Skip to main content

Fires increasing loss of rainforests

We are aware of increasing news reports of forest fires across the globe, but how more frequently do they occur? 

A new analysis from WWF and the Boston Consulting Group reveals the number of global fires has increased by 13% compared to 2019 – already a record year. 

In addition, the latest data from Brazil reveals fires in the Amazon for this year are 52% up on the ten-year average and almost a quarter (24%) higher than that for the past three years.  

Deforestation alerts are a third higher than last year, increasing the risk of fires. WWF-UK is now launching an appeal to fund work in the Amazon.

Last year more than 148 indigenous communities were affected and this year they are vulnerable to the dual threat of Covid-19 and fires. 1,453 fires have already torn through indigenous territories in the Amazon in the first seven months of this year (10% of the total number of fires in the biome). This is the highest number since 2009 and 56% higher than the average for the last ten years. Deforestation alerts on indigenous lands from January to July reached 10,500 hectares. A total of 26,600 indigenous people have been affected by COVID with 700 reported deaths. COVID has already reached 155 different indigenous territories in Brazil.

Fire seasons are lasting longer and becoming more extreme, says the WWF and BCG report, Fires, Forests and the Future. The average length of the fire season has increased by nearly a fifth(19%) compared to the 1970s, as our climate changes. 

We often hear of these fires being dismissed as 'natural',  yet in tropical forest landscapes, like the Amazon, fire is not natural.  It is caused by human activities, exacerbated by climate change which leaves them drier and hotter.   Taking action to stop this is vital.  

Most fires in the Amazon are caused by humans, often intentionally. Last year,  Brazil's National Institute for Space Research found the country lost more than 1,330 square miles of forest cover to development, when President Jair Bolsonaro took office.  

In its report,  the WWF warns that humans are responsible for 75% of all wildfires. In total, fires release roughly as much CO2 into the atmosphere as EU countries emit every year. Climate change and wildfires reinforce each other, and the fires burning today in many parts of the world are bigger, more intense, and last longer than before.  In Australia, for example, the 2019-20 fire season was the worst ever, with one-fifth of all trees destroyed.

Tropical forests, such as those in the Amazon, have the highest carbon storage, or sequestration, capacity storing 23% of the world’s total but they are not very resilient to fires. As a result, tropical forest fires produce 15% of total greenhouse gas emissions from fires each year, despite making up only 7% of the surface area burned globally.

Destruction of our forests is a political decision.  It will take bold action from governments working nternatinally to stop it.   Forests are vital to maintaining life on earth. We need to protect our forrests. 

Ray Noble is a chartered biologist and Fellow of The Royal Society of Biology. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As