A double whammy: Wildfire debris pollutes drinking water

/ activist360
(Photo credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture / CC BY 2.0)
Credit: U.S. Department of Agriculture / CC BY 2.0

Wildfires, which have intensified with climate change, litter the ground with debris that can contaminate drinking water supplies after a heavy rain.

By Alex Urquhart and Tanya Petach, Yale Climate Connections (CC BY-NC-ND 2.5)

The largest wildfire in New Mexico’s state history burned over 300,000 acres in the summer of 2022 and came within a mile of the town of Las Vegas. The flames ultimately spared the town of 13,000, but months later, ash and soot left by the Calf Canyon/Hermits Peak wildfire fouled drinking water there when monsoon rains blanketed the region, paradoxically slamming Las Vegas with both flooding and a municipal water shortage.

Four people drowned in flash floods, and residents were forced to erect sandbag barriers to protect their houses. Meanwhile, the inundation overwhelmed the town’s water filtration system with ash contamination, forcing mandatory restrictions to cut water consumption by about two-thirds. Swimming pools went empty, and restaurants resorted to disposable dishes and utensils to cut back on dishwashing.

In September, New Mexico spent $2 million to rapidly install a temporary pre-treatment system. It is still propping up the overstrained filtration system while the town applies for federal funds for a permanent water treatment facility that the mayor estimates could cost as much as $100–200 million.

Climate change is worsening wildfires

Around the world, more extreme wildfires have become a shocking signal that the effects of climate change are here. Wildfires are now more common and more destructive, making their damage more expensive.

Climate models have predicted this worsening trend for years and suggest it will continue as long spells of hot and dry weather become more common. In California, 12 of the 20 largest fires since 1932 occurred in the last five years. In the Mediterranean, the frequency of so-called “fire weather”—hot and dry weather that leads to large wildfires—is projected to increase by up to 30% by the end of the century.

Toxic runoff dirties drinking water

Although the dramatic violence of wildfires attracts intense media coverage, long-term impacts on water quality have gone largely unreported. The problem is alarming in the U.S. West, which has wrestled with regional water shortages for years. Researchers are finding that heavy rains in areas affected by wildfires can contaminate watersheds and overwhelm municipal drinking water systems. Municipalities must often pay astronomical costs to augment, repair, or replace entire water distribution systems. With risks growing, researchers say at-risk areas must plan ahead to act quickly and communicate clearly about water issues to fire-hit residents.

Wildfires lead to increased flooding and sediment erosion into rivers because a healthy forest is no longer there to slow stormwater runoff and increase water absorption. During storms, ash from the wildfire will be carried unchecked directly into streams, where it can easily flow to a municipal water intake and overwhelm treatment plants, leading to water shortages or even total failure of municipal water systems.

Following the Rocky and Wragg fires in California, researchers studying the affected watersheds recorded drastic increases in dissolved organic carbon, dissolved organic nitrogen and ammonium. It took over a year for these levels to return to normal.

When fires burn through developed areas, toxic runoff is created from the destruction of building materials, electronics, appliances, and vehicles. Rain transports these dangerous chemicals into groundwater, contaminating private wells and municipal systems. This can force months of boil water advisories, or even do not drink/do not boil orders, where drinking water must be brought in from other areas.

Even the water distribution system itself can become a source of contamination. Following the Tubbs Fire and the Camp Fire in California, both of which burned through developed areas, researchers found that municipal drinking water exceeded exposure limits for volatile organic compounds such as benzene. The source of this contamination may have been fire damage to plastic pipes and other synthetic components of the distribution system. With so many potential sources and causes of contamination, it is challenging for public officials to define an appropriate response. This has led to conflicting or variable recommendations in the aftermath of a fire, damaging public trust in official guidance.

Can we build fire-resilient water systems?

As wildfires worsen globally, water quality problems will affect millions of people who live in threatened watersheds. In addition to cutting planet-heating emissions, specific solutions are needed to protect public health and safety from the inevitable fires to come.

Researchers who studied the aftermath of the Tubbs and Camp Fire have called for standardized and streamlined water quality monitoring following wildfires. They recommend a “do not use” order following any wildfire that burns through developed areas. Other recommendations include updated building codes to limit the spread of contaminated water within damaged distribution systems.

Clear health and safety guidance in the aftermath of a fire is crucial. In the months following the Camp Fire, surveys of 233 households within the affected community showed 54% had some level of anxiety about water contamination, and 85% were seeking alternative water sources. The public needed clear recommendations about drinking water safety, including how to conduct at-home testing. Following a fire, clear and regular communication may be required for months or years, depending on the scope of contamination.

Municipalities may also identify standard operating procedures and fire response policies before disaster strikes. A new study examining the 2021 Marshall fire in Colorado outlined potential mitigation procedures that municipalities could implement, from emergency planning to post-fire flushing protocols.

“There are very simple straightforward actions that municipalities can take today to prevent wide-scale water distribution system contamination,” said Andrew Whelton, a lead author of the study. For example: “isolating your water distribution center into zones so that if one part of the system is damaged it doesn’t spread to the other parts of the system.”

Having a plan in place will reduce confusion and increase trust and efficiency in the wildfire response, recent research suggests. One vital consideration is the level of water contamination that constitutes acceptable or unacceptable health risks.

“There are certain conditions that would indicate that your water is lightly contaminated and you should not use it,” Whelton said. “The Marshall Fire case study identifies those conditions, and another study identifies conditions of contamination in private wells. Your water can be chemically contaminated after a fire, and you have to do testing to determine if it is safe or not.”

Understanding these thresholds will lend clarity and speed to post-fire decision-making. And with climate change accelerating, the need for standardized practices that will educate the public about water safety and ensure access to clean water will only grow.

Alex Urquhartis the research and modeling manager at Energy Innovation Policy and Technology LLC® and Tanya Petachis the Climate Science Fellow at the Aspen Global Change Institute. Both organizations are Yale Climate Connections content-sharing partners.

*This post was updated Feb. 3, 2023, to reflect the correct spelling of Andrew Whelton’s name.

1,500+ Scientists slam punishment of colleagues for peaceful climate action

/ activist360
Tommaso.sansone91, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons
Tommaso.sansone91, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

“Climate scientists are citizens and humans too. As citizens, we have our own views of the world and we engage in the public debate in the ways we see fit. As humans, we have the inalienable right to express our opinions in a peaceful manner.”

By Jessica Corbett, Common Dreams

More than 1,500 scientists on Thursday released a letter declaring that they are “appalled by the recent retaliation against colleagues who dared to exercise their civil and human rights” with a peaceful protest at a December conference in Chicago.

Published by news outlets around the world in English, French, and Portuguese, the letter comes after Rose Abramoff and Peter Kalmus unfurled a banner that read “Out of the lab & into the streets” just before an art and science plenary talk at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

“As scientists, we make detailed observations and carefully design experiments and models to understand the causes, processes, and implications of climate change” the letter states. “We stick to facts and do our best to inform policymakers and fellow citizens, and train students in rigorous scientific methods.”

“Importantly, climate scientists are citizens and humans too,” the letter adds. “As citizens, we have our own views of the world and we engage in the public debate in the ways we see fit. As humans, we have the inalienable right to express our opinions in a peaceful manner.”

Citing scientific conclusions about the causes of the climate emergency and the urgent need to address them, the letter stresses that “more than ever, we need to engage actively as citizens-who-are-scientists in working for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and the swift transition to a low-carbon future.”

The AGU—which has over 60,000 members and 23 peer-reviewed journals— describes the annual conference as “the most influential event in the world dedicated to the advancement of Earth and space sciences.” The organization launched a probe into the protest.

While Kalmus still works at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, fired Abramoff over the demonstration, which she wrote about in a New York Times opinion piece earlier this month.

Abramoff and Kalmus—who have both been arrested for previous climate-related civil disobedience—disrupted the AGU event for less than 30 seconds. Someone swiftly ripped the banner from the scientists’ hands and AGU staff escorted them from the stage. Kalmus tweeted that “the AGU took our badges and kicked us out of the meeting.”

HEATED reported Friday that the day before the protest, during a grief circle at the conference that was asked to disperse to clear a hallway, “Abramoff said she gave her phone number to one of the AGU officials. HEATED independently identified this official as the senior vice president of meetings, Lauren Parr.”

The report added that “after being expelled from the conference, Abramoff said she received a phone call from Parr (Abramoff did not name Parr in the conversation with HEATED), in which Parr threatened arrest if the two returned; said their research would be removed from the conference; and that AGU would contact their work institutions.”

Parr declined to comment while an AGU spokesperson declined to confirm those details and “also attempted to prevent HEATED from naming Parr, claiming she had been receiving significant harassment and death threats,” according to the outlet.

The new letter—signed by members of the Earth system science community from dozens of countries, including several authors of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports—charges that “the response with which they were met was by far disproportionate,” calling out both “the AGU’s actions against them and the recent retaliation that followed.”

The letter continues:

We argue that the cost of silence in the face of such unfair and disproportionate treatment, for the scientific community and the planet, would be too high. The heavy-handed and unjust responses to a short banner unfurling not only threatens the careers of two scientists, it also discourages researchers—and especially early-career scientists—from engaging with their colleagues and society and to speak out about the urgent need for climate action. We are deeply concerned by a decision that tells scientists that they risk their careers if they dare speak out or engage in advocacy that is not formally approved. Employers should not punish scientific researchers for participating in nonviolent climate action. Academia and membership organizations like AGU should be safe spaces for freedom of expression.

We stand by our fellow climate scientists who express frustration with the lack of meaningful climate action within the scientific community and the public, who bring attention to the urgency of the moment in a nonviolent manner. We stand by Rose and Peter.

Scientists and others from across the globe have publicly shared similar sentiments since mid-December.

Erika Spanger-Siegfried, director of strategic climate analytics in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Climate and Energy program, warned last week that “in the absence of a clear endorsement of the objective (not the means) of Abramoff and Kalmus’ actions, AGU’s response, coupled with Abramoff’s firing, may be seen by the scientific community as a strong, disapproving, and chilling signal to scientists to step back from climate activism—just when the world needs them to show up in new, courageous ways.”

An open letter addressed directly to the AGU—so far signed by over 2,000 people—says that “we as scientists cannot and must not tolerate this censorship and chilling lack of support from our scientific society and therefore urge AGU to: i) reinstate the scientific contributions of Rose Abramoff and Peter Kalmus to the program; ii) officially rescind any communications AGU may have had regarding this incident with Rose Abramoff and Peter Kalmus’ former or home institutions until after the AGU professional misconduct investigation has concluded; and iii) immediately close the professional misconduct investigation.”

In response to AGU CEO Randy Fiser’s January 11 statement about the demonstration and subsequent investigation, Aaron Thierry tweeted that such protest “is both necessary and justified,” and pointed to an August paper he published in the journal Nature Climate Change with four other climate scientists and a political scientist who focuses on civil disobedience and social movements.

According to Thierry, rather than sanctioning and investigating Abramoff and Kalmus, the AGU “should be backing them in their efforts!”

This post has been updated with HEATED’s additions clarifying that the news outlet independently identified Lauren Parr and Rose Abramoff did not name the AGU official.

A new deal for nature?

/ activist360
Lake Forest. Image by Alain Audet from Pixabay
Lake Forest. Image by Alain Audet from Pixabay

Feeling out the new framework for biodiversity protection with the Kunming-Montreal pact

By Robert Nasi, Forests News

Well, they got there. After years-long delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a relocation from Kunming, China to Montreal, Canada, and following weeks of late-night negotiations peppered with walkouts and protests, a ‘new deal’ for biodiversity has been struck: on 19 December 2022, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) was adopted as the outcome of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD).

The failure of the framework’s predecessor – none of the biodiversity targets set at Aichi in 2010 were reached by the 2020 deadline – added to the fraught tenure of the negotiations. The new framework isn’t perfect, as I’ll explain, but there are some important elements that, if implemented effectively and equitably, can make genuine impact.

Perhaps most notable is the target of protecting 30 percent of Earth’s land and sea by 2030. The global nature of the target means that the focus will be on the most biodiverse countries protecting key areas such as the tropical forests of the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and Indonesia – all areas where the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF) has a strong presence and strong partnerships.

Given it took the global community almost six decades to protect 17% of the planet, this is a lofty goal that will require coordinated – and careful – action. Much protected area creation in the past has been propelled by colonialist ‘fortress conservation’ approaches that fail to take the rights, territories, and contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities into account. Such restrictive approaches have had dire consequences for people and nature, with both biodiversity and livelihoods crumbling as a result.

As such, the strong language on these issues in the new framework – which reaffirms the protection of Indigenous rights and territories throughout its 23 targets and four goals, and purports to ensure their voice in decision-making – is to be commended, though as always it will be crucial to pay careful attention to how and if this plays out on the ground. As much of CIFOR-ICRAF’s work highlights, it’s critically important to recognize human agency in the shaping of sustainable landscapes. As a global community, we need to become more skillful at differentiating between human activity that has been harmful and natural resource use that has been, is, or can be sustainable.

On that note, the agreement to develop a multilateral benefit-sharing and funding mechanism, to help put sovereignty over digital genetic code in the hands of those in whose land and sea-scapes it resides (rather than those of biopirates and corporations) is also significant. It was heartening, too, to see a new standalone target on gender equality and women and girls’ empowerment, and the inclusion of the term ‘gender-responsive’ in place of the weaker ‘gender-sensitive’. Also welcome is the (long overdue) target of reducing harmful subsidies for fisheries, agriculture and fossil fuels by at least USD 500 billion annually by 2030: right now, at least USD 1.8 trillion of such subsidies are financing the destruction of biodiversity each year.

Among these victories, it was disappointing to see the watering-down of language promoting and centering agroecology in the framework’s sustainable agriculture target. The final text reads, “The application of biodiversity-friendly practices, such as sustainable intensification, agroecological and other innovative approaches”; sustainable intensification, however, causes significant biodiversity loss and has been shown not to stop agricultural expansion. Another concern is that over-emphasis on protected areas through the 30×30 target could take away from necessary attention on developing biodiverse, inclusive, and resilient food systems – a subject on which CIFOR-ICRAF has a combined 70 years of international experience. Agroforestry and trees on farms, for instance, can play a significant role in restoring and enhancing ecosystems while producing critical food and nutrition.

Discussions on who will foot the bill for biodiversity conservation were also fraught, and wealthier countries’ reluctance to front up prompted the walk-out of delegates from over 70 countries in the Global South at one stage. In the end, the financial target of USD 200 billion a year for conservation initiatives – a sum determined to be critical for the framework’s success – was reached, through some developing countries such as the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Brazil and Malaysia expressed disappointment that richer ones did not offer up a larger amount, and that a new fund for biodiversity was not established.

So, now that we have an agreed path towards halting the loss of species and protecting the world’s remaining biodiversity, what lies ahead? By addressing the current polycrisis  – biodiversity loss, climate crisis, growing inequalities, broken food systems, unsustainable supply chains – simultaneously through transdisciplinary science, CIFOR-ICRAF is delivering holistic solutions at scale in priority areas with the greatest potential for positive impact: sustainably managing multiple-use landscapes, promoting conservation in productive landscapes through agroecological approaches, and preserving local and global livelihoods. We will continue working to reverse negative environmental trends by generating evidence of the enormous value of trees – in forests, on farms, and across landscapes.

Robert Nasi is the Director General of the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR)