Smoke from climate-fueled wildfires contributed to thousands of US deaths over 15 years, study says

Forest fires led by climate change in up to thousands of annual deaths and billions of dollars contribute to economic costs of wild smoke in the United States, according to a new study.

the paper, On Friday, it was published in the journal Nature Communications Earth & Environment, that from 2006 to 2020, climate change contributed to about 15,000 deaths from exposure to small particles of forest fires and cost about $ 160 billion. The annual group of deaths was 130 to 5100, and the study showed, with higher in states such as Oregon and California.

“We are witnessing a lot of these fragile smoke events,” said Nicholas Nacikas, the author of a study and professor of medicine at the Harvard Faculty of Medicine. So he and a multidisciplinary team wanted researchers to know: “What does it really mean in a variable environment for things like deaths, which is one of the worst possible health results?”

It is one of the first studies that she saw isolating the effect of climate change 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 women, the elderly and Outdoor workers It is among the most vulnerable. The Institute of Health Antiquities that caused the pollutor is estimated 4 million deaths around the world.

Evidence emerging The PM2.5 of the smoke of wildfire is more toxic than other pollution sources. At forest fires Learn about citiesBurning cars and other toxins containing, adding to the danger.

Several studies have linked the climate change caused by the human being-the causes 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.

The researcher says the results are bothering, but not surprising

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.

“(R) is really large Hese numbers. I think there is a tendency to people actually burned to see the growing fires as a distant inconvenience … this study pushes home to any extent that gives effect.” He did not participate in the study.

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 that are due to climate change. 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 the scenario where weather measurements vary without climate change.

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 frame showed that among the 164,000 deaths related to the exposure to the Hashim movie PM2.5 from 2006 to 2020, 10 % was due to climate change. Humans were higher than 30 % to 50 % in some western states and provinces.

Questions about study conclusions

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?”

————

The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family to cover water and environmental policy. AP is the only responsible for all content. For all AP environmental coverage, visit APNews.com/hub/climate-nd-environment.