Dot Earth Blog: Why Colorado?s Fire Losses, Even with Global Warming, Need Not Be the ?New Normal?

11:53 a.m. | Updated below |
As Coloradans grappled with the impact of the state?s latest wildfire disaster, some writers were quick to call this ?the new normal? due to greenhouse-driven climate change.

Global warming is almost surely contributing to drought and heat in ways that exacerbate fire risk, but the prime driver of losses in these recent fires is a heavily subsidized burst of development in zones of implicit fire danger.

And assertions that such losses are the new normal distract from glaring opportunities to cut unnecessary (and costly) exposure to this danger in the West, even as the grander task of curbing emissions of greenhouse gases proceeds.

This Twitter item and the Storify post it links to provide my quick take on the prime lessons and opportunities related to Colorado?s latest fire:

I also discussed ways to cut vulnerability in hot spots for climate-related hazards, including wildfire hot zones, in my chat yesterday with David Roberts of Grist. Here?s my prime point (with relevant links):

We?ve grown our vulnerability at a pace far exceeding whatever forces climate change is exerting on the same scenarios. Whatever you do on carbon, job one right now is to get out of harm?s way, and especially to tweak those knobs where you know that policies are putting us there. There?s an economist in Colorado who proposed ending the mortgage deduction for second homes if a house is in a fire zone. I think it?s a great idea.

Here?s our talk (the relevant portion starts around the 13th minute, but I hope you take the time to watch the whole thing):

The following excerpts from an article I wrote for Outside Magazine (and a related Dot Earth post) on President Obama?s second-term opportunities for environmental progress are worth reposting:

Stop subsidizing the building boom in danger zones:

The president and Congress should?cut federal subsidies?that keep the price of insurance in some high-risk zones (flood plains, coastal areas threatened by rising seas, and regions prone to wildfires) artificially ? and disastrously ? low.

?If we had never created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), the private market would be charging much higher premiums and it would be much more of a deterrent for people living in these places,? says Eileen Fretz, director of flood management at the non-profit,?American Rivers. While we?re not likely to completely end government-backed insurance, last June?Congress passed legislation?that cut NFIP funding for businesses, second homes, and repeat beneficiaries (that is, homes that flooded multiple times). This is a good start, but we need to do more: stop giving taxpayer protection, and indirectly encouraging development, to communities behind levees. We also need to actively protect our most valuable flood protection infrastructure ? wetlands, barrier islands, and dune beaches.

Similar opportunities lie in the nation?s wildfire ?red zones,? where the government is spending $3 billion a year on wildfire protection. ?We ain?t seen nothing yet,? says Ray Rasker, an economist and director of?Headwaters Economics. Only 16 percent of private wildland now has homes, he says. ?Put climate change on top of new development, and you have a crisis.? He suggests?cutting support for construction of at-risk homes, doing away with breaks like the federal mortgage tax deduction. [The rest.]

Here?s a bit more on this last point that didn?t make it into the piece but is worth adding here:

Given the disastrous impact of wildfires on communities from Texas to Colorado, President Obama can order a reexamination of forest management practices on federal lands that have resulted in huge accumulations of fuel for conflagrations. He can insure that federal agencies responsible for developing?codes for construction and materials?move ahead with plans for national codes and standards for building in what?s called the ?wildland-urban interface.? The standards would tighten depending on level of hazard determined through a ?fire exposure severity zoning system.?

I encourage you to explore the fantastic Headwaters Economics report and Web presentation on these issues here:

The Rising Cost of Wildfire Protection

Wildfires are becoming more severe and expensive. This report describes how the protection of homes in the Wildland-Urban Interface has added to these costs and concludes with a brief discussion of solutions that may help control escalating costs.

11:53 a.m. | Update | Chris Mehl of Headwaters Economics sent this helpful update on their analysis of fire risk in a warming climate:

We worked with a retired Congressional Research Staffer to produce a?backgrounder?on the rising cost of wildfire protection.

Wildfires are becoming more severe and expensive, and the report describes some of the causes of growing fire costs; along with how the protection of homes in the Wildland-Urban Interface has added to these costs.? It concludes with a brief discussion of solutions that may help control escalating costs.

Second, homes in the WUI drive wildfire suppression costs (not to mention safety concerns) and this?interactive map and tables?shows the level of WUI development at both county and state levels?and also what?s not developed in terms of future costs.

Third, following the drought/temp theme of your story we?ve looked at what higher temps mean for fires in three states:Montana, the California Sierra Nevada, and?Oregon. Details include:

• A?Montana?report?found that, statewide, protecting homes from wildfires costs an average of $28 million annually. If development near fire-prone forests continues, costs to protect homes likely will rise to $40 million by 2025. A 1? F increase in summer temperatures would at least double home protection costs. Additional development and hotter summers combined could increase the annual cost to?exceed $80 million?by 2025.
• Research in?California?s Sierra Nevada?found that rising average summer temperatures are strongly associated with an increase in acres burned. Within the study area, an annual increase in average summer temperature of 1? F is associated with a 35 percent growth in area burned.
• An?Oregon?study?found that a rise in average summer temperature of 1? F is associated with an increase of 420 wildfires?a large effect given that, on average, 1,800 wildfires burn in?Oregon?per year.

These reports are part of our long-term commitment to better understand and address why wildfires are becoming more severe and expensive.? All of our wildfire research is summarized here.

More background:

?Climate change and wildfire: How vulnerable are we?? ? Max Moritz of the University of California, Berkeley, in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists last year

?Why People Keep Moving Into Fire-Prone Areas? ? Colorado Public Radio interview with Gregory Simon, University of Colorado, Denver.

A Twitter conversation with Phil Plait of Slate?s Bad Astronomy blog is worth a look.

9:49 a.m. | Addendum | After re-reading my published post, I changed the headline to ?Colorado?s Fire Losses? from ?Colorado?s Fires? because it?s the losses that can be sharply cut through various policy shifts, not necessarily the fires themselves (although many such fires are the result of human proximity to combustible forests and grasslands).

Source: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/why-colorados-fires-even-with-global-warming-need-not-be-the-new-normal/?partner=rss&emc=rss

nba playoff schedule rondo morris claiborne clippers lisa lampanelli lisa lampanelli bronx zoo