Search

How wildfires have reversed California’s environmental gains

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

08 Nov, 2022

This post was originally published on Healthy Forest

This year, California public radio embarked on a year-long investigation, titled BURNED chronicling the U.S. Forest Service’s struggle to reduce wildfire risks in the Golden State, a story that’s all too common throughout the west. The agency’s efforts to thin and manage overgrown forests and protect communities are routinely delayed, and sometimes are abandoned altogether.

Recent studies also illustrate the costs of forest non-management to the state’s environment.

A new analysis led by researchers with the University of California found the state’s 2020 wildfires-the most disastrous wildfire year on record- put twice as much greenhouse gas emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere as the total reduction in these pollutants in California between 2003 and 2019.

During that time, California’s greenhouse gas emissions had declined by 65 million metric tons of pollutants, largely due to reductions from the electric power generation sector. Yet according to one of the study’s authors, the “positive impact of all that hard work over almost two decades is at risk of being swept aside by the smoke produced in a single year of record-breaking wildfires.”

Another new study details the loss of old growth and mature forests, and wildlife habitat for species such as the California spotted owl.  The research is highly relevant as anti-forestry groups pressure the Biden Administration to further limit active forest management as a way to “protect” big and old trees.

The study, published in Ecological Applications, found that between 2011 and 2020 in the southern Sierra Nevada, 30 percent of conifer forest have become non-forest, and up to 85 percent of mature forest habitat was lost or degraded due to fire and/or drought.

The study also found southern Sierra forests set aside for spotted owl habitat (known as PAC’s California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers) have become highly vulnerable as overstocked forests burn in wildfires. In fact, PACs experienced a greater canopy cover decline (49 percent of 2011 cover) than non-PAC areas (42 percent decline).

The researchers suggest restricting forest management may result in further losses of forests and wildlife habitat. “Remaining dry mature forest habitat in California may be susceptible to complete loss in the coming decades without a rapid transition from a conservation paradigm that attempts to maintain static conditions to one that manages for sustainable disturbance dynamics,” the researchers wrote.

Both the Forest Service and California’s elected officials understand more forest management is needed to reduce the risks of wildfires. Yet the state has lost much of its forest infrastructure, including foresters, loggers, and mills to harvest, transport and process material from overgrown forests in order to have healthier and more resilient forests. Today, the state has less than half of the sawmilling capacity it had in the 1980s, and less than half the number of foresters and loggers working in the woods.

While record government spending on land management helps, restoring this lost infrastructure will require addressing the anti-forestry litigation, obstruction and analysis paralysis that stymies active forest management. Bending the curve of destructive wildfires as long as it take years for the Forest Service to meet federal regulatory requirements to implement even modest thinning projects.

As Bay Nature reported, state and federal agencies are now trying to make up for a century of “ineffective forest management,” says Wade Crowfoot, secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency. “We need more activity in forests, not less.”

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

Source: Healthy Forest

You may also like…

Taking the electronic pulse of the circular economy

Taking the electronic pulse of the circular economy

In June, I had the privilege of attending the 2025 E-Waste World, Battery Recycling, Metal Recycling, and ITAD & Circular Electronics Conference & Expo events in Frankfurt, Germany.

Speaking in the ITAD & Circular Electronics track on a panel with global Circular Economy leaders from Foxway Group, ERI and HP, we explored the evolving role of IT asset disposition (ITAD) and opportunities in the circular electronics economy.

The event’s focus on advancing circular economy goals and reducing environmental impact delivered a series of insights and learnings. From this assembly of international expertise across 75+ countries, here are some points from the presentations that stood out for me:

1. Environmental impact of the digital economy

Digitalisation has a heavy material footprint in the production phase, and lifecycle thinking needs to guide every product decision. Consider that 81% of the energy a laptop uses in its lifetime is consumed during manufacture (1 tonne in manufacture is equal to 10,000 tonnes of CO2) and laptops are typically refreshed or replaced by companies every 3–4 years.

From 2018 to 2023, the average number of devices and connections per capita in the world increased by 50% (2.4 to 3.6). In North America (8.2 to 13.4) and Western Europe (5.6 to 9.4), this almost doubled. In 1960, only 10 periodic table elements were used to make phones. In 1990, 27 elements were used and now over 60 elements are used to build the smartphones that we have become so reliant on.

A key challenge is that low-carbon and digital technologies largely compete for the same minerals. Material resource extraction could increase 60% between 2020 and 2060, while demand for lithium, cobalt and graphite is expected to rise by 500% until 2050.

High growth in ICT demand and Internet requires more attention to the environmental footprint of the digital economy. Energy consumption of data centres is expected to more than double by 2026. The electronics industry accounts for over 4% of global GHG — and digitalisation-related waste is growing, with skewed impacts on developing countries.

E-waste is rising five times faster than recycling — 1 tonne of e-waste has a carbon footprint of 2 tonnes. Today’s solution? ‘Bury it or burn it.’ In terms of spent emissions, waste and the costs associated with end-of-life liabilities, PCBAs (printed circuit board assembly) cost us enormously — they generally achieve 3–5% recyclability (75% of CO2 in PCBAs is from components).

2. Regulating circularity in electronics

There is good momentum across jurisdictions in right-to-repair, design and labelling regulations; recycling targets; and voluntary frameworks on circularity and eco-design.

The EU is at the forefront. EU legislation is lifting the ICT aftermarket, providing new opportunities for IT asset disposition (ITAD) businesses. To get a sense, the global market for electronics recycling is estimated to grow from $37 billion to $108 billion (2022–2030). The value of refurbished electronics is estimated to increase from $85.9 billion to $262.2 billion (2022–2032). Strikingly, 40% of companies do not have a formal ITAD strategy in place.

Significantly, the EU is rethinking its Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) management targets, aligned with upcoming circularity and WEEE legislation, as part of efforts to foster the circular economy. A more robust and realistic circularity-driven approach to setting collection targets would better reflect various factors including long lifespans of electronic products and market fluctuations.

Australia and New Zealand lag the EU’s comprehensive e-waste mandated frameworks. The lack of a systematic approach results in environmental degradation and missed positioning opportunities for businesses in the circular economy. While Australia’s Senate inquiry into waste reduction and recycling recommended legislating a full circular economy framework — including for imported and local product design, financial incentives and regulatory enforcement, New Zealand remains the only OECD country without a national scheme to manage e-waste.

3. Extending product lifecycles

Along with data security and digital tools, reuse was a key theme in the ITAD & Circular Electronics track of the conference. The sustainable tech company that I lead, Greenbox, recognises that reuse is the simplest circular strategy. Devices that are still functional undergo refurbishment and are reintroduced into the market, reducing new production need and conserving valuable resources.

Conference presenters highlighted how repair over replacement is being legislated as a right in jurisdictions around the world. Resources are saved, costs are lowered, product life is extended, and people and organisations are empowered to support a greener future. It was pointed out that just 43% of countries have recycling policies, 17% of global waste is formally recycled, and less than 1% of global e-waste is formally repaired and reused.

Right to repair is a rising wave in the circular economy, and legislation is one way that civil society is pushing back on programmed obsolescence. Its global momentum continues at different speeds for different product categories — from the recent EU mandates to multiple US state bills (and some laws) through to repair and reuse steps in India, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

The European Commission’s Joint Research Commission has done a scoping study to identify product groups under the Ecodesign framework that would be most relevant for implementing an EU-wide product reparability scoring system.

Attending this event with the entire electronic waste recycling supply chain — from peers and partners to suppliers and customers — underscored the importance of sharing best practices to address the environmental challenges that increased hardware proliferation and complex related issues are having on the world.

Ross Thompson is Group CEO of sustainability, data management and technology asset lifecycle management market leader Greenbox. With facilities in Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Canberra, Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, Greenbox Group provides customers all over the world a carbon-neutral supply chain for IT equipment to reduce their carbon footprint by actively managing their environmental, social and governance obligations.

Image credit: iStock.com/Mustafa Ovec

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Add your own review

Rating

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.