The so-called paper of record ran a major story Tuesday on the country's most infamous climate-driven pest, "Bark Beetles Kill Millions of Acres of Trees in West." Great story, other than neglecting to mention climate change. It'd be like an article on an outbreak of avian flu that left out any discussion of birds.
So we have the national "liberal" media, like the NYT and NBC blowing this story, while the local, conservative media get it right, see "conservative San Diego Union knows climate change is killing Western forests" and "Oldest Utah newspaper: Bark-beetle driven wildfires are a vicious climate cycle."
Of course, the journal Nature understands the science, as an April article made clear: "Mountain pine beetle and forest carbon feedback to climate change." So does the Canadian media: "Climate-Driven Pest Devours Canada's Forests."
The NYT did get the grim, superficial facts of the story right:
From New Mexico to British Columbia, the region's signature pine forests are succumbing to a huge infestation of mountain pine beetles that are turning a blanket of green forest into a blanket of rust red. Montana has lost a million acres of trees to the beetles, and in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming the situation is worse.
"We're seeing exponential growth of the infestation," said Clint Kyhl, director of a Forest Service incident management team in Laramie, Wyo., that was set up to deal with the threat of fire from dead forests. Increased construction of homes in forest areas over the last 20 years makes the problem worse.
Yeah, home building is the cause of this problem -- that's why in Alaska, "over three million acres of forest land has been devastated by the beetle," as senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) described in a May 2006 speech on climate change. Seriously, that is pretty much the only explanation the NYT story offers, although the accompanying video does inch much closer to the truth, strangely enough.
The video blames the explosion of bark beetles on extended drought and warming winters -- but fails to point out that both of those are predicted consequences of global warming. The video does point out, "The beetle problem can also worsen global warming!" Amazing. Back to the story:
In Wyoming and Colorado in 2006 there were a million acres of dead trees. Last year it was 1.5 million. This year it is expected to total over two million. In the Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta, the problem is most severe. It is the largest known insect infestation in the history of North America, officials said. British Columbia has lost 33 million acres of lodgepole pine forest, and a freak wind event last year blew mountain pine beetles, a species of bark beetle, over the Continental Divide to Alberta. Experts fear that the beetles could travel all the way to the Great Lakes.
If only we had a clue why this was all happening, and what it all means ...
Wildfire is the biggest threat. Some towns like Steamboat Springs and Vail, Colo., are surrounded by dead forests, and the Forest Service and logging companies are clear-cutting "defensible space" so firefighters have a place to fight fires.
After the trees die, the risk of crown fires that move through the canopy is the threat. After four or five years, as the dead trees fall to the ground, the threat of catastrophic fire is most severe. Fires in the piles of logs severely damage soils, prevent regrowth and cause mudslides.
You won't be surprised to learn that the NYT has repeatedly run stories on wildfires and droughts that never mention global warming.
The end of this sad story is especially poignant:
The West that depends on tourism, meanwhile, wonders what their customers will think about the dramatic change in scenery. Four million visitors a year come for sightseeing and recreation to Grand County in Colorado, where much of the forest is now dead. "What happens," said Ray Jennings, director of emergency management for Grand County, "if this becomes an ugly place to be?"
That could well be an epitaph for the whole damn country if Big Media continues to fail in what should be one of its central tasks today, explaining to the public that climate change is hitting this country hard right now -- making droughts longer and stronger, spreading pests, destroying forests, driving the worst wildfire seasons in recorded history.
I hope the new Obama administration recognizes that educating the public -- and perhaps even educating the media -- on the painful reality of global warming must be one of its top priorities. More on that later.
(Note: Regular readers can skip the rest of this post. For those who haven't read one of my previous stories on the bark beetle, I'm going to repeat my discussion on what scientists understand about the causes.)
Global warming has created a perfect climate for these beetles -- Milder winters since 1994 have reduced the winter death rate of beetle larvae in Wyoming from 80 percent per year to under 10 percent [PDF], and hotter, drier summers have made trees weaker, less able to fight off beetles.
"The pine beetle infestation is the first major climate change crisis in Canada" notes Doug McArthur, a professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. "We're seeing changes in [mountain pine beetle] activity from Canada to Mexico," said Forest Service researcher Jesse Logan in July 2004 (here), "and the common thing is warming temperatures."
A 2005 study, led by the University of Arizona, with Los Alamos National Laboratory and the U.S. Geological Survey, "Regional vegetation die-off in response to global-change-type drought," [PDF] examined a huge three-million acre die-off of vegetation in 2002-2003 "in response to drought and associated bark beetle infestations" in the Four Corners area (Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah). This drought was not quite as dry as the one in that region in the 1950s, but it was much warmer, hence it was a global-warming-type drought. The recent drought had "nearly complete tree mortality across many size and age classes" whereas "most of the patchy mortality in the 1950s was associated with trees [greater than] 100 years old."
Most of this tree death was caused by bark beetle infestation, and "such outbreaks are tightly tied to drought-induced water stress." Healthy trees defend themselves by drowning the tiny pine beetles in resin. Without water, weakened, parched trees are easy meals for bugs.
One final note: This catastrophic climate change impact and its carbon-cycle feedback were not foreseen even a decade ago -- which suggests future climate impacts will bring other equally unpleasant surprises, especially if we don't reverse our emissions path immediately.
But how are we ever going to get the political will to reverse our emissions path and avoid even worse climate-driven catastrophes in the future if the media won't even explain to the public how human-caused climate change is already changing their lives for the worse today. What's next for the NYT -- a story on the obesity epidemic that doesn't talk about food?
Don't worry too much about the beetle, though. As Nature reported:
"The beetle will eat itself out of house and home, and the population will eventually collapse."
Hmm. "Eat itself out of house and home." Does the bark beetle sound like any other species we know? Finally, the species formerly known as homo sapiens is no longer alone in its self-destructive quest to destroy its habitat.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Tweet for the bees
Is Freeman Dyson really “brave”?
New interactive map shows devastating effects of global temperature rise
Comments
View as Threaded
Sean Casten Posted 5:24 am
21 Nov 2008
Agree almost completely, but add one bit of color. We've been traipsing around the west in recent weeks, noting that wildfires have created a huge volume of wood that the forest service is burning in situ due to a lack of budget and lack of demand for anything outside the forest. It's a bit crazy - here we have high priced power markets, huge demand for renewables and the best use we can find for the biomass on the ground is to light it on fire and piss the heat away.
Anyway, to the matter at hand, one of the things we've learned from the folks out there is that while global warming is certainly a contributor to the beetle infestation, forestry management may be as or more important. We stood on tracts of land that had 9 trees to the acre in 1900 that today have over 2000 trees to the acre. Early foresters cut all the big stuff down and what's come back up has come up as a "green wall". This is serving to pull water out of the ground much faster, such that there is wood standing in the SW forests with 35% moisture, unable to get any more access to water. (For comparison, NE forests are 50 - 60% moisture.) As the NYT article notes, one of the tree's defenses against the beetle is to spew sap, but it can't spew sap if it doesn't have water. And the beetles have free reign as a result.
This is not to diminish the global warming story, only to note that there are other environmental issues at work here too which are significant and potentially so even if we could magically address global warming tomorrow. The sad thing I found going out there is that the conversation about forestry management pits snowmobilers/loggers at one extreme and John Muir/Smokey Bear on the other. The former would cut everything down while the latter would maintain a no-management policy that raises fire risk and beetle blight. And the solution lies not between these two perspectives, but orthogonal to that axis of debate. Sad.
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:20 am
21 Nov 2008
I have come to the realization that there is nothing that can be done for this hopeless situation. I'm leaving the Forest Service to wash my hands of it all, too. It's sad that it has to be this way but, I cannot ignore the reality.
I hope your children will forgive you for doing nothing about "Obama's Katrina".
Goodbye!
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
Wolfy Posted 11:36 am
21 Nov 2008
What's that logic in that? Real change comes from within. The private sector can have only so much influence on the government agencies. Especially when gov't agencies write rules that allow themselves to ignore the public. It may be legal and "by the regs", but is it right?
The decision to do what is right or wrong, in many cases, depends on the individual employee. That is where personal integrity and impassioned devotion to protecting our natural resources comes into play. These decisions can only be made from inside the agency. The Forest Service is insulated from most of the influence from the private sector.
Getting out of the government service means that one will be added to the disgruntled, former government employee list. No one on the inside takes these people seriously. They are written off as whining losers who have a personal beef with the agency. Like it or not, it's a fact.
So, anyone that is thinking of getting out has a tough choice: either sit on the bank and bitch OR get in the boat and start fishing. You can figure out for yourselves which is more effective.
Most times for evil to win it doesn't take a large, horrible event; it just takes a lot of people each doing just a little bad.
AOOOOOOooooooooo.........
Permalink
RockyMtnOne Posted 1:10 pm
21 Nov 2008
Permalink
Backcut Posted 1:16 pm
21 Nov 2008
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
christophersj Posted 2:44 pm
21 Nov 2008
Some of us here are neophytes about "the ignored science" of forestry. I mean, I know what erosion is, and riparian areas, and the bark beetle, but I think some of us could use a primer. Sort of a "Forestry for Dummies".
I spend too much of my environmental reading time involving things like plug-in hybrids, and almost none about forestry.
Can you help me out or point me to a source of basics of the current situation in the North American West?
Thanks.
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 5:44 pm
21 Nov 2008
The forests evolved with fire and without mankind. Fire suppression and lumbering has got us where we are today. What some people call "forest management." It hasn't worked.
Put the Carbon Back
Permalink
christophersj Posted 4:42 am
22 Nov 2008
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 6:01 am
22 Nov 2008
We tried that route and discovered the consequences. Now we have to design a better, wiser approach.
For the last eight years we have "enjoyed" a government that took a 'profits first, ignore science' route. Those years are over in less than two months.
I'm looking for forest practices to improve....
Permalink
Backcut Posted 6:11 am
22 Nov 2008
Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com
Permalink
christophersj Posted 8:39 am
22 Nov 2008
I wasn't aware that there were "camps" in the environmental movement about how to handle forests. That is how little I know about this topic.
If anyone else has a position paper (at the basic level) that is environmentally concerned, but contradicts what I am about to read above, let me know.
-Christopher S. Johnson
Permalink
retroproxy Posted 4:27 pm
22 Nov 2008
Permalink
christophersj Posted 6:26 pm
22 Nov 2008
Why would you need to specifically disprove man contributed global warming if you can prove there isn't ANY warming occurring at all? Is that some kind of "shotgun" approach? To see what sticks? That's excellent science.
By the way. 2002 called. They want their troll back.
Permalink
mwildfire Posted 1:02 am
25 Nov 2008
Hope that clears everything up.
Permalink