to think the earth was cooling, and how this is just another "group think" among scientists that the loud mouthed bullies on your playground, Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc., love to shout at you...

Well, here is how the scientific process works: scientists see a problem, such as fluctuations in the earths atmosphere, and say thirty years ago or so, scientists started creating hypothesis about what was happening...some speculated that perhaps the earth was cooling, and going to go into another ice age...reporters, who love the shocking and sensational, picked up these stories and ran with them.

The current theory of global warming is a result of consensus of scientific research on a multitude of fronts: the polar caps, ocean temperatures, air quality, health impacts, etc., etc. Over 90% of the earths scientists subscribe to this theory: the earth is warming as a direct result of mankinds actions.

Please, learn something, and go and do no more harm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Do no more harm? Posted by: Cathyc
» 90% of scientists??? Posted by: gellero
The corporate media coverage of this is pretty revealing
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 25, 2007 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's take the LA Times, who ran with the headline "Global warming not a factor in wildfires." The Huffington Post ran this stinker: "Global Warming Not Behind SoCal Fires."

The SF Chronicle had a slightly more balanced viewpoint that's worth linking to: THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIRES - Hotter world may fan flames

"The flames stretching from Malibu to the Mexican border struck during the driest year in Southern California history. Measurements taken by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection detected less than 10 percent moisture in the region's vegetation. The moisture level in kiln-dried lumber is generally 12 percent."

Now, a prediction of climate science is that the American Southwest will dry out as global warming proceeds. Why? Because a warmer world means that more water gets sucked out of the soil and into the atmosphere - as the above article points out. There is also a La Nina occuring at present - and that creates stronger winds and drier conditions in the Southwest. However, these are the worst fires of the century - and we have La Ninas all the time - so what's happening is a combination of global warming and natural variability.

Getting back to the media question, one Noel Sheppard of "NewsBusters" is also claiming that "global warming has nothing to do with it" - but look at Sheppard's track record. However, most media stories (over 95%) are simply ignoring the global warming issue. Is that because the corporate press is owned by the same people who own the fossil fuel corporations? Probably so.

The science is pretty clear that this kind of thing is what you'd expect to see happen as the planet continues to warm up. See Massive California Fires Consistent With Climate Change, Experts Say - ScienceDaily (Oct. 24, 2007) (has a good picture of the fires from space).

The fact that the fossil fuel industry has spent hundreds of millions of PR dollars to hide the facts about global warming from the public means that they could very well be held liable for global-warming related damages. That's probably why the corporate press is so reluctant to discuss any links between global warming and climate-related disasters - that and they want to keep the world addicted to fossil fuels, and keep the renewables from being developed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: your leaps of logic are pretty revealing Posted by: Constitutionalist75
Southern Cal fires not related to global warming
Posted by: usuallyright on Oct 25, 2007 12:38 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's simply no evidence that these fires are related to global warming. McKibben needs to look at the evidence. See this paper for a great discussion on the Southern Cal fires and global warming.

http://ff.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=
393&Itemid=94

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Southern California fires are related to global warming
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Oct 25, 2007 1:01 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) Global Warming Brings Perpetual Drought to U.S. Southwest, April 5, 2007

2) Drought Causing Record Forest Destruction in U.S. Southwest, National Geographic News, December 5, 2005

3) May-05-2007 16:52
Severe Forest Fire Season Predicted for Western U.S.


Not only that, but the fires themselves are driving global warming (however, the SoCal fire CO2 release from burning wood is only about 1% of California's yearly fossil fuel CO2 emissions).

See the 60 Minutes show: Expert: Warming Climate Fuels Mega-Fires, Oct 21:

Before the fossil fuel PR lobby starts howling about alarmist media, note that the show was produced well before the air date, and that the SoCal fires broke out on the 21st and 22nd.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global warming is crap
Posted by: arshi on Oct 25, 2007 2:14 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's obviously a liberal political agenda perpetrated by liberal scientists and liberal academics. You want to see global warming? When Jesus returns he's going to be pissing streams of liquid lava and shitting nuclear bombs. If you don't prepare for Rapture you will not be saved. Oh yeah, Jews need to aplly too.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Global warming is crap Posted by: Constitutionalist75
The Power of Denial is Overwhelming
Posted by: Gravitas on Oct 25, 2007 4:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The power of denial is overwhelming. How many environmental crises are we going to experience before we start connecting the dots? I definitely believe it is connected to global warming.

BUT, I would also like to add that people, particularly rich people, in CA build in areas that in the path of natural wildfires. They build near canyons that are subject to wind gusts because they like the view, and plant vegetation that they prefer instead of what is fire resistant. The magnitude of this fire clearly shows something out of the ordinary is going on, but some homes are lost almost every year. They need to rethink the idea that everyone who can afford it can live wherever they want in Cali and start respecting Mother Nature.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Power of Denial is Overwhelming Posted by: Constitutionalist75
This article is dangerous to southern California
Posted by: Desert Ravengrrrl on Oct 25, 2007 4:32 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a wildlife biologist with 10 yrs experience in CA, 5 in SoCal and NV. My husband is a botanist with over 10 yrs professional experience in SoCal and over 40 yrs of personal time spent in the region. I'll preface my comment with an observation that I am usually the most "liberal" person in the room (and I used to live in San Francisco).

Mr. McKibben does a disservice to SoCal by hijacking the wildfire event and using it to drum up more support for his personal cause. First, by attaching yet another environmental issue to global warming (GW), he simplifies the issue, dilutes the causal factors, and over-promotes his pet cause (and his career and his earnings).

Southern California's mediterranian climate is unique to most of the USA, and behaves quite differently than the rest of the country, even NoCal. My enviro college education was in the NE US, and I had to re-learn everything when I came out here. The cycles are completely different.

Overpopulation in a delicate and highly-desirable locality is the problem - not only among humans, but also among plants. In addition, fire protection regulations are being dictated by firemen (and women), NOT scientists. Here is an example of a scientific perspective on SoCal fires: Keeley, 2003 SoCal Wildfires.

The problem in SoCal is the precipitation and wind regimes: no moisture from mid-spring till winter creates readily-flammable vegetation. October brings warm, strong Santa Ana winds. The problem has been increased by highly invasive mediterranean grasses. Native CA grasses are "bunch grasses", which grow in clumps, with hardened soil crusts between them (stabilized by lichens and, believe or not, algae). Due to soil nutrification (settling out from the atmosphere, resulting from global soil disturbance and organic compounds spewed into the air by industry) and soil disturbance (grazing, ohv's, development), the invasive mediterranean "cheat" and brome grasses have overwhelmed the SoCal habitat. These are annual grasses that carpet the ground. They carry fire from shrub to shrub.

Also, dead grasses are very easy to ignite. Believe or not, chaparral and trees are the best defense against fire - they are difficult to start burning. One of the reasons the fires got so out-of-had is because a grass fire can move so quickly (esp with strong winds), the firemen had no opportunity to control the spread of the fire before it became catastrophic. (Actually, due to the high-biomass year from record rainfalls in 2005-2006 and a drought this past winter of 2006-2007, we had perfect conditions so that when the Santa Ana's finally came, there really was nothing anyone could do to stop what just occurred. Sure, it could have been minimized if San Diegans had finally decided to stop growth, as was proposed in a - defeated - measure they voted on in 2004, but hey, I won't get petty on them.)

The fire-control policy of SoCal to remove shrubs and instead allow only herbaceous annual growth (which dies by June and remains standing through the rest of the year as dead skeletons) actually increases the potential of fires to begin. Add to that the civic unrest occurring in heavily populated, socially-segregated and discriminated communities of SoCal (which breeds the motives of contempt that would drive someone to commit arson)... and you have: Fire!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: overpopulation Posted by: stilldreaming
» RE: This article is dangerous to southern California Posted by: penobscotdziekuje@yahoo.com
Uneducated in Science ( ABOVE)
Posted by: gellero on Oct 27, 2007 3:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The assumption that two seven year stretches of drought have no relation to global warming seems about as unscientific as one can get. "

The above statement is logically incorrect and is so typical of someone with no scientific education or training. To the detriment of the World, it seems pervasive among AlterNeters, youth looking for a cause, and political opportunists.

How about this for "Science"..............

'The assumption that the Earth revolves around the Sun seems unscientific since by direct observation everyone can see the Sun revolve around the Earth !! '

Here's some interesting stuff for those who are interested in science....Carbon Dioxide & Climate

Rising Sea Levels

PS......I am not a supporter of this site linked, but if validated, the data is significant for anyone interested in SCIENCE and climate change.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OOPS
Posted by: gellero on Oct 27, 2007 4:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was commenting on Sojourner's comment above.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why am I squawking?
Posted by: Desert Ravengrrrl on Oct 29, 2007 3:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks to the folks who asked me why I was so incensed by this article... I responded emotionally to prove my point... and never ended up getting to it!

Why did I say (several comments above), "This article is dangerous to SoCal"? This is a complex and admittedly opinionated response: I do agree that global warming (GW) is a factor to be considered in the SoCal wildfires. However, of all the areas in the world that are experiencing wildfires, this region is the LEAST affected by GW. I believe that the scientific community needs to "wisen up" about how to communicate about GW. We're facing overexposure and burn-out on the issue - especially in the case where every single scientific issue now seems to be tagged with a GW perspective. We are complex and smart Beings and we can hold more than a single concept in our heads!

I'm a naturalist and chose a career that would allow me to interact mostly with plants and animals. I'm not very good at communicating with other humans (as are many of the other science-minded folk that I have worked with). But that's the problem - scientists need to understand that the most important scientific issue these days is to include other humans into our theories. This is evident amongst people who work in Third World regions - creating a culture that values the wildlife and forests is a moot point when the local inhabitants are starving to death! Scientists must learn to switch the dialogue. Personally, I'd love to chat about natural processes and animal behavior amongst other scientists. But, in reality, I realize that my most-valued activity in this modern day and age is to foster an appreciation and love of nature amongst the demographic that is least-interested in that kind of talk...

Its no fun. I don't want to do it. But I must stop being selfish. Journalists seem to love the GW issue. Its very "sexy" right now. But they have a responsibility, too, to keep scientific discussion balanced. GW-exhaustion is hitting. Please don't criticize me for dismissing GW. In my daily life as a naturalist, I'm seeing its effects. The US needs to wake up to this issue... but please, lets get wise about how we discuss this. Scienitists and journalists need to consider how our topics are affecting the mass of the population.

Here are some quotes from a great article in the Journal of Forestry written by Jon Keeley, who has done extensive research on SoCal fires, and the 2003 San Diego fires in particular. In response to McKibben's assertion that the SoCal fires are related to insect infestations killing the pine trees: "These southern California fires burned through diverse plant communities... there is widespread belief that these were forest fires. However, coniferous forests comprised only about 5% of the total acreage burned."

McKibben states that the fire was related to a drought that we are experiencing this year. Yes... but that is not the *entire* story. The winter of 2005-2006 was a record rainfall year for SoCal. As a result, there was a huge amount of dead biomass ready to burn this following year.

Discussion of GW related to the fires in SoCal is irrelevant at this time. It is a low causal factor. In addition, fire fighters and home owners in SoCal need to understand that, as Keeley states: "fire science tells us there will be other massive wildfires on the southern California landscape. Fire management activities cannot prevent these large fires; however, through a combination of buffer zones and better planning, we may be able to engineer an environment that minimizes their impact on property and lives." There are actual activities that we can take to help mitigate the fires in SoCal. THAT should be the issue!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

God
Posted by: sp00n67 on Oct 30, 2007 6:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To all you eduducated disbelivers of Global Warming I say:
[Hello is anybody in there or is someone else at home] Add a billion more cars to another billion more cars and how many cars have you got ? Very good. Your not that stupid after all.
Only greedy investors are in denial, everyone knows it. It's your fault everyone will suffer and die. And I might as well tell you my little secret now as it doesn't seem like anybody will figure it out. [It's too late,] [The Heat Is On] and you can't fix it, maybe slow it down, but I doubt it. Hell is on Earth and you will suffer for your sins. Sorry, Oh a little tip, conserve your water your almost out, move to high grown and below the surface and you will be better off than most. Anyone near the coast won't stand a chance,you'll look like ants running from a hose with no advance; so be aleart, stay on your toes. Good Luck and hold your nose?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement