Here’s a story at the intersection of catastrophic climate change and austerity.
Because of the constant burning of carbon into the atmosphere and the resulting changes to the weather and climate, the US has experienced more and more wildfires over the past several years. In fact, this has been the worst wildfire season on record.
We have a fixed budget for federal wildfire interventions, and we now have run out of money to pay firefighters to battle new wildfires, or pay for the equipment needed. Every normal democracy would appropriate more funds to pay for the potential disasters down the road. But we’re in an age of austerity. So we steal from other parts of the Forest Service budget. Which will in turn INVITE MORE WILDFIRES.
So officials did about the only thing they could: take money from other forest management programs. But many of the programs were aimed at preventing giant fires in the first place, and raiding their budgets meant putting off the removal of dried brush and dead wood over vast stretches of land — the things that fuel eye-popping blazes, threatening property and lives.
Recently, Congress stepped in and reimbursed the Forest Service and the Interior Department, which plays a far lesser role in fighting fires, with $400 million from the 2013 Continuing Resolution, allowing fire prevention work to continue. Forestry experts at state agencies and environmental groups greeted it as good news.
But they also faulted Congress for providing at the start of the fiscal year only about half of the $1 billion dollars it actually cost to fight this year’s fires. They argued that the traditional method that members of an appropriations conference committee use to fund wildfire suppression — averaging the cost of fighting wildfires over the previous 10 years — is inadequate at a time when climate change is causing longer periods of dryness and drought, giving fires more fuel to burn and resulting in longer wildfire seasons.
The biggest problem here is not how we go about funding firefighting and fire prevention, it’s the factors that have increased the incidence of wildfires: constant fossil fuel burning for energy, which has heated the planet. When people talk about the costs of climate change, the strains on the wildfire budget is just one very prominent example.
But in a peculiar brand of denialism, Congress acts like the wildfire season resembles the past, when we’ve moved into a terrifying new future. Wildfire season now lasts close to six months, up from the previous four. Millions more acres burn than before. Yet Congress operates on auto-pilot. And this is not a new problem; the Forest Service has transferred money out of other budgets to cover firefighting fairly consistently since 2002.
Congress tried to deal with this by creating an emergency fund known as FLAME in 2010. And then, after two relatively mild fire seasons, they raided the budget in 2011. So there’s no discipline to save for future efforts, and meanwhile the amount needed for firefighting gets progressively larger. And with more and more effects of climate change spilling out, this only gets worse.





16 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
You just have to laugh. We do the funniest things, our species, don’t we?
The Forest Service has recognized that intervention in wildfires has been a mistake and has led to hotter, more devastating fires. Wildfires are a natural component of the forest ecosystem, being necessary for the germination and protection of trees. Now they’re doing some ‘controlled burns’ in an attempt to rectify the situation but that’s impossible on a grand scale.
Future generations will scorn us. We have placed monsters in charge of our country and the world. We are a despicable generation. I am ashamed.
Rather than controled burn, where the energy goes up-in-smoke, why not use the Biomass as a renewable energy source?
There is a model for what our Government will look like soon. Think of how helpful the Government was before, during, and after Katrina. Or just look at our health care system.
Again, the burn is beneficial to the ecology of the forest. It’s necessary to get rid of the live matter that, if not reduced, would provide a devastating too-hot fire in the future that would burn all the trees and inhibit them from re-generating. Also some seeds need fire to release therm for germination. Then there is the expense. benefits of wildfires
How about a controlled burn starting at Wall Street and maybe going up 5th Ave? :)
Guess this is one of those “have laugh to keep from crying” situations.
Nice post again don.
OTOH, “Only YOU can preent forest fires.” Smokey T. Bear
alan, excellent point.
Can’t we at least have a weinie roast and make some S’mores?
I think we can count on the standards that were set for Katrina continuing into the forseabbel future. /s
Hey that’s encouraging, you forsee a future! I’m still on the fence.
Great post. Therein lies the main problem with the wildfires. We’ve been suppressing them for so long the natural process of lightning induced wild fires clearing out underbrush hasn’t been happening it is now critical, and has been so for a long time. In the end it would be cheaper to let the stuff burn completely. It sounds cruel letting people’s homes burn but when you let fuels grow and grow and grow now for over a century in some cases, it’s gonna be more disastrous when it happens. This is not a climate change issue (the decades and decades of fire suppression…that is the issue here). LIghtning induced wildfires are a natural process and always have been. You have dry years and wet years and in a dry year, you get a bigger wild fire problem. Controlled burns have been going on for decades as well. And as you said is not a solution on the grand scale. I do get irritated when something like this occurs and the claim is right away “climate change”, it’s not completely right just as when someone will inevitably claim “no climate change” when the first major snowstorm comes in December.
Wild fires are part of the ecology of the forest. When the white man came the forests were quite healthy. But then, we took over and nothing has been the same and certainly not better.
Donbacon has it exactly right.
I am glad the agencies are moving funds from their so-called fire “prevention” projects —- because these veg manipulation projects often make matters worse.
The Forest Service and BLM should not get funds for nearly all the so-called “fire prevention” projects that they dream up under the guise of “fuels reduction”.
These are often in reality subsidized logging, cattle grazing grass stimulation, and weed spreading pork barrel projects. These agency projects often make fires worse. You thin or deforest areas to “prevent” fires – and what do you get? Hotter, drier, windier sites – also prone to flammable weeds. End result: More fires, not less. This deforestation/ or radical thinning or other “treatment” as the agencies love to call these projects – also typically amplify the adverse impacts of climate change on ecosystems. Through creating hotter, drier, more fire prone sites.
ignorant assholes…
any country with a labor force participation rate of 63.6% & a 78% capacity utilization rate has plenty of resources to fight fires or do anything else that needs doing..