We've all probably read recently of wildfires blistering through what are often called the "lungs of the earth." Reports stating that the Amazon Rainforest has experienced more than 27,000 fires this month alone have provoked an international outcry from world leaders, environmental activists and celebrities. On this episode, two climatologists help us make sense of the problem, and what can be done about it. Guests: Mathias Vuille, a professor of atmospheric and environmental sciences, and Andrei Lapenas, a professor of geography and planning. This interview was recorded in front of the show's first live audience in studio.
We've all probably read recently of wildfires blistering through what are often called the "lungs of the earth." Reports stating that the Amazon Rainforest has experienced more than 27,000 fires this month alone have provoked an international outcry from world leaders, environmental activists and celebrities.
On this episode, two climatologists help us make sense of the problem, and what can be done about it.
Guests: Mathias Vuille, a professor of atmospheric and environmental sciences, and Andrei Lapenas, a professor of geography and planning.
This interview was recorded in front of the show's first live audience in studio.
The UAlbany News Podcast is hosted and produced by Sarah O'Carroll, a Communications Specialist at the University at Albany, State University of New York, with production assistance by Patrick Dodson and Scott Freedman.
Have a comment or question about one of our episodes? You can email us at mediarelations@albany.edu, and you can find us on Twitter @UAlbanyNews.
Welcome to the UAlbany News Podcast. I'm Sarah O'Carroll.
We've all probably read recently of wildfires blistering through what are often called the "Lungs of the Earth."
[NEWSCAST SOUNDBITE] A chorus of condemnation echoed around the world and this ecological disaster became a global political issue.
Reports stating that the Amazon rainforest has experienced more than 27,000 fires this month alone have provoked an international outcry from world leaders, environmental activists, and celebrities.
[NEWSCAST SOUNDBITE] Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro is playing politics with the fate of the Amazon rainforest. Despite the G7 pledging more than $20 million to help fight the fire sweeping across the Amazon, Bolsonaro isn't sure he wants the help.
[NEWSCAST SOUNDBITE] 80,000 fires so far this year have destroyed about one-and-a-half football fields of rainforest every minute of every day.
I have with me Mathias Vuille, a professor of atmospheric and environmental sciences, and Andrei Lapenas, a professor of geography and planning at UAlbany. I have the two climatologists on the show to help us make sense of the problem and what can be done about it.
Mathias and Andrei, thank you guys for coming during what is a busy time for the university. We're here in the first week of classes at UAlbany.
My pleasure.
Thanks for having us.
And we're also happy to have Dr. Michael Barberich's radio and audio production class here with us for our very first live audience.
Okay. So, since the story on the Amazon fires began to circulate and really pick up steam, we've seen protests, the hashtag #PrayForAmazon erupt on Twitter, pledges of millions of dollars in aid from the G7 leaders, open revolt by environmental officials against President Jair Bolsonaro. What does all this mean? Can you help us understand what's going on?
Sure. I think the Amazon for a lot of people is sort of an icon. It's a treasure. It's a hotspot for biodiversity that everybody, I think, agrees we need to protect. So that's why it drew a lot of attention from the media, from social media and also print media. But I hope, through this conversation, we can maybe put this a little bit into context because the whole story's a little bit more complex than what has been portrayed.
I'd like to ask if you can share some context about why we're seeing the Amazon rainforest experience such a concentration of fires this month because, from my understanding, forest fires, during the dry season, this happens every season, they're routine, and even necessary, I've heard, for agriculture.
Yes. Amazon fires, they usually occur during the dry season but a number of them are anthropogenic fires, basically, caused by farmers who burn their land to replenish nutrients in soil or free the land for cattle. Brazil is, I guess, the leading exporter of beef right now and so that's ... The agriculture is a very important part of Brazilian GDP, so they need more forest area to grow products. And as they clean this area, fires happen.
And what we see in Brazil is not absolutely out-of-scale, I would say, for typical fires there, but it's very intensive. And in my mind, in both places, if you look at Siberia and Brazil, the real cause of fires is actually policy rather than... So, the climate helps. The climate's warming. Siberia, especially the northern part of Siberia, warms faster than any other place in the world, basically. And Brazil is also getting drier with its dry seasons.
Okay. But it seems like the news this week has said that this is really an environmental aberration or at least an exponential increase of this pattern we've been seeing of more deforestation. Mathias, can you share a little bit about what this is saying about the state of the Amazon rainforest at large? Or would you want to break down those kind of tropes that we've been seeing in the media about how this is a crisis?
Sure. To put it a little bit into context, over the last about 15 years or so, deforestation rates in the Amazon have been going down. Between about 2004 and 2016, there was a steady decline. Every year less forest was cut and burned. And over the last two to three years, this has changed again.
It's reversed.
It has reversed. So, what we're seeing this year is actually highly unusual, at least in the context of the last 15, 20 years. There's more than 80,000 fires that have been detected in the Amazon since the start of this year by the Brazilian satellite agency, INPE.
And there's a number of factors. So, climate, as Andrei mentioned, plays a role. It's been a very, very dry season in the Amazon, so that certainly helps to promote fires. But it's important to state that these are not forest fires. These are manmade fires. What happens is is that farmers, cattle ranchers, loggers, they cut down the forest just before the start of the dry season, they let the forest or the trees that have been cut dry out, and then it's burned to clear land for ranching.
And Brazil has tough regulations, but they're not being enforced. And I think it's fair to say that with the current administration, there has been sort of a ... The farmers have been emboldened in that sense, that they feel they can now get away with burning, even in places where it's clearly illegal, in protected areas.
We've been hearing as well that the Amazon is the "Lungs of the Planet." How accurate is that statement? How vital is this place in reality?
I can maybe address part of that question. Then I'll let Andrei answer the other part. So, the Amazon is really, really important as what we call a carbon sink. So, a lot of our ... Actually about half of the carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas that we emit into the atmosphere, about half of that stays in the atmosphere. The other half is actually taken up by natural sinks, about a quarter by the ocean and the other quarter by the terrestrial biosphere, soils and plants. And the Amazon plays a very large role in that.
So, by cutting down trees and burning the wood, we're not just emitting carbon back into the atmosphere, we're also actually reducing the ability of the Amazon rainforest to take up carbon and we reduce that environmental service. As far as the lungs and the oxygen go, I'll let Andrei address that aspect.
Yeah, thank you. Well, Amazon forest is extremely important as a storage of biodiversity. No doubts about that. Although I agree with Mathias that Amazon, it's a forest, highly productive forest.
But as a storage of carbon, a potential sink or actual sink of carbon, I would say that its role perhaps comparable to other forests on the planet. And the same boreal forests, they have more carbon stored in them, twice as much carbon stored in them, than Amazon forest. Because in Amazon forest, most carbon stored above the ground. And in a boreal forest, most of the carbon goes into the soil. But in terms of life biomass, yes, of course, Amazon forest is very important storage for carbon.
But I know that this important phrase about that Amazon is lungs of our planet, everybody repeats this also. We know about the number of 20%. Scientifically speaking, it's not correct. Most oxygen on our planet is produced by microscopic organisms in the ocean. And boreal forest and other forest contributes to that.
Amazon perhaps regenerate every year about 10% of what other life plants regenerate on our planet. But it doesn't ... In any way, it's not diminishes. It shouldn't be considered as something which we can use to say that it's not important. It's extremely important place for our planet.
But as the lungs of our planet, I won't go that far because basically every year we have about equal amount of oxygen which is taking by forest and the same amount is released by the forest. So in order to have net sequestration, we have to increase net primary productivity of forests and store this net primary productivity in some pools of carbon.
And again, until recently soils perhaps, they were important. They played important role as a storage. Soils and tropical rain forest, they very thin. They might be couple inches thin compared to other locations on our planet, especially prairies and steppe, where soils could be several feet deep and they store more carbon there.
And besides, even if we burn all fossil fuel and all forests on the planet, we still won't change concentration of oxygen in atmosphere significantly. If you burn all forest and oil, oil, natural gas, coal, concentration of oxygen in atmosphere will go down on less than 1%, which is not dangerous for humans.
When people saying that Amazon produces 20% of oxygen, what they really mean is that they produce about 20% of oxygen compared to all other green plants. But the amount which they produce every year is microscopic compared to the stock of the oxygen in atmosphere. So that's different things, but I don't think they should be considered as something which we can use against Amazon forest. Of course, we need to protect it and there are a lot of things going on there. Yeah.
Okay. So a bit more complicated than perhaps that analogy can lend. But if these wildfires and consequent deforestation continues, Mathias, what would you say might be some of the changes that we could expect to see as a direct result of these fires?
Really, one of the biggest tragedies is the loss of habitat for plants, for animals. There's so many species there. I've been in the Amazon. It's just an absolutely amazing place, and we will lose these species forever, many which we have not even identified yet. So it's a biodiversity hotspot and we have a lot to lose there. So I think habitat destruction is a big issue.
I nonetheless believe that for the carbon cycle, it is an important component. Andrei is correct that there is not a lot of carbon stored in the soil. It's most in the biomass. But of course, if we burn the Amazon, if we cut down the trees, that carbon will go back into the atmosphere and accelerate climate change. So I think those are the main aspects.
A third one may be a bit less important, but sometimes forgotten is is that the Amazon sort of creates its own climate. A lot of the rain that actually falls over the Amazon is water that was previously released by the plants. So if you cut down the Amazon rainforest, you will also change the climate in the region. It will become a much more dry place than it currently is.
I feel like there has been such a real political aspect to what's been going on. This is not just about an ecosystem being ravaged by fire. It's become a football being moved up and down a field to score political points. And so in that way, it's not unlike the discussion about climate change both in the United States and globally. As you had mentioned, Mathias, there's just something microcosmic here, it seems. Can you help us understand how and why it's just been so politicized?
I think the big struggle that we all have is is that the Amazon rainforest to a large extent is within the boundaries of Brazil. Not all of it. There is other countries, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia, that have parts of the Amazon.
But most of it is in Brazil, and of course Brazil is a sovereign nation and one can argue that Brazil is entitled to manage this forest whichever way they want. If they want to exploit it for economic reason, one can argue that's within their rights.
But on the other hand, of course, because of all these environmental services, the Amazon has significance far beyond the borders of Brazil and that's why the international community's concerned about it. So this creates sort of this struggle and this concern as to how we can address this.
For example, here in the US I would argue we're in no position to point fingers at Brazil and say, "Hey, you need to protect your rainforest" because we have by and large withdrawn from international negotiations. We have no climate change legislation in our own country. So it becomes very, very difficult to sort of discuss this issue and bring it up on an international scale.
Andrei, do you have any comments?
Yes, I do. Unfortunately for carbon cycle, two greatest locations on planet, which hold a lot of carbon above ground and below ground, if you consider Amazon and boreal forest, they are within countries which perhaps pay less attention to environment than many others. And I would give an example of European Union, which really a place where you can find a lot of environmental initiatives and they absolutely serious about what happens about climate change and about environment.
I agree and disagree with Mathias about our role here that, yes, we cannot teach these countries how to protect the environment but we still have important ... We could produce important political influence on these countries by different means. And I think people, students, they should do that despite the lack of kind of clear climate policy in our country. But we should really push towards that.
And because this thing's now related to policy directly, if policy changes, we can control fires much better than now despite the fact of climate warming, despite the fact that it's getting easy to catch the fire. But policy now is really important issue.
Mathias, do you have any final takeaways that you want to share from the policy perspective or anything that you think we should be understanding about the issue?
Well, maybe very briefly, just two points. One thing I think is that is important that is being discussed and to some extent already implemented, is that if we want Brazil to protect the rainforest, that means an economic loss for them and they should be compensated. So there needs to be international funds available so that Brazil can get compensation for leaving the remaining Amazon rainforest intact. And such funds already are in existence, and how they will be managed is being discussed.
The other aspect, I agree of course with with Andrei that we shouldn't turn a blind eye to this and not speak out and advocate for better protection of the rainforest. All I'm saying is is that we we live in an interconnected, globally connected world. A lot of what is produced in the Amazon in terms of economic goods, whether it's beef, soy beans, or something else, is being exported. We are all consumers, so we have to be aware that everything we do on our own doorstep and in our own country also has impacts.
And I think in particular the United States on a global scale, on a per-person basis, we are by far the biggest contributors to climate change globally. So we have a lot to do within our internal policy before we really have a credible voice to tell other countries how they should behave and what they should do.
Well, Mathias and Andrei, thank you so much for sharing your expertise with us.
Thank you for having us.
You're welcome.
Thank you for listening to the UAlbany News Podcast. I'm your host, Sarah O'Carroll. And that was Mathias Vuille, a professor of atmospheric and environmental sciences, and Andrei Lapenas, a professor of geography and planning at UAlbany.
This conversation was recorded with a live audience in studio. You can let me know what you thought of the episode or who we should speak to next by emailing us at MediaRelations@Albany.edu or you can find us on Twitter at UAlbanyNews.