A decline in the area burned globally by wildfires over the 20th century due to land-use change has almost entirely been offset by the increase caused by global warming, a new study says.
The paper, published in Nature Climate Change, is the first attribution study to assess the impacts of climate change and land-use change on “global burned area”.
It finds that changes in population distribution and land use over the 20th century – including forest fragmentation and the conversion of land for urban development and agriculture – have suppressed wildfires, driving down global burned area by 19%.
However, this decline has been hindered by human-caused warming, which has expanded the area burned by 16% through increasingly hot and dry conditions across much of the world.
As a result, the global burned area has declined just 5% over the past 100 years.
Despite the worldwide decline overall, the study finds that climate change has driven increases in burned area of 29% in south-eastern South America, 22% in northern Australia, 18% in west Siberia and 15% in western North America.
This study is the “key missing piece to the puzzle of tracking anthropogenic emissions”, according to Dr Matthew Jones – an independent researcher who was not involved in the study.
Jones, who works with on the annual Global Carbon Budget (GCP), tells Carbon Brief that this study is a “major step forward in modelling the extent of additional, human-related fires”. He notes that until now, projects like the GCB have “been forced to assume that all fire emissions are natural, therefore underestimating the effect of people on the global carbon cycle”.
Burned area paradox
Australia’s “black summer” bushfires of 2020-21 are one of the continent’s most intense and damaging fire seasons on record. The fires burned around almost 25m hectares of land, killed more than 30 people and released more CO2 than the combined annual emissions of over 100 countries.
Researchers from the World Weather Attribution (WWA) service published a “rapid attribution” study on Australia’s wildfires. They find the likelihood of Australia experiencing weather conditions like those in the lead-up to its 2020-21 fires has increased by at least 30% since 1900 as a result of climate change.
Similarly, WWA found that climate change more than doubled the likelihood of extreme fire weather conditions that led to unprecedented fires in eastern Canada in 2023. And the hot, dry and windy conditions that drove the devastating Pantanal wildfires in 2024 were 40% more intense due to climate change.
Attribution studies make it clear that climate change is making individual wildfires more intense and frequent. However, data shows that, overall, the area burned globally by fires is decreasing.
Dr Matthew Jones is an independent researcher who works with the Natural Environment Research Council and Global Carbon Project. He is the lead author of a study published last week, which finds that forest fire carbon emissions increased by 60% globally over 2001-23.
He tells Carbon Brief there climate change is does not provide the whole picture when it comes to global burned area, noting that human activity can impact wildfires in many ways:
“Wildfires are a natural phenomenon, but they are made increasingly likely by human-induced climate change and they are also influenced by people, who manage much of Earth’s land area and also alter rates of fire ignition.
“Fire scientists have long grappled with the troublesome task of separating out the additional fires that people are causing, over and above the fires that would have happened naturally.”
Attributing burned area
Seppe Lampe is a doctoral student at Vrije University Brussels department of water and climate and co-lead author on the study. He tells Carbon Brief that “this is the first study that actually attributes and quantifies how much climate change has affected burned area all over the world”.
The authors use seven “fire-vegetation models” from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project to carry out the attribution study, which compares wildfires in today’s climate with wildfires in a counterfactual world without human-caused climate change.
To assess the impact of climate change on global burned area, the authors run models of the present-day climate (2003-19), both with and without the impacts of climate change. They then compare the results to isolate the impacts of climate change on global burned area.
To study the impact of “direct human forcing” – defined as land-use change, land management and population density – they compare simulations of the world in the early-industrial period (1901-17) and a present day world (2003-19) without the impact of climate change. In these simulations, the authors do not include any long-term changes in climate, so the only differences are in land use and population change.
The maps below show the percentage change in burned area due to climate change (top), direct human forcing (middle) and both (bottom). Red indicates an increase in percentage burned area and blue indicates a decrease. White indicates that there has been little change in the percentage of burned area. The map divides the world into hexagonal regions, as used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Climate and land-use change
The study finds that climate change has driven an increase in burned area in most IPCC regions, with only eight of the 42 regions showing a decrease in burned area due to the changing climate.
Lampe explains that the climate-driven decrease in burned area in regions such as south-east Asia could be due to factors such as changing rainfall patterns.
Many regions have seen more than a 10% increase in burned area due to climate change alone, including all IPCC regions in Australia and several regions in South America, Siberia and North America, the study adds.
The authors find that on average, climate change has driven a 16% increase in burned area globally and increased the probability of experiencing months with above-average global burned area by 22%.
The area of land that would be burned in the two most-active fire months of the year in a world without climate change is now expected for four months every year, the authors add.
The authors also find that the impact of climate change on burned area is accelerating over time, increasing most rapidly after the 1970s. Central Australia has seen the greatest increase.
Conversely, the authors find that changes in direct human forcing factors since the early industrial period have driven a 19.1% decrease in burned area.
This is due to landscape fragmentation, a reduction in fuel for fires – often seen when landscapes are converted from natural areas into urban areas or cropland – and deliberate fire management and suppression techniques, according to the study.
The decrease in burned area is mainly seen in savannah, grasslands and croplands – particularly in equatorial Asia and tropical North Africa – Lampe tells Carbon Brief. He adds:
“The global signal of burned area is actually 70% determined by what’s going on in the African savannahs. And there we see more and more savannahs being turned into cropland, which causes a decline in burned area.”
Overall, the study finds a 5% reduction in global burned area since the early 20th century.
‘Major step forward’
The study shows that without the “mitigating influences” of land-use change, global burned area would probably be even higher today.
This work is a “major step forward in modelling the extent of additional, human-related fires”, Jones tells Carbon Brief. He adds:
“Up until now, projects like the Global Carbon Budget have struggled to estimate how people influence the climate through wildfire emissions. We have been forced to assume that all fire emissions are natural, therefore underestimating the effect of people on the global carbon cycle.”
He explains that this study is the “key missing piece to the puzzle of tracking anthropogenic emissions”.
Prof David Bowman is an Australian Research Council laureate fellow and the director of the transdisciplinary Fire Centre at the University of Tasmania. He tells Carbon Brief that the approach used in this study seems “valid”, but adds that wildfire modelling is “extraordinarily difficult”.
He points out a few important assumptions and caveats in the “useful” study – for example, that the authors do not consider the intensity of fires.
Bowman also warns that the decline in global burned area “has been used for political purposes deflecting attention from the escalating wildfire crisis”.
Dr Maria Barbosa – a researcher at the Universidade Federal de São Carlos, who was not involved in the study – tells Carbon Brief that the study “provides valuable insights into how fire regimes are likely to shift”.
Barbosa warns that “we are currently failing to prepare for the upcoming fire seasons”, and says that governments need to invest in early warning systems, improve land-use planning to reduce fire risks and strengthen policies for forest management and restoration.
Lampe tells Carbon Brief that the findings of this study could help to inform regional policymakers and could “have significance for loss and damage”.
The post Climate change almost wipes out decline in global area burned by wildfires appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate change almost wipes out decline in global area burned by wildfires
Climate Change
Trump Administration Abandons Fight Against Wind Energy as Clean Energy Output Surges
The clean energy sector is showing resilience despite challenges thrown at it by a hostile White House, a recent report found. A string of legal victories has further dampened the Trump administration’s efforts to halt wind and solar power.
The Trump administration has abandoned its effort to halt wind energy projects across the United States and dropped its challenge to the court ruling that tossed President Donald Trump’s order freezing federal permitting and leasing for wind projects. States that challenged the order hailed the development as one of the most significant legal victories against the Trump White House’s campaign against the energy transition.
Trump Administration Abandons Fight Against Wind Energy as Clean Energy Output Surges
Amid reports that the government could weaken the UK’s electric vehicle (EV) targets, Carbon Brief analysis reveals the nation’s EV drivers are saving more than £1,100 a year in fuel costs, compared with running a petrol car.
Battery EVs (BEVs) are roughly four times more efficient than combustion-engine cars, making them far cheaper to run – particularly since the Iran crisis caused a spike in fossil-fuel prices.
The savings from driving BEVs are also more than three times higher than for “plug-in” hybrids (PHEVs), which evidence shows are mostly driven with their combustion engines.
In total, the more than 2m BEVs, 1m PHEVs and 100,000 electric vans on UK roads are saving drivers around £3bn a year, Carbon Brief’s analysis shows, as illustrated in the figure below.
In addition, these EVs are avoiding the need for nearly 2.5bn litres of fuel and cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by nearly 7m tonnes each year.
Despite recent news that EVs are now cheaper to buy than petrol cars, as well as having far lower running costs, BBC News says the government is “set to water down” its EV sales targets.
The broadcaster explains that the current goal, under the UK’s “zero-emissions vehicle” (ZEV) mandate, is for 80% of new car sales to be BEVs by 2030.
It says that the government is set to consult on weakening this to between 50% and 70%, following “lobbying” by carmakers and trade unions.
According to the Sunday Times, prime minister Keir Starmer “is understood to have overruled the energy secretary [Ed Miliband] after sustained pressure from industry, the Unite union and Peter Kyle, the business secretary”.
The car industry has consistently claimed there is insufficient demand for BEVs to meet the targets under the ZEV mandate, yet the government says manufacturers have “over-complied” to date. Independent analysts say the industry is on track to continue beating the ZEV mandate goals.
The industry has been able to beat its targets by using a wide range of “flexibilities”, which were introduced after a previous round of lobbying. These allow carmarkers to meet part of their EV targets by selling more efficient combustion cars, such as hybrids and plug-in hybrids.
The ZEV mandate is the single-largest part of the government’s plans to meet its legally binding climate goals over the next decade.
The advisory Climate Change Committee (CCC) previously warned that the extra flexibilities would result in a larger number of hybrids being sold, at the expense of battery EVs.
When it consulted on the ZEV mandate in 2023, the then-Conservative government noted that PHEVs do not deliver the cost and CO2 savings they are advertised with.
It pointed to “dramatic” differences between the performance of PHEVs in test cycles and what they deliver under real-world conditions.
In practice, less than a third of miles driven in PHEVs are fuelled by electricity, with petrol making up the rest. As a result, cost and CO2 savings from BEVs are three times larger than for PHEVs.
The post Analysis: UK’s EV drivers are now saving £1,100 each a year – and £3bn in total appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Analysis: UK’s EV drivers are now saving £1,100 each a year – and £3bn in total
Civil society groups have called for an investigation into the first carbon credits approved under a new UN mechanism, alleging the project is linked to Myanmar’s military junta – which the UN says is guilty of human rights abuses – and has “massively” overstated its climate impact.
The programme, which aims to cut emissions by distributing efficient cookstoves across Myanmar, received approval to issue around 650,000 carbon credits from the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body in February, in a landmark moment for the Paris Agreement’s carbon market. Only two projects have been given the green light by the mechanism’s regulator so far.
But two reports published last week, led by the Global Forest Coalition and Brussels-based NGO Carbon Market Watch, raised serious concerns about the project’s implementation in conflict zones where civilians have faced airstrikes and mass displacement as well as its emission-reduction calculations.
Project continued after military coup
Myanmar has been ravaged by a brutal civil war since the country’s military overthrew the democratically elected government in a coup d’état in February 2021. The military regime has attacked civilian populations, persecuted ethnic minorities and committed widespread sexual violence, among other serious human rights violations, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar said in April.
The cookstove programme started in 2018 under the previous UN-run carbon offsetting scheme – the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) – as a partnership between Myanmar’s Ministry of Natural Resources and Environmental Conservation (MONREC) and the Climate Change Center (CCC), a South Korean NGO, with investment from private South Korean firms.
-
European, island states seek clear future for global roadmap to cut fossil fuels
Some European, small island and other nations argue the forthcoming roadmap should be part of UN climate talks, while Russia has resisted this idea
The project continued operating after the coup. For most of the period between 2021 and 2022 in which the issued credits were generated, MONREC was led by Colonel Khin Maung Yi, who was sanctioned by the European Union in 2021 for supporting the military regime, the Global Forest Coalition report said.
CCC acknowledged engaging with government authorities after the coup but said this “should not be interpreted as political endorsement” of the junta. The South Korean NGO added that abandoning the programme when political circumstances changed “would not necessarily have been the most responsible outcome for the households involved”.
Conflict prevents on the ground verification
The Global Forest Coalition report raised particular concerns about the project’s implementation in Myanmar’s central Dry Zone, including Sagaing Region, an anti-junta resistance stronghold that has been most heavily affected by the conflict and routinely targeted by airstrikes and violent attacks. The region accounts for more than a third of Myanmar’s 3.8 million internally displaced people.
The NGOs said that, in addition to ethical concerns about carbon credits being produced by the military government in an area actively affected by its attacks, this raises questions over the ability to effectively verify the climate integrity of the projects.
Before carbon credits are issued, external auditors need to validate the claims made by project developers and confirm that the emission reductions claimed are correct. This process usually includes site visits to a representative sample of households to check how the improved cookstoves are being used.
But, because of the “volatile political situation” in Myanmar, the auditing team was not able to leave the capital Yangon and could only speak to project participants remotely via Zoom, project documents show.
“Due to ongoing armed conflict on the ground, the data currently used to justify carbon credit issuance in Sagaing by the Burmese military junta is unverifiable and highly likely fraudulent,” said Zaw Tuseng, founder and president of the Myanmar Policy Institute, which contributed to the report, in a written statement. “This demands an immediate suspension of credit transfers until a neutral, conflict-sensitive audit can be conducted.”
“Exceptional circumstances”
CCC told Climate Home News that, although it recognises that on-site verification is “generally preferable, particularly in complex operating environments”, the decision to opt for remote controls was not taken “as a discretionary shortcut, but as an approved alternative under exceptional circumstances”.
The South Korean NGO added that it reviewed the feasibility of the project at community level “on an ongoing basis” and it “did not identify conflict-related incidents that directly affected project implementation activities in participating communities during the monitoring period”.
A spokesperson for the UN climate change body told Climate Home News that, when site access is not possible, the UN carbon credit mechanism allows for “alternative verification approaches while still maintaining conservative assumptions and environmental integrity safeguards”. “These provisions ensure that crediting can only proceed where evidence is reliable,” they added.
Contested methodology
Carbon markets are seen as an important channel to raise money to help low-income communities in developing countries switch to less polluting cooking methods, both reducing CO2 emissions and improving air quality. But several cookstove offsetting projects have faced criticism from researchers and campaigners who argue that climate benefits are often exaggerated and weak monitoring can undermine claims of real emission reductions.
The project in Myanmar uses a contested methodology developed under the earlier Kyoto Protocol that was rejected last year by The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market (ICVCM), a watchdog that issues quality labels to carbon credit types, because it found it “insufficiently rigorous”.
EU carbon credits could supercharge world’s clean cooking push, France says
After transitioning from the CDM to the new mechanism, the project was required to apply “more conservative” assumptions to calculate emission reductions, which resulted in 40% fewer credits being issued, according to the UN climate change body.
“The result is consistent with environmental integrity requirements and ensures that each credited tonne genuinely represents a tonne reduced and contributes to the goals of the Paris Agreement,” Mkhuthazi Steleki, the South African chair of the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, which oversees the mechanism, said in February.
Too many credits issued
But Carbon Market Watch claimed in a second report last week that, despite the adjustment, the project is still likely to issue seven times more credits than its real climate impact justifies, comparing its calculations with values from peer-reviewed scientific literature.
The biggest driver of the credit inflation, the group said, is the failure to account for “stacking” – the widespread practice of households using multiple stoves at the same time, including more polluting ones the project does not monitor.
Peer-reviewed science considers a stacking rate of 68% a conservative assumption, but the methodology used by the Myanmar programme makes no allowance for it at all, the report said.
CCC disputed those findings. In a written response to Climate Home News, it said the project was developed under methodologies approved within the UN climate framework and that external recalculations by researchers are not “determinative of the level of crediting achieved”.
The credits are expected to be used primarily by major South Korean polluters to meet obligations under the country’s emissions trading system – a move that will also enable the government to count those units toward emissions reduction targets in its nationally determined contribution (NDC), the UN climate body told Climate Home News.
Myanmar will use the remaining credits to achieve in part the goals of its own national climate plan under the Paris Agreement.
“Over-crediting, at any magnitude, cannot be compatible with the climate ambition of a world striving to limit global warming to 1.5ºC,” said Isa Mulder, an expert at Carbon Market Watch.
The post UN’s first Paris Agreement carbon credits face human rights and climate concerns appeared first on Climate Home News.
UN’s first Paris Agreement carbon credits face human rights and climate concerns
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy8 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases11 months ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测