Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Australia

Australia's Wildfires Have Created More Emissions Than 116 Nations (technologyreview.com) 155

Posted by EditorDavid from the mega-fires dept.
"The wildfires raging along Australia's eastern coast have already pumped around 400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere," reports MIT's Technology Review, "further fueling the climate change that's already intensifying the nation's fires."

That's more than the total combined annual emissions of the 116 lowest-emitting countries, and nine times the amount produced during California's record-setting 2018 fire season. It also adds up to about three-quarters of Australia's otherwise flattening greenhouse-gas emissions in 2019.

And yet, 400 million tons isn't an unprecedented amount nationwide at this point of the year in Australia, where summer bush fires are common, the fire season has been growing longer, and the number of days of "very high fire danger" is increasing. Wildfires emissions topped 600 million tons from September through early January during the brutal fire seasons of 2011 and 2012, according to the European Union's Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service.

But emissions are way beyond typical levels in New South Wales, where this year's fires are concentrated. More than 5.2 million hectares (12.8 million acres) have burned across the southeastern state since July 1, according to a statement from the NSW Rural Fire Service... The situation grew more dangerous in recent days, as hot and windy conditions returned. Two giant fires merged into a "megafire" straddling New South Wales and Victoria, and covering some 600,000 hectares (1.5 million acres).
The article also argues that wildfires are releasing carbon stored in the vegetation dried by warming temperatures.

"That creates a vicious feedback loop, as the very impacts of climate change further exacerbate it, complicating our ability to get ahead of the problem."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia's Wildfires Have Created More Emissions Than 116 Nations More

Australia's Wildfires Have Created More Emissions Than 116 Nations

Comments Filter:

  • The trees will grow back (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aberglas ( 991072 ) on Sunday January 12, 2020 @03:45AM (#59611602)

    And fairly quickly. The roots and most trunks generally survive fires.

    But the huge amount of coal we burn will never go back into the ground.

    So I am not sure that these two carbon sources can be directly compared.

    • we'll keep burning coal, gas and oil.

    • But the huge amount of coal we burn will never go back into the ground.

      So what?

      Eventually coal will become more expensive than other options fo whatever coal is used for (options that continue to lower in price over time), so we'll never "run out of coal".

      The CO2 that goes into the atmosphere can be sequestered in various ways, but the main one is automatic - plat live thrives on larger amounts of CO2, so it provides a natural brake for any amount truly excessive.

      So, we don't NEED to put coal back into the

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      Will they? I was just reading about the boreal forest, a forest which depends on fire. What's happening is the fires are happening more frequently and the forest is no longer recovering like it has historically. Areas burned down to mineral soil, trees reburned before they recovered and such. Lots of areas seem to be turning into prairie.

  • That cannot be right. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I've just finished reading that lighting fires and burning the bush in Australia prevents climate change!

    As long as those fires are lit by indigenous people they help not hurt because of knowledge etc. I'm told as long as the fires are burning in the cooler months and in a patchwork pattern, then carbon credits are generated! If all the same bush burns in a hot season, then it is a global disaster!

    https://www.natureaustralia.or... [natureaustralia.org.au]

    So the upshot is that if you want to save the planet you just have to buy a

    • Cool fires, where you burn off the dry leaves of the grass but leave fallen timber charred and established trees unharmed, does store carbon. The rootstocks of the burned off grass stores carbon in the soil, and the charcoal left behind doesn't rot like timber does.

      But hot fires burn everything to ash, releasing almost all the carbon. But most of these emissions will be the burning of seasonal grasses, which will grow back and absorb most of the carbon again. And most of the eucalypt forests that these fire

      • ... most of the eucalypt forests that these fires have been through will be fine - gum trees survive all but the most severe fires well, loosing only dead branches and fine twigs and leaves.

        And the ones that AREN'T fine will be better. Eucalyptus is like fire pine with several extra adaptations: In a hot fire it reproduces by explosion.

        The very energetic sap boils and causes the trunk to explode, scattering the fire-resistant seeds and burning sap and wood all over the surrounding area, where the fire has

  • Good thing that life will grow back and start absorbing new carbon. Fires are a natural part of nature

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      So if we were to totally burn down the Amazon rain forest, and thence it stops being a rain forest because it changes the microclimate over the rainforest that helps make it rainforest, then we can all rejoice in the new life of scrub and grasses that will replace the trees and habitat?

    • Good thing that life will grow back and start absorbing new carbon. Fires are a natural part of nature

      I don't think you understand the timescales involved. Maybe in 100 years the Australian forests will have recaptured the carbon just released into the atmosphere in the past 2 months.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dryeo ( 100693 )

      The problem is when a forest has evolved to burn every 30-50 years and is now burning every 10 years before it has a chance to recover.

  • Can someone explain the MIT report's conclusion, "further fueling the climate change", and how a carbon-neutral events such as wild fires contribute to climate change?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by I am not a Bicycle ( 6231610 )
      Carbon-neutral is really a matter of time frame. Given a billion-year window, even burning all the fossil fuels on Earth can be considered carbon-neutral, since we'd only be unleashing the carbon trapped in the bodies of ancient creatures that didn't decompose properly (this I think was before the arrival of flesh-eating bacteria). So I'm assuming the older the trees the more carbon they'll be releasing into the air. So if your time frame is narrow, say a year or two, then this won't be a carbon neutral ser

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        You are really kind of delusions if you want to compare times where people did not dig up fossil fuels and burn them nor cut down forest and reduce carbon capture.

        Of course when it comes to climate cycles, like say the ice age and over 100m of sea level change, cities are not that adpative nor are the billions who are reliant of them.

        What they are considering is the next northern summer fed with even more carbon. Most of the damage because cheap arse conservative politicians did not want to pay for contro

        • Most of the damage because cheap arse conservative politicians did not want to pay for controlled burns.
          Most people using that word, don't know what it means. There are not many regions in the north were "controlled burns" ever happened in damn forrest!! We have no huge grasslands in the northern hemispheres were this makes sense and in forrest it makes no sense at all!!

      • The phrase "further fueling the climate change" suggests a lasting effect. To support that claim, you'd have to look further than just 2 years. As others have suggested, the regrowing vegetation should absorb a similar amount of CO2 as was released in the fires, over the course of a few years. I've no idea if that timeframe is accurate, but in general growing stuff in order to burn it, then regrowing it and repeating the cycle, is considered to be carbon neutral, even in relatively short time frames (yea

        • "As others have suggested, the regrowing vegetation should absorb a similar amount of CO2 as was released in the fires, over the course of a few years. "

          You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. Old forests sequester more carbon than young ones, because old trees do the same. Carbon sequestration is limited by photosynthesis, which is limited by leaf area, and all tree growth occurs in a thin layer beneath the bark called the cambium so bigger trees add mass more quickly. Regrowth cannot se

      • Old-growth trees do not sequester as much carbon as young-growth. Getting rid of the old growth also frees up more room for new-growth to take hold, the older the tree is the larger its root structure and canopy cover is which block out other plant life from taking hold.

    • Can someone explain the MIT report's conclusion, "further fueling the climate change", and how a carbon-neutral events such as wild fires contribute to climate change?

      Wildfires are only carbon neutral when averaged over hundreds of years. It takes a frigging long time for a forest to grow.

    • and how a carbon-neutral events such as wild fires contribute to climate change?
      Because they are carbon neutral but not carbon dioxide neutral?

      A forrest burns, *puff* now it is CO2 ... nitpicking? Or playing dumb? Or being dumb?

  • More gloom and doom about the problem of global warming. While at the same time there's been a lot of advancement in the development of infrastructure and technology to solve this problem.

    There's a lot of good news if people would only look for it. There would be even more good news if people worked at creating it. Twerking in the street, and holding up traffic, is not helping in fighting global warming. It's also not helping in raising awareness. People know about it. It's been grilled into everyone

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dusanyu ( 675778 )

      Twerking in the street, and holding up traffic, is not helping in fighting global warming. It's also not helping in raising awareness.

      Wait. what kind of simpleton things that " Twerking in the street, and holding up traffic" is a productive way to help the problem. "I am going to make people wait longer in traffic and burn more fuel than if they were just able to drive strait threw." gasoline / Diesel cars are going to be with us a long time (at least until 900 dollar electric road beaters are widely available or as long as people are living in borderline poverty need transportation they can afford) I will admit I am no fancy "climate s

    • While at the same time there's been a lot of advancement in the development of infrastructure and technology to solve this problem.

      This has to be the worst blindseer nuclear power promotion I've seen on Slashdot. You're really losing your edge.

      • This has to be the worst blindseer nuclear power promotion I've seen on Slashdot. You're really losing your edge.

        I wasn't talking about nuclear power.

    • Hey, someone finally arrived at stage 2.

      Keep going!

  • What about fireworks for the nye?

  • Quick... (Score:3, Funny)

    by bblb ( 5508872 ) on Sunday January 12, 2020 @05:53AM (#59611790)

    Quick... somebody tax the fires, that'll fix everything.

  • were started by arsonists, i heard over a dozen were arrested for arson, now how many started fires and were not caught?
      • nope, that is misinformation to bury the truth, there are more than a dozen people arrested for arson, but the econazis want to bury that info by faking new stories that many more were arrested for arson than is true, plus stories like that one that denies all arson

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Layzej ( 1976930 )
          In the year ending 30 September 2016, Victoria Police recorded 4,480 arson offences across the state of Victoria alone. In 2019 there were 24 and we're to believe that this is the cause of Australia's worst wildfire season? Australian firefighters say lightening is mostly to blame - coupled with the hottest driest summer on record.

    • Few compared to the number of fires that are burning. Arson is done close to home. Basically no one intentionally burns down a forest in the middle of nowhere.

  • Australia owes the world one hell of a carbon tax this year.
  • It's literally the same thing as the CO2 output of these fires. If it's a problem for the climate to have these wildfires, then it's a problem for the climate to use biomass (ground up, pelletized trees, burnt in a turbine).

  • The real vector to stop CO2 - stop arson (Score:3)

    by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Sunday January 12, 2020 @12:40PM (#59612702)

    So it turns out if you really want to lower CO2 emissions, you should put a lot more effort into stopping arson [politifact.com].

    Note that article states there were at least 24 people setting brush fires deliberately, with 47 cited for discarding cigarettes or matches... but 24 alone is quite enough to cause a huge amount of fires (remember each arsonist can and probably did set more than one fire).

    The article incorrectly blames climate change, for what is actually not even close to the greatest level of fire Australia has seen - the real problem is, as in California, not enough proscribed burning to reduce the impact of fires that do start. By trying to save a little CO2 output, they have instead created 10x the output they would have otherwise if controlled burns had reduced the fuel source.

    • Arson is not the cause of the bushfires. There is no support for that story from anyone in control, only people that want to deflect attention away from climate change. The total number of fires that have started this year is > 1000.

      https://www.theage.com.au/nati... [theage.com.au]

      Arson is being used by the right wing media to deflect attention from climate change. Most of the media doing that is owned by Rupert Murdoch (a bigger asshole than Larry Ellison - if that's possible):

      https://www.theguardian.com/au... [theguardian.com]
      https://w [sbs.com.au]

    • And yet, this number of arsonists is not abnormal. There have always been arsonists in Australia. Let's have a look at what the Australian Institute of Criminology has to say [aic.gov.au]:

      The Australian Productivity Commission has calculated that between 2001–02 and 2006–07, the number bushfires in Australia varied from approximately 46,000 to 62,000 per year, with an average of nearly 54,000 fires per year (SGRSP 2008). This agrees quite closely with the average of nearly 52,000 fires per year calculated by the Australian Institute of Criminology (Bryant 2008) using data from fire agencies from 1995–06 to 2005–06. It is estimated that 50 percent of fires are either deliberately lit or suspicious in origin as shown in Figure 1

      Gee, turns out that 50% of fires have always been suspicious.

      So yes, it would be kinda nice to stop arson entirely. Would save us a whole lot of time, money and heartache.

      But blaming arson for igniting the fires doesn't have much to do with the severity of the fires. Surely you can see that, right? After all, there's drivers and t

Slashdot Top Deals

Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.

Close