California’s fires as both tragedy and lesson

As strategies toward wildfires have evolved, so has the understanding of how humans can fit into the natural order.

AP
Deer walk in the ruins of a fire-destroyed home in Paradise, Calif.

Last year, when wildfires in California were already breaking records, Gov. Jerry Brown advised the state to accept it as “the new normal.” This November, as the state saw its most destructive fires in history with dozens of people killed, the governor said the fires are instead “the new abnormal.”

He did not explain his change of terms. Yet the switch nicely wraps up a decades-long debate over whether wildfires are part of a natural order or something to quickly suppress, as Smoky Bear told generations of Americans.

It also hints at the question of whether humans are disrupting that order – such as with climate change – even as they struggle to find a harmonious place in it. Ancient humans may have “discovered” fire. But we moderns have yet to learn to live with it or deal with how we cause it.

Compared with other states, California has done well in dealing with an increase in wildfires and in trying to find a balance between human structures and the grasslands, brush, and trees that are tinder for wildfires. The state, which is the world’s fifth-largest economy, has been a leader in reducing carbon emissions. It requires nonflammable materials in many new houses and a “defensible space” around homes to keep fires at bay. It has tried to use prescribed or “controlled” burns to get rid of dead vegetation, although not as well as in many Southeast states.

Like most states, it has not done as well in preventing the sprawl of homes onto the edges of forest and scrub, or what is called the wildlife-urban interface. The rising proximity of people to combustible lands may be the new normal. Yet isn’t it normal for humans to fit into the natural order of wildfires, which have long been necessary to maintain a resilient and balanced ecosystem?

In wilderness, constant change is the natural order yet humans somehow insist on defining what is good in nature, often demanding wild lands remain the same. As more people build homes near natural settings, the desire for aggressive fire suppression also rises. More government money still goes into fighting forest fires than other aspects of dealing with wildfires, such as zoning or green energy. Nationwide an estimated 46 million homes are in fire-prone areas.

At many levels of governance, there is still no universal consensus on how to deal with wildfires. “All fire strategies suffer failures and at roughly the same rate,” says fire historian Stephen Pyne, a professor at Arizona State University. About 2 to 3 percent of wildfires escape an initial attack by firefighters. A similar number of prescribed fires escape or fail to do the ecological work expected, he adds.

California’s battle with wildfires represents a mix of different strategies designed to both contain fire and live with it. What is normal or abnormal is not yet clear. But somewhere in the struggle lies the ideal of a natural order, with humans as part of it.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.