The wildfire action plan signed by 50 nations at COP30 in Brazil this month may already be outdated, according to a newly released study.
Carbon project insurance company Artio used data from three major wildfire events from across the globe, specifically the 2020 Pantanal fires in Brazil, the Gospers Mountain fire during Australia’s Black Summer in 2019-2020, and the record-breaking 2020 wildfire season in the United States.
The firm found that the amount of area burned in each of the fires was only predicted by severe warming scenarios. More moderate climate warming scenarios missed around half of the land that ultimately burned during the incidents.
The finding underscores how projects working to lessen wildfire severity globally may already be outdated, according to Artio CEO and Co-Founder Bilal Hussain.
“The main risk is that projects are designed for a climate that no longer exists,” Hussain told Wildfire Today. “Using outdated assumptions can result in projects being sited in areas that are now far more fire-prone, threatening the permanence of stored carbon and the credibility of nature-based solutions as meaningful climate tools.”
PREVIOUS COVERAGE: 50 countries sign wildfire call to action at global climate summit
Hussain said that even the Wildfire agreement, recently signed at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, relies on moderate climate outlooks than severe ones. The agreement recognizes that climate change is worsening fire risk and calls for stronger prevention and adaptation, but Hussain said it doesn’t reflect that our extreme reality is already the norm.
Officials should begin prioritizing regions with lower exposure to compound heat and drought, or those with naturally fire-adapted ecosystems that can recover without total biomass loss as a result of Artio’s study, according to Hussain. Adaptive fire management strategies should also be considered standard project design features, and risk models should be continuously updated to reflect ever-changing ground and climate conditions.
“Our study suggests that, for such frameworks to be effective, they must assume severe climate scenarios as the default and integrate the data driven tools and modelling now needed to plan for those conditions,” Hussain said.
Artio provides early-stage insurance for investments in carbon projects and is incorporated as a company in England and Wales.
1 Comment
This is — for me — a very true conclusion: only the most severe estimate of destruction or damage will indicate the degree of threat.
The businesses that have insured people who live in wildfire areas — and there are many, in the millions, living in wildfire areas– will impress their clients’ fear of cost on top of their own. Loss of protection is an option, as well as protection at cost. New policies by companies to avoid this cost that is imminent are in process, and living in the areas that are potential wildfire areas will abruptly become unstable and impossible.
This message must be carried throughout the states so that a national discussion may be started to analyze costs, threats and remediations.