The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
By Beth Pratt
Last night from my neighbor’s deck, I watched the eerie glow of flames from one of the largest wildfires in California history. At my own house the top of the giant pyrocumulus—a cloud created by the intense heat of the fire—looms over the trees today. The airspace above my home has become a regular flyway, with DC10s soaring overhead carrying flame retardant, and helicopters buzzing by with their water filled “bambi buckets.”
Known as the Rim Fire, to date it has burned almost 160,000 acres (roughly the size of Chicago) with about 22,000 of those acres in Yosemite. Not surprisingly, given its immense size and threats to a cherished national park, the fire has prompted a media blitz, headlining everywhere from CNN to the BBC to Al Jazeera.
Yet almost universally missing from the media coverage, as usual? That climate change is making wildfires more frequent and more intense. As they have in past years, reporters won’t connect the dots in their main stories, treating the science that’s staring us in the face as a side story.
My neighbors and I lamented over this glaring omission last night as we viewed the smoke and flames that had become an all too familiar sight on our local landscape. We are living on the front lines of a new reality partially shaped by climate change. This is the fourth large fire in the Southern Yosemite area that we have faced this summer. In July, the Carsten’s Fire burned a mere mile from my house and we breathed smoke from the Aspen Fire daily for three weeks (although at least we could enjoy the amazing sunsets the fire produced while coughing). My home has been regularly filled with fire refugees this past week and many close friends are currently displaced, waiting to see if their houses have been destroyed.
And it’s only August, far from the end of fire season in California.
Scientists have long predicted that both the intensity and duration of fires would be increased by climate change. And in California and the West, this certainly is playing out. So why the media silence?
I spoke to Jan van Wagtendonk, research forester, emeritus with the U.S. Geological Survey and area resident. He has done landmark research on fire ecology in his more than forty years of working in Yosemite and is the co-editor of the book Fire in California’s Ecosystems.
“There is no doubt in my mind that climate change is contributing to the intensity of these fires with the drought and the dryness," he said. "Even though we have cyclical droughts and climate changes naturally, we are out of balance.”
Doug Inkley, senior scientist with National Wildlife Federation (NWF), puts it simply: “The smoking gun here is climate change.”
Just to be clear, fire isn’t inherently bad and serves as a vital part of a forest ecosystem. But as van Wagtendonk observes, climate change disturbs the equilibrium of fire ecology.
“Once a fire has burned, the ecosystem doesn’t set back to a normal cycle like in the past," Wagtendonk explains. "Instead a whole new ecology or different habitat than what the animals are used to gets created. The system is seeking a new equilibrium, and that means everything we have become accustomed to changes.”
Across the American West, there’s growing evidence these increasingly intense wildfires are permanently changing landscapes already being altered by global warming. And wildlife is certainly impacted by these changes.
“Generally for a more intense fire, animals cannot adjust to the habitat changes, which affects everything from mosquitoes to bighorn sheep,” said van Wagtendonk.
Steve Thompson, Yosemite’s chief of wildlife management, noted that fire can be both beneficial and detrimental to wildlife, depending on the intensity of the fire. “What we see here in Yosemite is fire returning to the ecosystem, but if it uniformly burns too hot or too intensely it can destroy suitable habitat.”
Other factors, like historic fire suppression practices exacerbate the problem and can combine with climate change influences to create a perfect “firestorm” scenario. Challenges to wildlife are not just limited to California as National Wildlife Magazine’s current issue features the article, Wildlife Feels the Heat, about how fires and other climate change related phenomena threaten animals nationwide.
According to Thompson, some wildlife that might be impacted in Yosemite includes the already threatened mountain yellow-legged frog, and the rare and endangered Yosemite great gray owl. The fire could alter water quality from sedimentation and run-off for the frog, and also destroy nesting areas for the owl. For other wildlife, mobility is a key defense strategy and unless the fire is moving too fast, the animals may be able to outrun it.
One of Yosemite’s iconic tree species, however, cannot outrun the blaze. Two giant sequoias groves, the Tuolumne and the Merced, are in the fire’s proximity. Giant sequoias are adapted to fire, but park officials are concerned enough to set sprinklers around them. Tom Medema, Yosemite’s chief of interpretation told USA Today, “It’s really unthinkable to lose sequoias that have survived fire for 2,000 to 3,000 years.”
These magnificent and hardy trees actually need fire to reproduce and have an unusually thick bark that provides a protective insulation. But parts of the Rim Fire are burning hotter and higher than usual, and if this type of “crown fire” reaches the groves, it could be more than the trees could withstand.
The human impact of fire in my area has also been devastating. Twenty-three structures have already burned, and thousands more are threatened. The Berkeley Family Camp, which has been in operation since 1922, burned almost to the ground. The gateway town of Groveland will lose significant tourist revenues over one of the busiest holiday weekends of the year, and the fire forced the cancellation of the popular Strawberry Music Festival. The fire also threatens water and power sources for San Francisco. Yosemite Valley—the crown jewel of the crown jewel park—does not face imminent danger and remains open and accessible except through the Highway 120 west entrance.
The most significant human impact, however, is the almost 4,000 firefighters that are risking their lives to try to contain the blaze. Dick Fleishman of the U.S. Forest Service calls the Rim Fire the “highest priority in the nation” and has allocated significant resources to protecting Yosemite and the surrounding communities.
Yet we are running out of these resources. The national fire preparedness level has been raised to a level five—its highest point—meaning we might not have enough firefighters to protect us. Additionally, funding is an issue. Along with the challenge of sequester cuts, the U.S. Forest Service had to recently place a freeze on other funds in order to cover the increasing fire-related expenses, even though it already allocates half of its budget for firefighting.
Given all these factors, why are we not using this fire that has captured the nation’s attention as an example of the devastating results of climate change?
“We have a problem and we are out of time—failing to connect the dots is irresponsible for it downplays the urgency of the tragedies, such as extreme wildfires, that we are witnessing in Yosemite and other regions in the west,” said Felice Stadler of NWF.
I know wildfire is a crucial part of forest ecology and the threat of fire a normal part of life when you live in the mountains. But these extreme fires are not part of Mother Nature’s deal, and a superfire burning in my beloved Yosemite National Park seems to up the ante beyond the natural balance.
Yosemite is my favorite place on earth. I live on its southern border, worked in the park for almost a decade and spend most of my free time wandering in its sublime backcountry. It bothers me (actually, it infuriates me) knowing that an extreme fire—partially fueled by human caused climate change—may have a great impact on my home and a place I cherish.
I don’t want firefighters to risk their lives, or constant smoke and flames to become the new summer tradition in California, or a 2,000 year-old stand of ancient trees to burn because we couldn’t end our dependence on fossil fuels.
Do any of us want that on our conscience? We didn’t start the fire, but we have certainly added fuel to it through our refusal to address climate change. How much of Yosemite will we let burn before we act?
This article was originally published on National Wildlife Federation’s Wildlife Promise.
Visit EcoWatch’s CLIMATE CHANGE page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
During summer in central New York, residents often enjoy a refreshing dip in the region's peaceful lakes.
But sometimes swimming is off-limits because of algae blooms that can make people sick.
- Algal Blooms Can be Deadly to Your Dogs - EcoWatch ›
- Every Mississippi Beach Is Closed Due to Toxic Algae - EcoWatch ›
- Toxic Algal Blooms Connected to Climate Change and Industrial ... ›
More than 40 million doctors and nurses are in, and they are prescribing a green recovery from the economic devastation caused by the new coronavirus.
- A 'Green Stimulus' Could Battle Three Crises: Coronavirus ... ›
- German Business Leaders Call for Climate Action With COVID-19 ... ›
- Canadian Groups Fight for a Just Covid-19 Recovery - EcoWatch ›
The U.K. government has proposed delaying the annual international climate negotiations for a full year after its original date to November 2021 because of the coronavirus pandemic.
By Jared Kaufman
Upcycled food is now an officially defined term, which advocates say will encourage broader consumer and industry support for products that help reduce food waste. Upcycling—transforming ingredients that would have been wasted into edible food products—has been gaining ground in alternative food movements for several years but had never been officially defined.
- Chefs Are Going Back to Their Roots for Local, Sustainable Foraged ... ›
- This Montreal Company Turns Juice Pulp Into Food - EcoWatch ›
How to Lower Your Coronavirus Risk While Eating Out: Restaurant Advice From an Infectious Disease Expert
By Thomas A. Russo
As restaurants and bars reopen to the public, it's important to realize that eating out will increase your risk of exposure to the new coronavirus.
- Why Wear Face Masks in Public? Here's What the Research Shows ... ›
- How to Stay Healthy at Home During the Coronavirus Lockdown ... ›
- How Do You Stay Safe Now That States Are Reopening? - EcoWatch ›
By Alexander Freund
In a pilot study at the University of Helsinki, dogs trained as medical diagnostic assistants were taught to recognize the previously unknown odor signature of the COVID-19 disease caused by the novel coronavirus. And they learned with astonishing success: After only a few weeks, the first dogs were able to accurately distinguish urine samples from COVID-19 patients from urine samples of healthy individuals.
Important Findings for Other Teams<p>The very rapid and promising findings from Finland are also important for other research teams, such as those in Great Britain and France, who are training sniffer dogs to detect COVID-19.</p><p>Fellow researchers from the <a href="http://assistenzhunde-zentrum.de/index.php/news/covid-19-hunde" target="_blank">German Assistance Dog Center (TARSQ)</a> have also benefited from the Finnish results.</p><p>"No one could tell us with certainty whether training with the aggressive virus is <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/dutch-house-pets-test-positive-for-coronavirus/a-53460111" target="_blank">dangerous or not for humans and dogs</a>. We wanted to gather more information first before we started training because the German virologists advised us against it — after all, so little is known about the virus so far," explains Luca Barrett from TARSQ.</p>
Where Does the Characteristic Smell Come From?<p>It is still unclear which substances in urine produce the apparently characteristic COVID-19 odor. Since SARS-CoV-2 not only attacks the lungs, but also causes damage to blood vessels, kidneys and other organs, it is assumed that the patients' urine odor also changes. This is something which the dogs, with their highly sensitive olfactory organs, notice immediately.</p><p>Certain diseases appear to have a specific olfactory signature that trained dogs can sniff out with amazing accuracy, Barrett says.</p><p>"According to one study, dogs can detect breast cancer with a 93% probability, for example. And lung cancer with a 97% probability," she says.</p><p>But dogs can also identify skin cancer, colon cancer, ovarian cancer or prostate cancer very reliably, according to Barrett. "The hit rate, which was not so good in the early days of training, has risen enormously in recent years," she says.</p>
Hit Rate Decisive<p>Besides cancer, the <a href="https://www.dw.com/en/german-sniffer-dog-makes-1-million-drug-bust/a-53433307" target="_blank">dogs</a> can also detect Parkinson's disease. Parkinson's sufferers smell different even years before they have the disease. "That's how we came up with the idea of training dogs as an early warning system for Parkinson's," Barrett says.</p><p>Dogs are also trained to detect malaria, but the hit rate is not yet satisfactory, she says. So far, the dogs recognize seven out of 10 infected persons, which is not enough.</p><p>A high hit rate is, of course, also absolutely necessary when training for the aggressive SARS-CoV-2 pathogen, according to Barret. "We hope that the hit rate for the coronavirus is significantly higher in the fully trained dogs; after all, it would be very dangerous if COVID-19 were not detected," she says</p>
Trained Tracking Dogs<p>Dogs' ability to smell is about a million times better than that of humans. Humans have about 5 million olfactory cells, compared with 125 million for dachshunds and 220 million for sheepdogs.</p><p>Dogs also inhale up to 300 times per minute in short breaths, meaning that their olfactory cells are constantly supplied with new odor particles. In addition, dogs' noses differentiate between right and left. This spatial sense of smell allows the animals to follow a trail more easily.</p><p>During the training sessions, the dogs — mostly Labrador retrievers or retrievers in general, but also cocker spaniels or sheepdog breeds — are each trained for one scent. That can be the smell of a drug or an explosive, or, as here, the olfactory signature of a specific disease.This means that one dog cannot recognize several types of cancer.</p><p>The animals are trained with containers holding samples of breath or sweat, for example. As soon as they have identified the smell they are looking for, the dogs hear a click and get a treat. They are reliably trained for the one smell on this reward principle.</p>
Great Potential, Great Skepticism<p>Drug and explosive detection dogs have been used for some time. But trained medical scent detection dogs are also now working in hospitals. For example, they sniff the bodies of patients with suspected skin cancer to try and detect the disease — only with the patients' consent, of course. So these skilled snufflers are helping doctors in diagnosing diseases and detecting them early on.</p><p>However, so far there are only very few medical detection dogs. The dog owners almost always work voluntarily and the trained sniffer dogs live in normal households. There is great skepticism, especially among traditional doctors and health insurance companies, even though the first indications given by the dog have to be followed by further medical tests anyway and a lot of time and costs could be saved by early cancer detection.</p>
Possible Coronavirus Applications<p>If the findings from Finland are confirmed, the sniffer dogs with their extremely sensitive sense of smell could prove to be a great help in the fight against the new coronavirus.</p><p>Luca Barrett from TARSQ can easily picture coronavirus sniffer dogs being used in situations where there is a high risk of infection. For example, people attending football matches and other major events could be checked before they are admitted.</p><p>The dogs could also be employed at airports to scan people entering a country. "When the dogs go down the queue, they can detect if someone is healthy and can enter the country. But if a person smells of COVID-19, the handler could send that person to a coronavirus testing center instead," Barrett says. That is because a second test is still needed to confirm the dog's initial sniff detection.</p><p><span></span>Barrett says dogs could also be used to search for the virus on surfaces. For example, before passengers board an aircraft, a four-legged friend could first check whether the machine is free from SARS-CoV-2. Similar measures are planned for doctors' surgeries, aged care homes or nursing homes that have had to be evacuated because of COVID-19 cases. Before these are used again, a sniffer dog could check whether the environment is "clean."</p>
- A Second, Larger Wave of Locusts Invades East Africa Amid Pandemic ›
- 'Murder Hornets' Spotted in U.S. for the First Time - EcoWatch ›
- Worst Locust Swarm to Hit East Africa in Decades Linked to Climate ... ›
- Locust Swarms Prompt Somalia to Declare National Emergency ... ›