Once fire-proof Amazon rainforests have become flammable, thanks to climate change

A forest fire in the Amazon. Image: Getty.

The Amazon rainforest is described as the planet’s lungs for good reason. So much carbon is locked up in its trees that protecting the forest is a must if we want to do something about global warming. However, reducing the CO₂ that is emitted when a tropical forest is destroyed depends not only on stopping the actual deforestation, but also on fighting wildfires within the forest.

In a new study published in Nature Communications we show that forest fires are responsible for a huge portion of the carbon emitted from the Brazilian Amazon. During drought years, these fires can emit around a billion tonnes of CO₂. That alone is double the amount of carbon effectively emitted through deforestation in the Amazon.

Humans are throwing vast amounts of CO₂ into the planet’s atmosphere. While in developed countries such as the US and UK most of the emissions come from industrial activities, in developing tropical countries such as Brazil, most come from forests being chopped down and burnt.

Yet while deforestation is already recognised as an important driver of carbon emissions, wildfires under the forest canopy present a less visible but still pernicious threat. To figure out just how bad the problem is, we combined satellite data on the current climate, atmospheric carbon content and the health of forest ecosystems. Our work revealed that emissions from tropical forest fires are growing, even though they are still not normally accounted for in estimates of national emissions.

Wildfires – but not natural fires

Wildfires in the Amazon are not natural events, but are instead caused by a combination of droughts and human activities. Both anthropogenic climate change and regional deforestation are linked to increases in the intensity and frequency of droughts over Amazonia.

Fires spreads into the forest during the 2015 drought. Image: Erika Berenguer/author provided.

This kicks off a nasty cycle: as trees have less water during such droughts, their growth slows and they’re less able to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. Trees then shed extra leaves or even die, which means more wood and leaves are ready to burn on the forest floor and, without a dense canopy to retain moisture, the forest loses some of the humidity which acted as natural fire prevention.

These changes are exacerbated by “selective logging” of specific tree species, which opens up the canopy and further dries out the understory and forest edges, which are drier than the interiors. The result: normally fire-proof rainforests become flammable.

A fiery future?

The resulting wildfires have reached a worrying level, burning millions of hectares during the recent El Niño. But the worst could still be to come, as the unusually warm conditions in the Atlantic or Pacific oceans that have caused previous droughts are expected to intensify.

So far this century the Amazon has already experienced three “droughts of the century”, in 2005, 2010, 2015-2016. If the climate science is accurate, and if no action is taken to efficiently predict and avoid fires occurring, we expect that carbon emissions from forest fires would be sustained even if deforestation ended overnight.

Smouldering tree trunk after a forest fire during the 2015 drought in eastern Amazonia. Image: Erika Berenguer/author provided.

As one of the signatories to the Paris agreement on climate change, Brazil is committed to reducing its emissions to 37 per cent below 2005 levels by 2025. A major reduction in deforestation rates over the past decade is a great start. However, deforestation policy doesn’t help reduce forest fires and consequently isn’t fully efficient in mitigating carbon emissions from the Amazon.

Brazil has made substantive advances in reporting emissions from deforestation. It now needs urgently to focus on incorporating CO₂ losses from wildfires into its estimates. After all, those fire emissions are expected to increase in future, thanks to more extreme droughts, an expansion of selective logging, and the ongoing use of fire to manage pasture or to remove regrowing vegetation on farmlands.

Kilometres of burned forests (magenta) spread across old-growth forests (green) in eastern Amazonia. White patches are clouds. Image: Celso Silva-Junior/USGS/author provided.

Given that fire is an essential part of many smallholders’ livelihoods, it is critically important to implement sustainable and socially-just policy responses. Brazil should start by reversing the budget cut to the organisation that oversees its only existing fire-prevention programme. It should also avoid selective logging in regions that are prone to fires, and ensure forest management always factors in long-term fire-prevention.

The ConversationIn summary, these findings are not only critical for policymakers in Brazil to strengthen the efforts of effectively quantifying and limiting carbon emissions from forest fires in the years ahead, but also to other tropical nations to tackle the potential impacts of drought-induced fires on their carbon budget. These new findings bring critical information for nations to help prepare for urgent actions aiming to mitigate the potential increase of fire emissions in response to the intensification of droughts in tropical ecosystems.

Luiz Aragão, Senior Lecturer in Earth Systems Sciences, University of Exeter; Jos Barlow, Professor of Conservation Science, Lancaster University, and Liana Anderson, Research Associate in Land Cover Dynamics and Carbon Emissions, University of Oxford.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.


 

 
 
 
 

In many ways, smart cities are really very dumb

Rio de Janeiro’s control centre. Image: Getty.

It’s not news that anything and everything is increasingly being prefaced with “smart”: phones, watches, homes, fridges, and even water (yes, smartwater exists). And it’s not unintentional either. 

Marketeers know that we, the public, are often stupid enough to believe that thanks to their technology, life is better now than it was way back in, say, the primitive Nineties. Imagine having to, like a Neanderthal, remember how to spell words without an autocorrecting algorithm, or open the fridge door to check if you’d run out of milk, or, worse still, interact with actual people.

So it’s hardly surprising that we’re now also witnessing the rise of the so-called “smart cities”; a concept which presupposes that cities that are not technologically  “smart” are dumb, which, as anyone interested in the millennia-old history of cities — from the crypto-currency grain storage algorythms of ancient Mesopotamia to the complex waste infrastructure of ancient Rome, to London’s public transport infrastructure — will know, is not true.

Deployed in these smart cities are cameras and other networked information-gathering devices, load cells and other “sensing devices” detecting passing pedestrians and vehicles, audio surveillance devices listening for gunshots – and even vending machines equipped with biometric sensors to recognise your face. This is not to mention beacon technology — tiny anonymous looking black boxes hidden in trees and on lampposts — which transmits advertising, offers and other information directly to smart phones in the vicinity. 

If that doesn’t seem sinister enough, take, for example, Rio de Janeiro, where, in 2014, the International Business Machines Corporation designed a mammoth “control centre” that integrates data from 30 agencies for the city’s police. 

Described by the Guardian as having “the functionality of a Bond villian’s techno lair”, the then local mayor, Eduardo Paes, claimed the centre was making the city safer while using technology to deploy its “special” police unit to carry out the state’s “pacification programme”. Launched in 2008, the programme, which aims to push out drug gangs from Rio’s favelas, has been criticised by Amnesty International: “in January and February 2017 in Rio de Janeiro alone, at least 182 people were killed during police operations in marginalized neighbourhoods (favelas) – a 78 per cent increase in comparison to the same period in 2016”.

Sinister or not, as smart cities grow, they create new problems. For example, as urbanist Adam Greenfield writes in Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life, neither the algorithms nor their designers are subject to the ordinary processes of democratic accountability – a problem that international academics are currently attempting to tackle.  


“We need to understand that the authorship of an algorithm intended to guide the distribution of civic resources is itself an inherently political act,” writes Greenfield. “The architects of the smart city have utterly failed to reckon with the reality of power.”

The Real Smart Cities project, founded by Dr Gerald Moore, Dr Noel Fitzpatrick and Professor Bernard Stiegler, is investigating the ways in which so-called “smart city” technologies present a threat to democracy and citizenship, and how digital tools might be used create new forms of community participation.

Fitzpatrick is critical of current discourses around smart cities, which he says “tend to be technical fixes, where technology is presented as a means to solve the problems of the city.” The philosophy underpinning the project is “that technologies function as forms of pharmacology”, he adds, meaning that they can be both positive and negative. “The addictive negative effects are being felt at an individual and collective level.” 

An example of this lies in the way that many of these smart cities replace human workers with disembodied voices — “Alexa we need more toilet roll” — like those used to control the Amazon Echo listening device — the high priestess of smart home. These disembodied voices travel at the speed of light to cavernous, so-called “fulfilment centres”, where an invisible workforce are called into action by our buy-it-now, one-click impulse commands; moving robotically down seemingly endless aisles of algorithmically organised products arranged according to purchase preferences the like of which we never knew we had — someone who buys a crime novel might be more likely to go on and buy cat food, a wireless router, a teapot and a screwdriver. 

Oh to be the archeologists of the future who while digging through mounds of silicon dust happen upon these vast repositories of disembodies voices. That the digital is inherently material and the binary of virtual/real does not hold — there is no cyberspace, just space. Space that is being increasingly populated by technologies that want to watch you, listen to you, get to know you and sense your presence.

One project looking to solve some of the problems of smart cities is that of the development of a “clinic of contribution” within Pleine Commune in greater Paris (an area where one in three live in poverty).This attempts to deal with issues of communication between parents and children where the widespread use of smartphones as parental devices from infancy is having effects on the attention of young children and on the communicative abilities between parents and children. 

This in turn forms part of a wider project in the area that Stiegler describes as “installing a true urban intelligence”, which moves beyond what he sees as the bankrupt idea of smart cities. The aim is to create a “contributory income” in the area that responds to the loss of salaried jobs due to automation and the growth and spread of digitisation. 

The idea being that an income could be paid to residents, on the condition that they perform a service to society. This, if you are unemployed, living in poverty and urban deprivation, sounds like quite a simple and smart idea to try and solve some of the dumb effcts of the digital technology that's implemented in cities under the ideology of being “smart”.