The Reach of Wildfire Smoke Is Going Global and Undoing Progress on Clean Air
Scientific Publications: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06398-6 and https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06522-6
Being from the Mountain West region of the United States, I, along with many others, have noticed an increasing number of wildfires during the late summer that has been dubbed “fire season”. This is the time of year when multiple local wildfires—as well as those from other states and Canada—rage on for weeks and months. Everyone notices because smoke fills the air for days on end, reducing visibility and choking people out of their favorite outdoor activities, not to mention the inherent dangers of a wildfire in your own backyard.
Wildfires are known to introduce all manner of pollutants into the air. Included with these pollutants is ozone as well as particulate matter with a diameter of <2.5 microns (aka PM2.5), both of which are known to have impacts on human health. The effects of wildfire smoke are not just regional, however. In the linked New York Times article, “The Reach of Wildfire Smoke Is Going Global and Undoing Progress on Clean Air,” two studies are cited that show that wildfires are increasing the concentration of PM2.5 nationally and globally.
By focusing on one study at a time, the article gives a summary of each while maintaining language understandable to the layperson. Important details are included, such as the time frames of data collection, the health effects of O3 and PM2.5, how climate change leads to more wildfires, and the geographical limits of the research. There are quotes from several of the authors from the studies, which I believe shows that more than just a read through of each paper was done for the creation of this public-facing article. The article encourages people to learn how to protect themselves from wildfire smoke and mentions that the only thing we can do to combat wildfires is to tackle climate change through policymaking. Unfortunately, the article does not include any actual data from the studies or details on methods employed or statistical analysis.
Figure 1: National and regional trends in ambient concentrations of PM2.5 show steady declines through 2016 and then stagnation or reversal.
The study focusing on the nation of the United States of America was published September 2023 and used data gathered from most continental states. The researchers collected data on daily PM2.5 concentrations from pollution monitoring sites across the country from 2006-2022 and compared them to chronologically correspondent satellite images of wildfire smoke plumes. Increases in PM2.5 during a smoke plume were attributed to the wildfire smoke. The data was divided into “early” and “recent” periods, with the boundary between the two periods being the year 2016. It was shown that before 2016, PM2.5 trended downward in most US states, and from 2016-2022 an increase of wildfire smoke influenced a stagnation or a reversal of the trend in 35 states.
The other peer-reviewed study published at the same time looked at global levels of landscape fire-sourced (LFS) air pollution, mainly PM2.5 and ozone. No exclusion of controlled versus uncontrolled fires was made, but the researchers mentioned that uncontrolled fires (i.e. wildfires) are “increasingly frequent and severe as a result of climate change”. Data was collected from air quality monitoring stations all around the world in the time period 2000-2019. The researchers concluded that LFS PM2.5 and LFS O3 concentrations are increasing globally and that low income countries experience four times more than high-income countries.
I rate this New York Times article 8/10 because it sheds light on the effects of wildfire smoke, which a majority of people have firsthand experience with, effectively summarizes and highlights the most important points of these studies, and makes no claims outside the realm of the cited experts. The fact that no quantified data was included, however, is detrimental to the article’s logos. I appreciate that quotes from the authors of each scientific study were included as well as what appears to be a consultation from an unassociated scientist because I think it shows that many sources agree with the conclusions made. I feel like the suggestion to make sure people know how to protect their health on smoky days while “we work on policy solutions to try and deal with wildfires” is half-baked. While it is a good goal to have, there is more that the average person can do to combat climate change, and I don’t think that was clear in the article.
I really liked your post and the article you chose. I feel as though many people do not look at the overall long-term danger of wildfires and these sort of "fire seasons". While the damage of the immediate fire is always evident, the pollution released during these events can cause long term effects which I think both you and the article highlighted on well. I also appreciate how the article touches on how wildfires affect different countries and parts of the world differently as it offers an expanded view of the problem. I agree with your rating in that the article really only lacked in the quantitative scientific backing of its claims. I am curious as to what may have caused the sharp change in PM 2.5 concentrations after 2016.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post and the article you chose for it this week! I agree that many people view these wildfires as a one-time occurrence and don’t consider the trend overall or the long-term impacts the smoke can have. I think the New York Times article did a great job of calling more attention to the impact of smoke inhalation and the effect the pollution could have on the environment. I would also have rated this article an 8 out of 10 because it brings attention to a cause that needs more public attention. It gives good information about studies that have been done and makes the problem easier to understand for the general public. I agree that it only truly lacked quantitative data to back the claims. I know Seth has already mentioned this, but I am also curious to know what caused that steep jump in PM 2.5 concentrations in 2016. The only global event I found was the Great Smokey Mountains wildfires in 2016. They were said to go for more than a month!
ReplyDeleteProps to you for looking into this! I know that both articles claim that wildfires are getting larger and lasting longer, but I didn't see if there was a specific change that occurred in 2016 that could be considered a root cause. That might be worth a deep dive into the literature
DeleteThis was very informative to read, and I found it to be highly relevant to what is going on in California now. It's crazy to think that wildfires happen so frequently now that there is a "fire season". I agree that the New York Times article did a pretty good job shedding light on the most important aspects of the wildfires, but I wonder if it would have made more of an impact if they included some actual data. In your last sentence, you mentioned that there is more that the average person can do than just wait for policies to change. I am wondering what ideas you had about what people can do. Do you think people alone can make a big difference if they implement changes in their day-to-day, or is relying on higher-ups the only real way we can stop climate change?
ReplyDeleteOh, great question! While I acknowledge that policy change made by government officials plays a vital role in reducing climate change, I believe that everyone plays a part. Now, one person alone cannot make a profound difference, but individuals make up a community, and communities united in a goal to protect nature will make significant impacts.
DeleteI agree on your thoughts towards the article from the New York Times. Although there was not a lot of specific data included in the NYT article, it still captured the severity of the two academic papers linked. I think the article did a great job of connecting the importance of why we need to care about the increased amount of wildfires by explaining how it impacts other areas around us. It shows that this problem is larger than just the US, and is hurting everyone around the globe.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that they should have included more data than just having the author's quotes, seeing the numerical data is more convincing them just someone's word. However, I can understand why they would have left that information out as it might be too difficult for the average reader to understand without having to do further research.
Additionally, I believe one reason to the large increase in PM 2.5 in 2016 might be due to the large production boom in Asia during that time period. https://iap.unido.org/articles/east-asian-miracle-through-industrial-production-and-trade-lenses
I found this an interesting read and very prevalent today with what we have seen going on in California and notably Canada over the past couple of years. Being from the "Ohio Valley" I hadn't seen any notable news about air quality trends in my area related to this - until the summer of '23. I had been in Cleveland for most of that summer and coming to and from work at times had poor visibility with massive waves of smoke coming from up north. This time happened to coincide when these papers were published, making it an interesting trend to follow. I am interested in seeing how this data changes over the next couple of years.
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting and more relatable topic. While reading your blog, it reminds me of a similar situation back in India. There is an practice which farmers follow. After the harvest is done, they burn the remaining hay bales to clear out the field for next cultivation cycle. This affects the air quality. The scale of this effect is so big that even the neighboring states are affected. This leads to a seasonal decline in air quality and increased ash particles in the atmosphere. People wear masks while going outside. I find this very similar to the effects of forest fire on air quality. Now the government is promoting alternate ways of disposal and education the farmers about the bad effects of burning. Similar conditions are observed during the festival of Diwali too, due to excessive smoke arising from bursting of firecrackers. Even with the intervention of the government, we as people need to take initiative to reduce air pollution.
ReplyDeleteThank you for mentioning this! You bring up an important point here: cultural practices influence environmental quality.
DeleteI think you made excellent points when evaluating the article with respect to the studies it refers so. I especially agree with your criticism of the primary solution being policy making as being unsatisfactory because it isn't an actionable solution anyone can really work towards. That aside, I really enjoyed the article because it was able to take the intention of the studies and convey that to the common reader without having to use the numbers in the first place. While they had the potential to use it, they were strategic and instead used words from the sources themself, which are less likely to be misconstrued or overlooked. I also found the figure you posted really fascinating with the sudden resurgence/stagnancy in most areas of the US starting in 2016 and how a leading contributor was the wildfire smoke. It really helps visually show how much of an impact wildfire smoke has on the PM 2.5 presence in the air.
ReplyDeletethis is a really good topic which matches the situation in LA. I think it is really good to focus on the results of the fire. In addition to the PM 2.5 and ozone generation, we should also consider other pollutants forming from the fire. Combustion in the forest is really complicated reaction, and off course the product of from the fire is not as easy as the reaction written in on our textbook. For example, even carbon from the wood can generate CO not CO2 if the oxygen suddenly got depleted during the first round combustion. N in the nature can also generate HCN during the fire. These ones are also very toxic substances
ReplyDeleteI really like this topic because it summarizes the studies well and brings attention to wildfire smoke and its effects. I also appreciate that it includes expert opinions, but I wish it had more actual data to support its points. One thing I don’t fully understand is how researchers separate wildfire PM2.5 from other pollution—how do they know for sure it’s from wildfires and not something else?
ReplyDeleteAs with all science, there is no 100% certainty. The researchers cross-referenced area-specific data on spikes in PM2.5 concentrations with satellite images of wildfire smoke plumes of the same area.
DeleteThanks for bringing up this important issue! It reminds us to think about how crucial it is, especially with the recent wildfires in California. I was shocked when the researchers concluded that LFS PM2.5 and LFS O3 concentrations are increasing globally and that low-income countries experience four times more than high-income countries. I wonder what’s driving this result. Is it due to differences in industrial pollution, weaker environmental regulations, or a lack of resources for air quality control in low-income countries?
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding the root causes for global socioeconomic disparity as well as the consequences of such is an important field of study. All the reasons you listed play a role, I believe, but mentioning it in this single study isn't enough for a full picture of the issue. I think that this is something that we should look into further.
ReplyDeleteThis post is insightful. However, adding more details on health impacts and the global effects of wildfire smoke would strengthen this analysis. Additionally, including methodology and data would provide clearer context and credibility. Overall, the article effectively raises public awareness on an important issue.
ReplyDelete