Smoke from climate-fueled fires in US contributed to 15,000 deaths over 15 years, study finds | US wildfires

Forest fires he leads Climate crisis Contributing to up to thousands of annual deaths and billions of dollars in economic costs of wild smoke in the United States, according to a new study.

The paper, published on Friday in Nature Communications Earth & Environment, found that from 2006 to 2020, the climate crisis contributed to about 15,000 deaths from exposure to small particles of forest fires and cost about 160 billion dollars. The annual group of deaths was 130 to 5100 California.

“We see many of these Washing fires Nicholas Nacikas, author of a study and professor of medicine at the University of Harvard Medical College, said that the events of smoke. “

She is one of the first studies that she saw isolating the effect of the climate crisis on deaths. She said that looking at the effects throughout time and space made it unique.

The researchers in the paper focused on the deaths associated with exposure to the microscopic substance, or PM2.5 – the main concern of fire smoke.

These particles can go deep in the lungs and lead to coughing and itching with short term exposure. But in the long run they can make current health problems worse and lead to a set of chronic and deadly health issues. Children, pregnant people, elderly and external workers are among the most vulnerable. The Institute of Health Antiquities estimated that the pollutor caused 4 million deaths all over the world.

Evidence shows that PM2.5 of the wild smoke is more toxic than other pollution sources. When forest fires go beyond cities, burn cars and other toxins, they add danger.

Several studies that have been linked to the human being in the climate crisis-the result of burning coal, oil and gas-to growth in fires in North America. Global warming increases dehydration, especially in the West, and the other harsh weather. Dry conditions absorb moisture from plants, which act as fire fuel. When the vegetable cover and dry seasons are mixed with more hot temperatures, this increases the frequency, extent and intensity of the forest fires and smoke they split.

Jacob Bendex, an honorary professor in geography and the environment at the University of Serkios, said he “feels a dismay” of the results but was not surprised.

“[T]Hese numbers are really big. “I think there is a tendency to people outside the actually burned areas to see the growing fires as a distant inconvenience … this study pushes home to what extent is the effects of the effects,” Bendex said in an e -mail.

The authors of the study have been based on modeling and current data to reach their results. First, they sought to understand the amount of area burning by forest fires attributed to the climate crisis. They did this by analyzing the real climatic conditions – heat and rain, for example – when forest fires broke out from 2006 to 2020, and they compared this to a scenario where weather measurements vary without the climate crisis.

From there, they estimated the PM2.5 levels of wild smoke associated with climate change using the same approach. Finally, combining the current understanding of how particles impact on deaths based on published research, they estimated the number of PM2.5 deaths from forest fires and calculating their economic impact.

This framework showed that among 164,000 deaths related to exposure to background-PM2.5 from 2006 to 2020, 10 % was attributed to the climate crisis. Humans were higher than 30 % to 50 % in some western states and provinces.

Marshall Burke, a professor of global environmental policy at Stanford University, said that the evidence linking climate change to the burning areas was “solid rock”, but the subsequent steps were more difficult.

He said: “Connecting the burned area to smoking is more difficult because you do not know exactly the way the wind will blow up.”

However, their approach was reasonable and reasonable.

Patrick Brown, Johns Hopkins University’s lecturer in climate and energy policy, said he had some concerns about the study. One was my concept. He said in an e -mail that the study acknowledges that drivers who are not restricted to forest fires, but they do not give them appropriate weight.

Brown, who did not participate in the study, worries that decision makers can mistake that reduce carbon emissions aimed at the planet is the only solution. “However, in many regions, the most urgent measures to save life may be fuel breaks, prescribed burns, ignition organization – efforts, public health efforts, etc.”

Nasikas said that land management practices, such as the prescribed burns, could reduce fire fuel in the wild. But ultimately, the study indicates that the problem of mortality from wild smoke will get worse without reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

“Part of the study raises consciousness,” he said. “After we somewhat understand … Now what are the interventions that we can publish on a personal level, at the level of society, and it is clear that it is on a greater level throughout the country and all over the world?”