(cc photo: H Dragon)
“An era of catastrophic wildfires in the West is taking a giant bite out of the US Forest Service’s budget, shortchanging its programs for recreation and land management,” reports a front-page USA Today story (10/21/13).
About 6,700 fires that have burned 1.3 million acres of federal land since January led to another costly “fire transfer” of hundreds of millions of dollars this summer as the fiscal year closed in September, Forest Service records show.
Since 2002, more than $3 billion has been diverted from recreation and management budgets to squelch fires that demand expensive hand crews, smoke jumpers, air tankers and hundreds of firefighters, according to a review of the transfers.
That’s a big problem—but what’s the cause of this “era of catastrophic wildfires”? USA Today‘s Nick Penzenstadler provides one sentence of explanation: “Heavy fuel loads, intensive fire suppression and urban sprawl have led to an era of ‘superfires’ over ranges of ponderosa pine.”
Well, yes–but isn’t there something missing from that list? Maybe something like this?
Climate change will likely cause more frequent wildfires in the western United States within the next 30 years and throughout North America and most of Europe by the end of the century primarily because of higher temperatures, scientists report Tuesday.
The source for that? USA Today (6/12/13).
You could give USA Today credit for having mentioned the connection before, even if the paper doesn’t remember what it’s reported. Or you could note that the word “wildfire” has come up 1,457 times in USA Today‘s reporting, according to a search of the Nexis news database—and it’s been accompanied by the phrase “climate change” 73 times. So about 95 percent of the time that USA Today talks about wildfires, the context of a changed climate that they’re occurring in goes unmentioned.
Well, what can we expect from Gannett (parent of USA Today and thousands of local papers across the US and elsewhere), being they are in it for profit, most of that profit being derived from ad revenue, and pissing off the advertisers by negative reporting on their businesses — including pollution and energy consumption — would not work to the advantage of this colossal “news” agency.
Once again, we need more non-profit news agencies. I just happen to watch one frequently called The Real News Network. therealnews.com
it seems that USA Today, at best, has some rather shoddily lax reportage standards. Or maybe it has a political policy/practice to obscure facts dissonant to their ‘agenda.’
It might….Or it might not.Since no climate models have proven to be correct…in fact amazingly INCORRECT would be the truth; it is fair to say that the only variables trustworthy for data and future preparedness are those noted.This winter is expected to be brutal out there.It might make things better.Then again ,it might
not
michael e.:
Climate models are doing quite well in telling us what our futures could be. Rapid changes might seem like anomolies now, but they could soon be normal. All of those cows freezing to death in a first winter storm in South Dakota might soon be a normal event. Even Hurricane Sandy blowing into an area where one is usually NOT tells us that something is amiss. I supose it might take Wall St. being under water of a fathom or two for some to believe.
I think the climate scientsts are doing well; it’s those economists that seem horribly confused.
Greetings, What often goes unsaid, or better yet the thought does not occur that Almighty God is in ultimate control of the climate, and weather here in the U.S. and worldwide. Several of these catastrophic forest fires have possibly been ignited by lightening and of course fueled by the wind. However every time a reason is stated it just has to be careless human beings, or deranged ones’ who start them. Think about it . We live in a physical material world that is spiritual at it’s core. Peace, Mr. Tyrone H. Muhammad
Climate Change??? Are you serious?? The blame for ALLLLLL of these wild fires is the result of environmentalists standing in the way of proper forest mgt. From controlled burning to harvesting.
Environmentalists are also the cause of greenhouse gases by standing in the way in the 80’s of building anymore nuclear power plants. Put the blame where it belongs the left wing nuts
Climate change does not burn forests. But it sets the stage for many more fires by causing droughts and proliferation of tree killing pests which dry and kill forests and make them more easy to burn.
Climate change doesn’t kill polar bears. But the melting ice – caused by climate change – denies them their most common food.
Aids doesn’t kill humans. It just lowers our resistance so that we more easily die from pneumonia, etc.
Glorianna and Frank your argument seems to be that whether it gets warmer or colder that bad things will happen somewhere in the world.Ok I am with you so far.And of course the weather changing either warmer or colder or anything in between is OUR fault.Ok now you are getting wacky.Im pretty sure the world has been warmer and colder long before we were about.Sound like I think most man made global warming is a junk science made for political reasons????YUP.Glorianna you should be happy with the models.All models said that two paces …..the Himalayan ice fields and the icelandic glaciers were the linchpin to how the world was doing.They had melted by 50% pretty quickly.Well we now see a complete reversal.Back to 100% and climbing very very quickly as the world cools.Horray.Look Im all for non pollution.That is the goal.Im a strong environmentalist.But to hang your hat on a theory thats models (as confirmed by the chief people in the field) have all proven erroneous for the sake of governmental take over of power is not flying with me.And if people were really serious about all this they would be preparing to attack China.They refuse to change.Only invasion and take over of their economies could “save the world” if this is your belief.As for the US we are meeting all level reduction standards beautifully.We ahead of everyone else, though we were the only non signers of the protocol.Wanna speed it up.Offer massive tax cuts to any industry that retool to higher standards.But that would mean your government would have to GIVE UP CONTROL AND POWER and allow folks to rebuild wealth in a way that benefits all.Not with this bunch.