
Fires Globally Have Declined 25% Since 2003 - mpweiher
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/08/30/forget-the-hype-forest-fires-have-declined-25-since-2003-thanks-to-economic-growth/#64fc206f163d
======
dependsontheq
An overlooked problem in these kinds of articles is that fires are not a
yearly problem. If you have 10 hectares of forest and in the first year 4
hectares burn down and afterwards every year one hectar ... there is no forest
after 10 years. So it’s not a “win” that only one hectar got burned. There are
several studies that point to possible tipping points where the Amazon as a
weather/rain/cloud producing ecological system breaks down if you burn enough
of it. Wherever that point may be at the end, we sure as hell are getting
there step by step.

~~~
drivebycomment
The same article also contains this:

> For the last 35 years, the world has been re-foresting, meaning new tree
> growth has exceeded deforestation. The area of the Earth covered with forest
> has increased by an area the size of Texas and Alaska combined.

So, at least globally in aggregate, deforestration concern doesn't seem like a
unmitigated disaster anymore. Of course, we still need to continue on
reforestration / conservation as well as fighting more localized
deforestration like in Amazon. But it's not all gloom and doom.

EDIT: Deforestration is still a serious concern.

~~~
gridlockd
Reforestation does not replace conservation. Most trees are planted for
commercial purposes, which usually means monoculture. These kinds of forest
don't support the same species whose habitats have been destroyed. Tropical
rainforests in particular are most likely irreplaceable.

Having said that, commercial tree planting is still very important to keep
demand for wood away from natural forests.

~~~
labawi
Also, cutting and possibly burning, even if trees are later planted, usually
destroys soil and consequently water cycles. Poor soil with bad water
retention means water, even soil runoffs, floods, and consequently water
shortages.

Commercial wood forests tend to have shallow soil and poor retention.

------
carapace
The article linked from the OP:

"Researchers Detect a Global Drop in Fires"

[https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90493/researchers-d...](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90493/researchers-
detect-a-global-drop-in-fires)

> Across the grasslands of Asia, the tropical forests of South America, and
> the savannas of Africa, shifting livelihoods are leading to a significant
> decline in burned area. Using NASA satellites to detect fires and burn scars
> from space, researchers have found that an ongoing transition from nomadic
> cultures to settled lifestyles and intensifying agriculture has led to a
> steep drop in the use of fire for land clearing and an overall drop in
> natural and human-caused fires worldwide.

> Globally, the total acreage burned by fires declined 24 percent between 1998
> and 2015, according to a new paper published in Science. Scientists
> determined that the decline in burned area was greatest in savannas and
> grasslands, where fires are essential for maintaining healthy ecosystems and
> habitat conservation.

> The map above, based on data from the international research team, shows
> annual trends in burned area over the study period. Blues represent areas
> where the trend was toward less burning, whether natural or human-caused,
> while red areas had more burning. The line plot shows the annual
> fluctuations in global burned area and the overall downward trend. The
> research team, led by Niels Andela of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center,
> analyzed fire data derived from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer
> (MODIS) instruments on NASA’s Terra and Aqua satellites. They then compared
> these data sets with regional and global trends in agriculture and socio-
> economic development.

I'm a doom-and-gloom type myself, but this seems like good news, eh?

~~~
jacknews
"I'm a doom-and-gloom type myself, but this seems like good news, eh?"

uh, not sure about that:

"Scientists determined that the decline in burned area was greatest in
savannas and grasslands, where fires are essential for maintaining healthy
ecosystems and habitat conservation."

~~~
carapace
You're right, that's ambiguous at best. Is it a decline in "bad" fire or
"good" fire or both or something else?

------
gridlockd
The article is completely misleading, it's not _forest fires_ that have gone
down, it's fires _in general_ [1].

In this case, urbanization has caused less fires set for agricultural
purposes, particularly in savanna regions. What you do is set a fire to get
rid of all the shrubs. Afterwards, grass quickly grows, supporting grazing
animals. It's been done for thousands of years.

This kind of fire also occurs naturally and is actually healthy for the
ecosystem.

It's funny how the article uses this development that is actually _negative_
(at least for the local flora/fauna) and spins it into a positive. Most people
read it as "forest fires have gone down", when the opposite is true[2].

[1]
[https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90493/researchers-d...](https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90493/researchers-
detect-a-global-drop-in-fires)

[2] [https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-global-warming-
has...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-global-warming-has-
increased-us-wildfires)

------
WhiteNoiz3
If fires go down because forests are now developed areas, is that necessarily
a good thing? To me that kinda says that we're running out of forests.

~~~
chrisco255
I mean, people are part of nature too no matter how much they try to escape
it. It's entirely subjective as to whether the world should have more or less
forests vs savannas vs apartment buildings.

~~~
craftyguy
The 'humans are nature, therefore everything humans do is OK' argument is
incredibly naive. Humans need to eat, for example, and there are complex
global systems that our food supply depends on (e.g. pollinators), and that we
do not fully understand. Turning all forests into apartment buildings is a
great way to crash these global systems that we depend on to live.

~~~
chrisco255
Naturally, but our population is kept in check by the same laws that govern
nature, just as you say, we can't mow it all down. And that's part of the
reason the population growth is slowing.

~~~
jacobush
Are we running up against a wall, famine is forcing the population down?
Rather the growth is slowing because we have it pretty OK, don't you think?

------
labawi
> Cole claimed that, as a result of burning fossil fuels, "the oxygen content
> of the atmosphere must start to decrease."

> That claim was incorrect and debunked as early as 1970 by climatologist
> Wallace S. Broecker writing for Science in June 1970.

Broecker in 1970 article[1] explains that a slight decrease in O₂
concentration is a definitely a non-concern compared to increase in CO₂, yet,
unlike the article claims, still projects about 0.2% decrease of atmospheric
O₂ for 1970-2000 period.

This is what I don't like about debunking articles. If debunking, at least
they should get their facts straight.

[1]
[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/168/3939/1537](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/168/3939/1537)

------
hugh4life
I have no idea what I'm talking about here, but isn't there more biodiversity
that hasn't been fully explored in the Amazon compared to forests in temperate
climates? That's what I'm more worried about.

------
SiempreViernes
"Forget about the Syrian civil war hype, the number of violent deaths globally
have gone down!"

I hope everyone gets the point that you can drown a serious negative trend in
a much larger set of unrelated data (how related is the incidence of fires in
Ruussia with those in Brazil? I don't know, lets combine them anyway!).

I hope I get to live to the point where this sort of sensationalist trash
headline isn't the most common type online.

~~~
drivebycomment
The headline is a factual statement. Also, the data says globally Earth is
seeing a reforestration, not deforestration. That doesn't mean there's no
localized deforestration, nor we should stop fighting against deforestration
everywhere. But it also means it's not all doom-and-gloom.

The article is exactly the kind of anti-sensationalist article that brings the
proper context and data to the forefront and highlights the actual challenges.

EDIT: Per advice, removed unnecessary part.

~~~
dictum
> I don't see how trying to tell the truth about something can be equated with
> trying to downplay the situation or encouraging people not to bother about
> it.

Because it's a red herring.

It's a very common form of red herring, to be precise: taking averaged
measurements of a whole set to infer information about a single element. The
converse is also a red herring; inferring information about a set by analyzing
only a single, cherry picked member.

"Fires Globally" _includes_ "Fires in the region X of country Y", but doesn't
take into account the specific importance of that region, the trends over
time, what's going to happen to surrounding regions in the future...

(For a quick metaphor: You have 99.5%~99.8% of your body in perfect working
order when your eyes have just been gouged.)

~~~
chrisco255
The fires and deforestation were actually way, way worse prior to 2003. I saw
charts for the Amazon in the 80s and 90s and throughout those decades the
forest fires were more than 5x greater than any point since 2003.

------
jacknews
Michael Shellenberger’s sloppy Forbes diatribe deceives on Amazon fires
(commentary)

[https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-
slo...](https://news.mongabay.com/2019/08/michael-shellenbergers-sloppy-
forbes-diatribe-on-amazon-fires-commentary/)

------
andygcook
Will be honest: Based on the headline, I thought this was an article about
declining sales of Amazon’s Fire product line. Obviously the 2003 year should
have tipped me off.

------
aelmeleegy
Frankly this is a horrible headline. Even if fires have declined since 2003,
we should still worry greatly about the Amazon fires. It seems that the
argument here is that we need to pick up the pace on fires since they have
been declining. As usual, Forbes sticking to sensationalist headlines as
opposed to informing ones.

~~~
jamesrcole
> _As usual, Forbes sticking to sensationalist headlines as opposed to
> informing ones._

How is their headline sensationalist? As far as I can tell, it is literally
the opposite of how you describe it.

I don't see how trying to tell the truth about something can be equated with
trying to downplay the situation or encouraging people not to bother about it.

You seem to be basically saying "this situation is bad so it is better to
mislead people about it (by claiming the severity of the current situation is
unprecedented)".

Misrepresenting things might seem to have short-term benefits but it's
dangerous because it erodes trust in things like the media, and ultimately can
harm important causes.

~~~
aelmeleegy
Responding to the first part, the headline goes "Forget the Amazon hype". It's
not hype it's literally fire.

~~~
abernard1
From some historical data on fire coverage in the Amazon here:
[https://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html#amazon](https://www.globalfiredata.org/forecast.html#amazon)

This doesn't really seem to be that big of a deal. It appears to be worse than
previous years, but nothing to write home about. If it's such a huge crisis
that we need non-stop media coverage about it, why wasn't it 80%-of-a-crisis
last year or the year before?

I think the answer, which the article is addressing, is that people's
ignorance of the issue has allowed media outlets to keep pushing a sensational
story, when the reality is much more banal. I think that fairly classifies as
"hype".

~~~
dgellow
From your link:

> Cumulative active fire detections of the fire season from May 1st through
> August 22nd, 2019 from MODIS and VIIRS confirm that the 2019 fire season has
> the highest fire count since 2012 (the start of the VIIRS record) across the
> Legal Amazon. In addition, fires in 2019 are more intense than previous
> years, measured in terms of fire radiative power, consistent with the
> observed increase in deforestation.

I think it's great that we have media coverage, and it would have been better
to have coverage for previous years.

~~~
abernard1
If you drill down into the graphs of those regions, you can see other proxies
for fires since 2003. It is not clear that there wouldn't have been MODIS and
VIIRS results much higher prior to 2012 had those measurements been available.

Even since 2012, this year is higher, but not remarkably so, given that during
summer it increases about 10x over a fairly high fire baseline.

From all accounts, fires on the order of this magnitude have been annually
occurring for decades in Brazil. It is hard to take the media criticisms
seriously in the face of this data. It's also hard to believe that the Amazon
is in imminent danger, given the duration of this "problem."

~~~
dgellow
Sure, don’t take media criticisms seriously, that’s almost a constant, their
content is of course heavily editorialized with a focus on sensationalism.
Still a lot of people who aren’t living in South America wouldn’t know that
the Amazon region has fire issues without the current media trend.

The Amazon forest won’t die right now, but the fact that forest fires are a
common occurrence since decades is definitely an issue given that they are
mostly caused by human activities (with help from the local climate).

