On April 7, 2012, Brian Cecil Parke ignited an enormous burn pile on his property near Pavilion Lake, west of Cache Creek, B.C. 

The fire burned for two days before he left his property without extinguishing it.

The fire spread 140 hectares over the next 36 days before a call came into the RCMP, which notified the Kamloops Fire Centre of the blaze. 

Parke’s actions landed him in front of a secretive, quasi-judicial body under the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations that, in 2017, ordered him to pony up almost $1 million in provincial firefighting costs, according to freedom of information documents obtained by The Narwhal.

The documents shed light on the little-known work of the ministry to track down firestarters and hold them accountable for their role in creating costly wildfires, which have become increasingly ferocious in recent years due to climate change.

The provincial Wildfire Act allows the B.C. government to recover “fire control costs and related amounts” from those who start wildfires. Those considered responsible have the right to an “opportunity-to-be-heard” proceeding before a “delegated decision maker” in a secretive process known to few outside the system.

The details surrounding the Ministry of Forest’s investigations and resulting wildfire penalties are not made public.

It’s not just individuals who are being held financially responsible — corporations have received the lion’s share of firefighting bills, with one penalty totalling more than $16 million.

And while seeking compensation for damages may be fair and good, some are raising concerns about the need for greater transparency around the penalties and who, ultimately, is responsible for handing them out.

‘No efforts were made to suppress the fire’

Parke’s hearing found he ignited a Category 3 fire — defined as larger than two metres high by three metres wide — and left his property while it was still smouldering. 

According to regulations outlined in the Wildfire Act, a fire of that size requires a fuel break (a gap in vegetation to slow a fire), someone monitoring it to ensure it doesn’t spread beyond its intended size and an official burn registration number with the province. 

Parke did not meet any of these requirements.

Crews fought the resulting blaze for more than a month until June 16, although it wasn’t officially declared extinguished until Sept. 1. 

For his role in the blaze, Parke was eventually handed a penalty of $921,958. 

The government’s itemized claim against Parke included $299,448 for wages and overtime, and $237,733 for helicopters. The smallest amount, $616, was to cover the repair and replacement of equipment. A mandatory overhead fee of 20 per cent of expenses was included in the total.

An itemized list of wildfire fighting expenses charged to Parke under the Wildfire Act. These details were released to The Narwhal through a freedom of information request.

In early 2019, the Forest Appeals Commission, an independent body that allows alleged firestarters to dispute decisions, permitted Parke to appeal the fine. He successfully negotiated an agreement with the province to reduce the amount by close to half, down to $500,162.

During his opportunity-to-be-heard hearing, he complained that it took the province 3.5 years to notify him of its intention to recover costs, raising issues of procedural fairness. He also theorized that trespassers lighting a campfire or arsonists may have been to blame for starting the wildfire. 

The documents note an investigation found Parke had a loader tractor, buckets, a hose, pumps and hand tools on site, but “no efforts were made to suppress the fire.”

Parke’s fine is on the higher side, but the general circumstances that led to his financial penalty are by no means unique. 

The documents reveal that other cases involve private landowners like Parke who got careless burning debris piles or waste in a metal barrel. 

In one case, campfires at a multi-day rave on private property attended by around 50 people got out of control, growing to 1.7 hectares. Provincial staff from the Clearwater and Kamloops fire zones attended the scene, and the unnamed owner of the property and party organizer was ordered in 2017 to pay $12,463 to cover firefighting costs.

Other cases involve major companies, deemed responsible for causing fires from train sparks, flaring at oil and gas operations or shoddy wiring at an outdoor work area.

But just who decides if people and companies are responsible — and how?

B.C.’s natural resource officers unequipped to deal with forestry and wildfire crimes: special investigation

More transparency needed surrounding penalties, ‘informal’ hearing process

Under B.C.’s Wildfire Act and wildfire regulations, the fines associated with causing and failing to extinguish a fire are clearly laid out. 

The province touts some of the highest fines in Canada.

And yet the process through which cost recovery for fighting wildfires is handled remains comparatively opaque. 

Delegated decision makers run hearings where the accused have a chance to defend themselves. These decision makers, who tend to be regional forest centre managers or deputy managers, act like judges, determining responsibility and the firefighting costs to be recovered. 

The fact that these individuals generally come from forestry, rather than legal, backgrounds isn’t necessarily a bad thing, according to Kevin Kriese, chair of the Forest Practices Board.

“The whole idea was not to plug up the courts,” Kriese told The Narwhal. These decision makers receive special training and have access to legal advice to help guide them in the process.

“If you look at fairness and access to justice, it’s a pretty efficient process,” Kriese said, adding the hearings tend to involve a mixture “of law and facts” and “a matter of some professional opinion” as to whether or not there was harm and its significance.

“It’s not a bad idea to have an actual professional or someone with knowledge of the topic making those decisions.”

In a written statement, the Ministry of Forests told The Narwhal an opportunity-to-be-heard hearing is not meant to resemble a civil court process. Rather, the hearing is “an informal fluid process” without pretrial discoveries or pretrial applications.

Kriese said he would welcome greater openness around the process because the prospect of bad publicity could result in fewer wildfires caused by negligence. 

“If a company knows that someone else got fined $25,000 for doing X, that may have deterrent value,” he said. “Companies don’t like these on their books.”

As of April 16 “most open burning activities have been prohibited throughout British Columbia,” according to the BC Wildfire Service. Photo: BC Wildfire Service / Facebook

Vancouver lawyer Steven Wallace, who represented Parke, said there may be a perception that the hearings are biased since they are run by a provincial official seeking to recoup firefighting costs for their own ministry.

Even so, he said, the Forest Appeals Commission, where individuals and companies can fight against fines, is a separate and independent body. 

Further appeals to decisions made by the Forest Practices Board can be brought to the B.C. Supreme Court.

The Forest Practices Board recommended in 2014 that the province create a publicly available, searchable database of penalties that have been handed out by the Ministry of Forests, including those under the Wildfire Act, to increase transparency. Currently, fines are only made public if they’re challenged at the Forest Appeals Commission. 

But the province has been slow to act. 

In its statement, the Ministry of Forests said the recommendation is being considered in light of legislative reform to the Forest and Range Practices Act “to enhance transparency and the public trust.” 

(In light of this opportunity for reform, the Forest Practices Board reissued an appeal in 2019 for greater public disclosure.)

Parke had insurance to cover his bill, but that’s not always the case for landowners, putting them at serious financial risk. 

“Frankly, some [fines] are going to bankrupt people,” Kriese said.

And not all appeals are as successful as Parke’s.

In 2017, the Forest Appeals Commission rejected Madeline Oker’s appeal of an order to pay $113,777 in firefighting costs and a $600 administrative penalty after her debris piles torched 8.7 hectares of Crown land near Fort St. John. 

The commission said in its decision that “although Ms. Oker was experiencing financial hardship and may be unable to pay those costs, the legislation does not recognize an inability to pay as a basis for not ordering a person to pay for fire suppression costs.”

The overriding message from these hearings is that anyone conducting burns in or around a forest must appreciate the serious financial consequences should that fire get out of control, Wallace said. 

“Anybody who is a major landowner with forests or who is working out in the forests must be very mindful of the requirements when dealing with fire.” 

‘Indicative of a truly corrupt system’: government investigation reveals BC Timber Sales violating old-growth logging rules

Corporate offenders make big showing on firestarter list

The freedom of information documents show corporate firestarters are by far the worst — and most stiffly penalized — offenders.

On the morning of June 11, 2015, CN workers cutting a rail line on the tracks near Lytton in the Fraser Canyon sent sparks into nearby grass. The fire danger rating that day was extreme, and rail-cutting is considered a high-risk activity.

Fuelled by dry conditions, strong winds and steep terrain that hampered firefighting efforts, the so-called Cisco Road fire grew stronger. It eventually ravaged 2,200 hectares of Crown land — more than five times the size of Stanley Park — and prompted an evacuation order for the Lytton First Nation.

The blaze wasn’t considered fully extinguished until October but continued to smolder for years — ending with a very pricey outcome for CN. 

In May 2018, CN was ordered to pay the province a whopping $16.28 million in cost-recovery fees and penalties for the fire.

CN disputed the amount to the Forest Appeals Commission, which actually increased the amount on March 20, 2020, to $16.61 million due to new information presented on the extent of wildfire damage.

The upgraded penalty included $169,065 for silviculture and reforestation, a $75,000 administrative penalty, $52,189 for loss of Crown timber, $9.37 million for other forest and grassland resources and $6.94 million for firefighting costs.

CN did not provide The Narwhal with a response.

The penalty against the railway may be the biggest of its kind in B.C.

Fighting forest fires takes a ton of time, resources and money. If you start a blaze in B.C., you could be on the hook for hundreds of thousands — even million — of dollars. Photo: B.C. Wildfire Service

“It’s certainly the largest one I’ve seen,” said Vancouver lawyer Ryan Morasiewicz, who specializes in law related to outdoor adventure. “People have to take these things seriously. I don’t think people realize, holy shit, if you’re negligent, you can be on the hook for a lot of money.” 

In 2013, Telus was found responsible for a tree falling on a power line along a forestry service road in 2006, which created a 380-hectare fire. The company was forced to pay in excess of $2.1 million for fire-control costs and the loss of Crown timber.

The documents also show CN’s problems were not isolated to the Cisco Road fire. The company received a penalty of $321,929 after one of the company’s trains ignited a wildfire that burned 171 hectares of winter habitat for mule deer and an old-growth management area near Williams Lake in 2014.

Forty-four per cent of that fine was for mature Crown timber damaged or destroyed by the fire. The rest was to cover other affected forests and grasslands. 

The Forest Appeals Commission reduced the company’s penalty to $203,597 in 2017.

CN was also ordered to pay $142,974 in 2017 for three wildfires within a span of about two months near Spences Bridge, Chetwynd and Hansard — a railway point northwest of the junction of the Fraser River and Bowron River. 

The company paid an additional $199,727 in 2019 for six fires — near Houston, Burns Lake, Kumsheen, Boston Bar and two near Lytton.

CP has also had its troubles. In 2019, the company was ordered to pay $155,247 for two fires, about two months apart, north of Spences Bridge and south of Lytton, the latter caused by rail-cutting.

Climate change making fires worse and more expensive to fight

British Columbia stands to face an ever-growing threat from wildfires due to global warming. 

The last decade was the hottest on record. Warmer temperatures mean drier forests, more dead trees from drought and beetle infestation and more frequent lightning strikes. These conditions are causing bigger wildfires that burn hotter and faster. 

The province got off relatively lucky in 2019, when 21,138 hectares burned at a firefighting cost of $182.5 million.

That came as a relief after two back-to-back record-breaking wildfire seasons. In 2017, 1.21 million hectares at cost of $649 million and in 2018 an estimated 1.35 million hectares burned at a cost of $615 million.

In those two years, humans caused 41 per cent and 25 per cent of the fires, respectively.

Fighting climate change is a tough uphill battle. Taking personal and corporate responsibility for ensuring fires do not get out of control is well within our reach.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Okanagan Valley is on fire.

Seven wildfires of note are currently burning along the Okanagan corridor, which straddles Okanagan Lake between Kelowna and Penticton, two of the valley’s largest urban centres.

Four of them are “out of control,” according to a spokesperson for the B.C. Wildfire Service. The fires were started after a towering lightning storm on July 17 sparked at least 38 wildfires across the province, including 14 along the Okanagan Corridor.

John Youngblut, Linda Youngblut, and Paul Henbury watch the Mount Eneas fire burn near their homes on Princeton Avenue, in Peachland, B.C. July 20, 2018. Photo: Jake Sherman.

A water bomber picks up water out of Okanagan Lake to battle the Goode Creeke wildfire burning in Okanagan Mountain Provincial Park. Photo: Jake Sherman.

2017 marked the worst fire season on record for B.C. Scientists say climate change means the province’s wildfire season is becoming longer and more explosive.

The largest of B.C.’s  fires right now is the Mount Eneas wildfire, which is burning across an area of about 18 square kilometres and is classified as out of control. It’s located four kilometres south of Peachland, a district municipality with about 5,500 residents.

Smoke billows from the site of the Mount Eneas wildfire as children play in the water on the shores of Okanagan Lake near Peachland, B.C., on July 20, 2018. Photo: Jake Sherman.

The second largest fire, covering about six square kilometres, is burning on the east side of Okanagan Lake — at the same site of the 2003 fire that threatened Kelowna, the valley’s largest urban centre. The 2003 fire forced the evacuation of more than 25,000 residents and burned more than 250 homes.

The memory of that wildfire is alive and well in the minds of the roughly 1,000 residents of Peachland who were evacuated or placed on alert in the past week. Don Lee is one of them.

On July 20, with the Goode Creek fire burning on the east side of Okanagan Lake across the water from Peachland, he was out fishing.

“When we evacuated in 2003, it was the same kind of storm as this one that set the whole thing off,” he said, taking a break from the pull of his rod. “The next day it had spread. But every year, it’s a problem. And it’s just starting.”

Don Lee ties a fishing hook onto his line on July 20 as the Goode Creeke wildfire burns near Peachland, B.C. Photo: Jake Sherman.

Wayne Davis was out watching the Goode Creek blaze from a dock on the night of July 23.

Davis moved to the Okanagan Valley in 1977, and says until 20 years ago, it didn’t get this bad. Now it’s a constant problem, he says.

Wayne Davis takes in the Goode Creeke Wildfire from a dock in Peachland, B.C., on the evening of July 23. Photo: Jake Sherman.

That’s a sentiment that’s been backed up by members of the B.C. Wildfire Service, local government and fire rescue service, who are working together to battle the fires.

The Peachland Fire Rescue service has been out fighting the Mount Eneas fire, protecting the structures of its residents while the provincial fire service and the ministry of forests work to control and direct the blaze.

Some of the local Peachland firefighters who’ve been fighting the Mount Eneas fire are as young as 16, according to Peachland Fire Rescue Service assistant fire chief Tyler Hilland.

A member of the Peachland Fire Rescue Service debriefs after returning from fighting the Mount Eneas wildfire, burning just south of Peachland, B.C., on July 23. Photo: Jake Sherman.

Glen Burgess, the incident commander for the Okanagan complex of the B.C. Fire Service praised Hilland and the Peachland Fire Rescue Service at a press conference on July 24. He said the fire service is making progress on Mount Eneas and that they do not anticipate any further growth, despite the fact it is still classified as burning “out of control.”

“We’re extremely happy with the outcome. While the fire remains out of control we are not anticipating any further growth and we have a lot of resources on the scene,” Burgess said.

Glen Burgess, the incident commander for the Okanagan complex of the B.C. Wildfire Service stands next to a controlled burn on the hills above Peachland, B.C., on July 24. The burn was part of a demonstration of aerial ignition technology that was used to merge the Munro Lake and Mount Eneas wildfires, burning south of Peachland, B.C. Photo: Jake Sherman.

Though Burgess is confident, he acknowledged that high winds and more lightning in the forecast could reignite controlled fires still burning along the corridor.“Unfortunately it is still July and the fact of the matter is we have potentially a long hot summer ahead of us,” said Burgess speaking to reporters.

Hot temperatures and sun are forecast for the next week, and following the worst fire season on record, fire season in Interior B.C. is off to a sweltering start.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Representatives from the Tsilhqot’in National Government were in the B.C. Supreme Court this week asking for an immediate injunction to stop Taseko’s exploratory drilling for the controversial open-pit New Prosperity Mine from beginning August 7.

To the dismay of the Tsilhqot’in, B.C. issued Taseko exploratory permits in the dying days of the former BC Liberal government while the Tsilhqot’in were under a wildfire evacuation order — even though the $1.5 billion gold and copper mine project itself has been twice rejected by the federal government in 2010 and again in 2014.

A court decision on the injunction is expected this week.

But the fight both for and against the permits doesn’t stop there.

Taseko Calls Federal Stop Order ‘Absurd’

The Tsilhqot’in request for an injunction comes as the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) has stepped into the fray, issuing a cease and desist order to Taseko, warning any exploratory drilling by Taseko could be in violation of federal environmental laws.

“The agency is of the view that the proposed activities may cause an environmental effect,” says the letter to Taseko, signed by Kristin Coverley, senior compliance enforcement officer.

The order warns that enforcement action may be taken if Taseko does not comply with the CEAA requirements and each day work proceeds will be considered a separate federal offence.

But Taseko is hitting back with claims that the section of the Act cited by CEAA applies only to construction or operation of the mine and not to exploration activities.

“None of the work involves construction or operation of a mine,” says a letter to the agency from John McManus, Taseko’s chief operating officer.

If the CEAA interpretation stood “it would result in absurd and unconstitutional effects,” McManus wrote.

The ruling could put all mining exploration in Canada at risk as it suggests that even preliminary exploration would first need a full federal environmental review, he wrote.

Tsilhqot’in National Government lawyer Jay Nelson said it is hard to imagine that the company would ignore the cease and desist order and start the work at its own risk.

“But it is conceivable that the company could proceed and openly defy the federal regulator,” Nelson told DeSmog Canada.

“We haven’t had any assurance that the company is going to respect that [federal] direction, so there is a risk of harm to the Tsilhqot’in.”

Fish Lake, known as Tetzan Biny to the Tsilhqot’in is considered a sacred cultural place. In its first application for the mine Taseko proposed to use Fish Lake as a tailings pond. In a subsequent application, Taseko redrafted plans to build a tailings impoundment separate from Fish Lake. Both proposals were rejected by the federal government. Photo: Garth Lenz

Tsilhqot’in Hopeful New NDP Government Will Change Fate of Taseko’s Mine

The permits would allow Taseko to build 76 kilometres of trails, drill 122 holes, excavate 367 test pits and cut 20 kilometres of seismic lines in an area of prime cultural importance to the Tsilhqot’in Nation.

The exploration permits place the province firmly at odds with the federal government, which cited severe environmental damage and adverse effects on Tsilhqot’in culture and aboriginal rights when it turned down the mine proposal in both 2010 and 2014.

The controversial permits have landed the new B.C. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources Minister Michelle Mungall with a dilemma.

Mungall was not available for comment but a ministry background statement provided to DeSmog Canada said the timing of the permit decision was unfortunate “but a regional statutory decision maker must balance procedural fairness and the repeated extensions already provided at the request of the Tsilhqot’in National Government (TNG).”

Statutory decision makers are independent civil servants, meaning their decisions are not meant to be influenced by political considerations.

Such decisions are not political and are made “solely by the statutory decision maker, who, in this case, was a senior permitting inspector located in Kamloops,” according to the ministry’s statement, which adds that the permits do not authorize Taseko to begin mining at the site and include 37 conditions to address concerns raised by the Tsilhqot’in, including cultural heritage assessments in exploration areas.

B.C. Premier John Horgan’s mandate letter to Mungall emphasizes that the government will be adopting and implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Calls To Action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Nelson said he hopes the NDP government will usher in a new attitude towards indigenous people.

“I do really feel that this latest legal skirmish with Taseko hits on the need for a new approach,” he said.

“For all this to go forward for a mine that the federal government has rejected, to inflict that sort of damage on people’s culture and lives seems over the line and shows a disregard of aboriginal interests.”

If exploration goes ahead, but the federal government continues to reject the mine, a large amount of damage will have been done for no reason, he added.

New NDP Government Could Amend, But Not Cancel, Permits: Lawyer

The timing of the provincial permits incensed the Tsilhqot’in Nation, who, for decades, have fought Taseko’s proposal for an open pit gold and copper mine.

Chiefs are now raising questions about the independence of the decision and questioning whether the new NDP government can revoke the permits.

“It just boggles my mind that any statutory decision-maker should make this decision when the Liberals were ending their reign and a new government coming into play,” said Chief Roger William, of the Xeni Gwet’in First Nation and vice-chair of the Tsilhqot’in National Government..

“They say it’s non–political, but I will always wonder because it’s a decision we have been waiting for since February this year and the timing makes no sense because of the state of emergency with the fires,” William told DeSmog Canada.

“We are going to be sitting down with (Premier John) Horgan and the ministers. We want to get rid of this issue for once and for all,” he said.

Andrew Gage, West Coast Environmental Law staff counsel, said that, under the Mines Act, it seems clear that, although the permits for the New Prosperity Mine exploration cannot be revoked, they could be amended.

“It gives decision-makers complete freedom to review and revisit issues after licensure and to limit the term of the permit,” he said.

One section of the Act gives the minister the power to take any necessary action.

“If the minister considers it to be necessary in the public interest, the minister, in respect of the issuing of permits, has and may exercise all the powers that the chief inspector may exercise under this Act,” it says.

The provisions of the Act have twice been backed by the B.C. Court of Appeal, Gage said.

That means the minister could step in and take an action such as suspending the permits until the company obtains federal approval, he suggested.

However, it is not known whether Taseko, which previously sued the federal government over its decision to reject the New Prosperity Mine, could sue the province if the permits are changed.

Gage believes Taseko is unlikely to sue under the Mines Act as the wording is solid, but, looking at the company track record, Nelson believes there could be a risk.

“The company certainly sent a message to government that, if the permits weren’t granted, they would be looking at legal action,” Nelson said.

While the Tsilhqot’in people wait for a decision on the injunction, William is wondering what will happen if the work goes ahead.

“If the injunction is not issued, our people are going to take action. Our elders, our youth, our children have been raised in this whole controversy,” he said.

2017 07 28 LT Taseko Response to CEAA Re Notice of Work Activities by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Ceaa Letter to Taseko – July 28 2017 – New Prosperity – Application of CEAA 2012 by DeSmog Canada on Scribd

Image: A Tsilhqot’in elder at a Fish Lake ceremony. Photo: Garth Lenz

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

British Columbians have been suffering through some of the worst wildfires in memory. These latest fires are turning out to be even more devastating than the horrible 2003 Kelowna fires that saw more than 27,000 residents displaced and the loss of 239 homes in B.C.’s lake country.

It’s hard to overstate the impacts of this latest wildfire disaster: as of last week, more than 45,000 people had been displaced or evacuated. While some of them have been able to return home, they’ll be returning to the tragic sight of burned down homes and a whopping 4,000-plus square kilometers of burned forest. The wildfires this summer have been so severe that the province declared a state of emergency for the first time since the Kelowna fires.

And now of course we have a blanket of smoke over most of the province. Flying into Vancouver airport last night, I couldn’t help but think about the impact this must be having on our tourism industry, both right now and in the long term.

Imagine saving for years to come to Vancouver and looking out as your plane lands at billowing smoke on mountaintops and a smoky haze dark enough to almost block out the sun?!

Now imagine that same tourist getting on a bus or another smaller plane to go up north to do some hiking and fishing into the heart of the Cariboo where entire areas remain under major wildfire threat.

Tourism is one of B.C.’s biggest industries — it generated $15.7 billion in revenue in 2015, making it a bigger part of the province’s economy than oil and gas, mining, forestry or fishing.

Tourism operators are already seeing the impact of the wildfires, sometimes from evacuations or billowing smoke, but also in in areas not directly affected — there’s talk of vacation plan cancellations across the province. That leads to a whole other set of challenges in B.C. As the owner of a rafting business put it to the Vancouver Sun, “I’ll probably be laying off most of my staff if (the situation) can’t turn around in the immediate future.”

It doesn’t stop there.

Even the process of fighting fires can have unintended consequences. B.C. is dropping a record amount of chemical fire retardant from planes to keep the flames under control. Those chemicals are generally safe, but they are potentially toxic to fish. We have to use them to protect people’s homes, but the more we do, the greater the risk to B.C.’s fish and water resources. Any damage to our freshwater systems is a not only an ecological risk, but further erodes our identity as an outdoor tourism destination.

The Puntzi Lake wildfire grew to over 8,000 hectares in 2015. Photo: B.C. Wildfire Service

Right now, the focus is rightly on immediate relief — keeping people out of harm’s way, controlling the flames, and getting everyone back into their homes. But in the long term our province will no doubt need economic support, like taxpayer relief programs for tourism operators and businesses.

When we get past the present emergency, B.C. needs to think long and hard about the next one. Because it’s coming, and probably sooner than we think.

When the #BCWildfires Are Over, What Comes Next? https://t.co/D6SmJumLMC #climate #bcfires @kgrandia #bcpoli @HelloBC

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) August 2, 2017

The world is experiencing more and more severe fires. This summer has also seen fires threaten one Spain’s most famous parks, and in the western U.S., climate change has doubled the amount of forest lost to wildfires over the last 30 years.

Canada isn’t immune.

As experts have pointed out, the three most catastrophic fires in modern Canadian history have all come in the past two decades and more communities will surely burn in the coming decade. The current wildfires may have taken B.C. by surprise, but the heat and dryness that cause them is becoming the new normal due to global warming (check out CBC’s excellent new podcast 2050: Degrees of Change for a visceral look at how B.C. will be changed by climate change in the next 30 years).

That means more communities at risk and more evacuations. Canada needs to be smarter about how we manage wildfires with better forest management.

We also need to recognize the links between forest management and climate policies. Hotter, drier summers are the reality we now find ourselves in. And it is a reality that scientists have been telling our elected officials to prepare for now for quite some time.

Image: Firefighter surveys a B.C. wildfire in 2015. Photo: B.C. Wildfire Service

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

By Ed Struzik for The Tyee.

While doing research for a book I was writing on wildfire, I posed two questions to a number of experts: “Do you think there will be another Fort McMurray-like fire in the future? If so, where do you think it will happen?”

Everyone agreed on the first question. Fort McMurray was not an anomaly. It will happen again, sooner rather than later, and likely with deadly consequences.

The responses to the second question varied. University of Alberta wildfire scientist Mike Flannigan had many First Nations communities, Prince George in British Columbia and Timmins in northern Ontario high on his list.

Cliff White, a former Parks Canada scientist and one of the architects of the agency’s wildfire management program, suggested that Sulphur Mountain in Banff could burn, endangering thousands of hikers and tourists.

Wildfire scientists Brian Stocks and Marty Alexander cast a broader net. They suggested that hundreds of communities are at risk.

Glenn McGillivray, the managing director of the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, offered the most surprising response. He had Victoria and Vancouver on his list. (If you think McGillvray is exaggerating, consider the fact he predicted in a blog that a fire would threaten Fort McMurray two years before it happened.)

As this year’s fire season in British Columbia has demonstrated, the experts I talked to were right in answering the first question. Time will tell whether they will be right in answering the second. But they will almost certainly be.

The province of B.C. declared a state of emergency on July 7, 2017 due to wildfires. Photo: Province of B.C.

Bigger, Hotter, Faster

The last decade has been the warmest continent-wide. Hotter weather dries the forest and produces more lightning. Lightning is responsible for most of the biggest wildfires that occur in Canada, although people cause more wildland fires than lightning strikes.

More people are living, working and recreating in the forest. There are more mature trees in the forest landscape as a result of decades of aggressive firefighting efforts. Tens of millions of these trees are dead or dying thanks to insects and disease that strike aging trees and the warming that is taking place.

It all adds up to fires burning bigger, hotter, faster and more often.

Everyone agrees that this will result in more evacuations, more homes and businesses being burned, more roads and recreation areas being closed, more smoke imperilling the health of people, especially the young, the elderly and those with respiratory problems. First Nations, which represent only four per cent of the population, will be hit especially hard. They are already affected by a third of the evacuations that take place in a given year.

Water quality will also suffer. The carbon that spills into the river systems can seriously compromise water treatment facilities, especially in places such as Victoria that do not filter water because the high quality water supply does not require them to do so.

Members of the RCMP search the wreckage of the Fort McMurray wildfire in 2016. Photo: RCMP

Fort Mac Sparked Little Change

Fort McMurray should have been the catalyst for changing the way we deal with wildfire. That blaze sent approximately 88,000 people fleeing their homes, offices, hospitals, schools, and seniors’ residences. By the time rains and cooler temperatures helped firefighters contain the fires, 2,800 homes and buildings were destroyed. Nearly 1.5 million acres burned. Insurance losses were expected to amount to $3.77 billion. The total cost of the fire, including financial, physical, and social factors, is likely to be $8.86 billion.

But has anyone in government been listening?

The government of Ontario has embarked on a policy that will allow some fires to burn themselves out so long as they don’t threaten people and commerce. This policy, which preceded Fort McMurray, will go a long way toward making forests there resilient.

But that’s just about it for the bold strategies that outgoing B.C. Premier Christy Clark and her provincial colleagues seemed to call for last year when they supported the idea of a national wildfire strategy. That’s gone nowhere.

The government of Alberta’s response so far to recommendations from an expert review panel that investigated the Fort McMurray fire has been muted at best. More money has been allotted to the FireSmart Program, which helps communities thin urban-edge forests, remove burnable fuel on the ground and around homes, and create defendable boundaries from which fires can be fought.

But it’s not nearly enough. And as Marty Alexander points out, a good chunk of the funding was given to Fort McMurray where the fires of 2016 have already removed most of the dangerous fuels from the ground.

Alberta has strengthened some wildfire protection laws but not those that matter most. The government has been reluctant to enforce existing laws (closing forests in times of extreme drought and heat) that minimize the chance of fires igniting. Alberta has promised to improve fire weather forecasting, but has offered few details.

Image of raging fire 16 kilometres south of Fort McMurray in 2016. Photo: CTV News Youtube screenshot 

Instead of recognizing the dangers that lie ahead, the Alberta government has chosen to treat Fort McMurray as an “extreme event.” It’s not the only government that is guilty of doing this.

Lost in the collective memory of the politicians who rotate in and out of office are the so-called extreme wildfire events of the recent past which are not so rare anymore: Salmon Arm, B.C. and Virginia Hills, Alberta in 1998; the Chisholm and House River fires of 2001 and 2002 in Alberta; West Kelowna, Okanagan Mountain Park, Kootenay, Banff, Jasper, Crowsnest Pass in 2003; the Yukon in 2004; La Tuque in northern Quebec in 2010; Slave Lake and the Richardson fires in 2011; northern Quebec in 2013; the Northwest Territories in 2014; the 2015 fire season, which was the most intense fire season of the century in western North America.

As the current situation in B.C. is demonstrating once again, these extreme events are now the new normal. In Canada, wildfires that burned more than 200,000 hectares of forest happened only four times between 1970 and 1990. Since then they have done so 12 times.

The provinces are not totally at fault. The federal government has done little to support forest science. The Canadian Forest Service used to employ 2,400 people. It now employs about 700. Most of the service’s research money goes to the study of insect infestations that impact the timber industry. The total funding is justified given the nature of the problem and the value of the industry. But less than eight per cent goes to fire research.

“Given the relative importance of fire and insects in Canadian forests, how is this disparity possible?” asks Brian Stocks, who had a long career in the forest service.  

Bigger, Hotter, Faster: Canada’s #Wildfires are Changing and We’re Not Ready https://t.co/cX2EH9KHGO #bcpoli #bcwildfire #climate @kujjua

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) July 17, 2017

People in and out of government kept telling me that the important thing about Fort McMurray was that no one died. They are right to an extent, but they are also wrong because loss of life is not necessarily the best way of measuring success. Fort McMurray was the worst natural disaster in Canadian history. It could have been much worse if so many things — wind, demographics (Fort Mac has relatively few elderly people), safety training (most everyone in the oil sands industry knows what to do in an emergency), quick and creative thinking, heroism and outright luck — hadn’t aligned in the manners they did.

Fort McMurray dodged a lot of bullets, as the town of Slave Lake did in 2011 when everyone had to evacuate at the last minute. Those in the line of fire in the future may not be so fortunate if the provinces and the federal government fail to come to grips with the mounting challenges.

The blueprint for the future was spelled out in 2005 when Brian Stocks and a veritable who’s who of wildfire experts were asked by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers to come up with a new wildlands fire strategy. Most of those recommendations have been ignored.

Ed Struzik’s book Firestorm, How Wildfire Will Shape Our Future is being published by Island Press in Washington, D.C and distributed in Canada by the University of British Columbia Press in October 2017.

Image: Canadian Armed Forces survey B.C. wildfires from the air. Photo: MCpl Gabrielle DesRochers, Canadian Forces Combat Camera via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Dear Will and Kate,

Welcome to beautiful British Columbia!

You are getting a pretty epic tour this week — from Victoria and Vancouver to Bella Bella (sorry about the rain) and Haida Gwaii. All of us watching the photo-ops are pretty jelly to be honest.

Here’s the thing though: I’ve noticed you’re hearing plenty of platitudes about “protecting the environment” from our good-looking leaders, B.C. Premier Christy Clark and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

I know you’re smart people, so I don’t want you to be fooled by their looks — or their words.

Don’t get me wrong: B.C. truly is a glorious place — the type of place you can fly over in a seaplane and easily think the wilderness will never end.

But it’s also one of the world’s last frontiers and the race is on to cut down our old-growth forests, to send more oil tankers into our ports, to build natural gas plants in our salmon estuaries and to flood our rivers for megadams.

Here are a few things I thought you ought to know about B.C. (and which I’m doubtful you’ll hear from Justin or Christy).

1) Despite all the photo ops about adding the Great Bear Rainforest to the Queen's Commonwealth Canopy, I’m sure you’d like to know that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is dragging his heels on banning oil tankers from the Great Bear Rainforest.

Prince William, I heard your speech in Bella Bella and I couldn’t agree more with what you had to say about nature being “fundamental to the health of our societies.”

Prince William and Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, visit the Great Bear Rainforest which was dedicated to the Queen's Commonwealth conservation program during the royal visit. Photo: Province of B.C.

That’s why it’s so ridiculous that First Nations are still fighting Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, which would introduce hundreds of oil tankers a year loaded with oilsands bitumen to the Great Bear Rainforest.

Not only are the oilsands incredibly polluting to begin with, but a bitumen spill in the ocean would be virtually impossible to clean up.

This year, Enbridge Northern Gateway’s approval was overturned in court due to the federal government’s lack of consultation with First Nations.

Plus, during the election, Trudeau made an explicit promise to ban oil tankers in the Great Bear Rainforest. Not only has he not done that, but he’s also expected to approve the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain oilsands pipeline to Vancouver by the end of the year, despite being opposed by local municipalities and First Nations.

Now that you’ve seen what’s at risk, seems worth writing home to Granny about, doesn’t it?

2) Canada (and the Crown) is breaking its promise to First Nations.

Kate, I saw that smile on your face while you watched the dancers in Bella Bella. First Nations have been living off the bounty of this coast since time immemorial.

And when the English and the French came along, many First Nations agreed to share their lands in an act of good faith.

During the treaty-making process, First Nations entered a relationship with the crown on an equal footing.

The Royals in Bella Bella, B.C. Photo: Province of B.C.

But that agreement has since “been tainted and soured” Assembly of First Nations national chief Perry Bellegarde told The Guardian.

“We didn’t basically share all the land and resource wealth in Canada to perpetuate poverty and colonisation and genocide,” Bellegarde said.

Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, made headlines around the world this week for refusing to attend a ceremony with you at Government House on Monday night, calling it a “public charade.”

Your itinerary is pretty insane, so I doubt you had time to read about why he wasn’t there, so let me bring you up to speed.

What Prince William & Kate Really Need to Know About B.C. https://t.co/8Vsk6RtkOE #FirstNations #PNWLNG #Enbridge #SiteC #bcpoli #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) September 28, 2016

Phillip and the chiefs of the 115 First Nations his organization represents decided it would not be appropriate “to feed into that public illusion that everything is okay.”

He noted the crushing poverty faced by indigenous communities, missing and murdered women and the number of children in government care, as just a few examples of how everything is very not okay.

Phillip was to hand a symbolic ring of reconciliation to you, Prince William, and invite you to affix it on a special ceremonial staff, called the Black Rod.

“These events are tightly scripted. There is no speaking,” Phillip told the Victoria Times Colonist. “Had I been accorded the opportunity to speak to [the royal family] and express a different view things might be different. But that wouldn’t serve the illusion of peace and harmony.”

May we suggest you take the time to give the Grand Chief an ole ring-a-ding once you get home?

Prince William and Kate visit the Great Bear Rainforest. Photo: Province of B.C.

3) As you tour our province’s gorgeous environment with your tagalong Premier Clark, we thought you’d like to know that at this very moment the Peace River valley in northern B.C. is being destroyed for a megadam authorized by the provincial and federal governments.

The Site C dam — still being challenged in court by First Nations — would flood more than 100 kilometres of river valley, including farmland and First Nations hunting and fishing areas. Worse, the chair of the government’s own panel says it isn’t needed.

So why is Clark pushing ahead with its construction? Inertia basically. She has a story and she’s sticking to it. And jobs, right? Jobs funded with our own taxpayer dollars (to the tune of $9 billion), but jobs nonetheless.

4) Speaking of people who’ve been sharing your photo ops, your new buddy Justin Trudeau just approved a giant natural gas export terminal in critical salmon habitat on Tuesday.

If it gets built, it could be the single largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada. And it makes meeting our climate targets virtually impossible. We don’t think Prince Charles would be too pleased about that.

While Trudeau has been talking a good talk on the global stage, he’s yet to walk the walk at home.

British Columbia is already facing intense wild fire seasons and our forests have been ravaged by pine beetles because our winters don’t get cold enough any more.

So for all the beautiful photo ops, please know the truth is much more complicated.

You, like millions of visitors a year, come here to see what B.C. is known for: untarnished nature, wild beaches, free-flowing rivers, intact indigenous cultures. Let’s keep it that way.  

Image: Province of B.C. via Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Connecting extreme weather events with climate change isn’t exactly a new thing.

After Hurricane Sandy devastated parts of New York and New Jersey in 2012, Bloomberg published a front page spread proclaiming, “It’s Global Warming, Stupid.”

For years, major storms, droughts, floods and fires have been connected to climate change. The climate angle was even fair game during last summer’s wildfires in western Canada.

So how did the climate conversation around the still-raging Fort McMurray wildfire that destroyed thousands of homes become so befuddling-ly messed up?

Conversations about climate change as a factor in the wildfires has garnered about as much attention as the wildfires themselves. For a recap of the “middle-finger salutes,” schadenfreude and #tinyviolins mock-sympathy for the people of Fort McMurray, check out this article on Slate.

(Add in, May 12: It's worthwhile to point out that while there were a lot of unfortunate aspects of the public conversation about the fire, many environmental NGOs rallied their organizational capacity to raise money and basic support for evacuees. The executive directors of Canada's most prominent environmental groups including the David Suzuki Foundation, Ecojustice, Ecology Ottawa, Environmental Defence, Equiterre, Greenpeace, LeadNow, Sierra Club, Stand and West Coast Environmental Law urged support for evacuees in a joint press release published Friday, May 6.)

Cara Pike, climate communications expert with Climate Access, says the urge to link what’s happening in Fort McMurray to climate change should be tempered by a keen sensitivity to the very real human suffering on the ground.

“We need to lead with our humanity,” Pike told DeSmog Canada. “This is a good time to listen very, very hard to what people are dealing with, what they care about, what they want for their futures and try to find those common places.”

The rush to draw the connection between the Fort Mac fires and climate change could come across as blaming, Pike said, adding “I really personally question the timing and how best to have that conversation.”

How the #FortMcMurray #Climate Conversation Went Down in Flames https://t.co/mW2XSHVfYG #fortmacfire #ableg #cdnpoli

— DeSmog Canada (@DeSmogCanada) May 10, 2016

Canada is still behind the U.S. when it comes to understanding that climate impacts are happening here and now, Pike says. In the U.S., major hurricanes such as Katrina, Irene and Sandy, massive wildfires and long-term drought brought the climate change message to the forefront.

Pike was vice president of communications at Earth Justice during Hurricane Katrina and notes many local environmental groups were criticized for using the disaster to advance their campaigns.

“What happened there with Katrina is a parallel of what we’re seeing now with Fort McMurray,” she said.

In the case of Fort McMurray, the conversation is made “more visceral” by the tragedy occurring in an oil-producing region, Pike said.

“It creates so much more discomfort when trying to have that conversation because it inherently brings us to a place where people feel judged and blamed,” she said.

“The truth is that everyone is tied to oil and unfortunately in environmental communications there is often this dominant tone of self-righteousness. And in these crisis moments, when people put on their professional hats and go talk about these issues, it’s like they lose their humanity.”

Part of the problem lies in the polarization that infiltrates nearly every energy and environment debate in Canada — and which has emotions roiling at the surface, unleashed at the slightest provocation.

“There’s no formula for when it’s appropriate to talk about climate change,” Simon Donner, associate professor of Climatology at the University of British Columbia, told DeSmog Canada. “I think it just really depends on the circumstances of any extreme event.”

“It’s not a good idea to use people’s suffering to push an agenda, even if that agenda is scientifically defensible,” Donner said.

Underlining the current debate is the fact the fires are happening in the heart of Canada’s oilsands.

“Everyone knows what the industry is in Fort McMurray. Everyone knows that’s a source of opposition to climate policy in Canada and underneath a lot of people’s good intentions is a sense of ‘I told you so.’ What I’m saying is, let’s be nice to folks, you don’t have to be self-righteous about it.”

As a climate communicator, Donner said it’s always crucial to consider your audience.

Like what you're reading? Sign up for our email newsletter!

“If your goal for talking about climate change after an extreme event is to engage people in that community, but the community that was affected by the event is suspicious about the science of climate change, pivoting in the media to climate change while their homes are burning is just going to alienate people,” Donner said.

“It doesn’t seem like a smart way to engage the part of Canada that is resistant to action to combat climate change,” Donner added. “We need to ask: what’s effective?”

Renee Lertzman, an expert in the psychology of environmental education, said it really isn’t a question of whether we make the connection between the fires and climate change but how.

“This conversation needs to happen, but it doesn’t need to be polarizing,” Lertzman told DeSmog Canada. “The question is how can we communicate and engage with people in the most constructive and productive and effective ways?”

“We’re designed to resist challenging, threatening news and information that can potentially challenge our worldview.” Lertzman noted.

She said it can be frustrating to see climate communications that seem to “miss entirely how humans process information, particularly distressing and stressful information.”

“Climate change is really complicated in what it brings up for us. It really is, in a way, in its own category.”

That doesn’t mean it’s always inappropriate to discuss climate change in the context of disaster or tragedy.

By focusing on how all affected parties can work together to avoid tragedy, you generate feelings of inclusion and sensitivity, Lertzman said — opening the space for compassionate communications.

“It’s not about whether we make those connections, it’s about thinking through how humans deal with the trauma and acknowledging profound horror and devastation.”

Image: Fort McMurray Fire Pictures/Facebook

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Christy Clark is our province’s very own natural gas salmon, swimming gamely upstream against the advice of evidence and experts from multiple fields, determined to spawn B.C.’s LNG business in the heart of the province and give it the best start she can — everything else be damned. Or dammed, or whatever.

On a visit this week to Fort St. John, which is currently on fire, the premier bragged that producing and burning LNG will help prevent wildfires by causing a net decrease in carbon emissions as it displaces coal in China.

“If there’s any argument for exporting LNG and helping fight climate change, surely it is all around us when we see these fires burning out of control,” she told reporters at a press conference.

FSJ for LNG Rally

The people of North Eastern BC and Fort St. John are sending a strong message that they want LNG and the benefits it will bring their community.

Posted by Christy Clark on Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Not even taking into account the Orwellian logic of using increasing early starts to the destructive wildfire season to sell the public on the province’s biggest fossil fuel ambitions ever, that statement is akin to saying switching to a fast food diet will help you lose weight because at least you’re not eating pure lard: it’s somewhat true, but only if you’re really desperate to justify that Big Mac.

Here are the facts: when the full life cycle of natural gas and its non-CO2 greenhouse gas emissions (like methane) are taken into account, LNG does little or nothing to reduce overall emissions, even in places where it displaces coal — and it may even increase emissions according to some estimates. And without strong climate policies that put a price on carbon in the market the gas is destined for, demand will continue rising for all fossil fuels, hampering the upward trajectory of alternative energy sources and efficiency programs.

Cheerleaders for LNG like the provincial government like to point out that burning natural gas for electricity is about half as CO2-intensive as coal. Unfortunately, that’s not the whole story.

Natural gas, also known as methane, has about 25 times the climate-altering power of CO2 over a 100-year span. This means anything leaked between the well and the power plant adds significantly to the overall climate-change impact of the fuel, and those leaks are not insignificant: the EPA estimates that in the United States the energy industry is the biggest single source of methane.

Turning that raw natural gas into its liquid form for transport isn’t cheap from an energy (or financial) standpoint, either. With the gas itself often used to power the liquefaction process, between 10 and 20 per cent of the product is lost in that process alone according to industry numbers, again ramping up the GHG emissions before it has done anything useful for anybody.

China is indeed planning on building up its coal power base. But substituting some of that coal power production for natural gas electricity will not have the intended emissions-reducing effect without climate policies that favour alternatives. A widely-adopted price on carbon could mean a decrease in the use of all fossil fuels — including LNG and coal — while a business-as-usual approach would just result in more of both.

Natural gas has been hailed as a “bridge fuel,” helping us bridge the gap between energy-intensive fuels and zero-emissions alternatives. It may be a mind-blowing revelation to some, but whatever the best solution to climate change is, it’s probably not burning more fossil fuels. With even the promised economic benefits of LNG called into serious question, there’s one less reason to dive headfirst into an industry that at best has a few decades left before much of it becomes a stranded asset. So if LNG is truly a bridge, the question is where that bridge really ends.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

As climate change is fingered as a culprit behind the early rash of forest fires across northern and western Canada, experts say the most prudent approach at this stage is to, whenever possible, let the fires burn.

It’s a grim situation. But those studying the issue say the human toll of wildfire needs to be balanced against the reality that vulnerable forests are going to burn either way — especially given the mounting pressures presented by climate change.

“The question becomes, if we’ve got areas where fire can burn, the most responsible thing to do ecologically, fiscally and for long-term health is to let those fires burn,” said Toddi Steelman, executive director of the School of Environment and Sustainability at the University of Saskatchewan.

“If we don’t let them burn, we have to pay that account down the line … the forest will burn eventually.”

Worst Forest Fire Season in B.C. History

It’s not an easy thing to say in the current context. Nearly 2.5 million hectares have burned in Canada already this fire season, which likely has several more weeks to go.

In what is being called the biggest exodus in Saskatchewan’s history, more than 13,000 people have been forced to flee their homes (a figure that’s tripled in just five days). Firefighters from as far away as Australia and New Zealand are being shuttled to western Canada to spell off exhausted local responders.

Like Saskatchewan, B.C. has already outspent its $63 million firefighting budget on the worst forest fire season in the province’s history.

When Boreal Burns, Less Flammable Trees Grow Back

Jill Johnstone has spent several years investigating the effects of wildfire on the boreal forests in Alaska, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. One of her discoveries is that in areas where forest fires burn severely and frequently — a growing phenomenon in a warmer, drier climate — the typical black spruce trees that characterize much of the boreal are replaced by leafy deciduous species such as aspen.

While black spruce are described as being “born to burn” because of special adaptations, including cones that only release seeds after a blaze, fire moves less easily through broad-leaf forests.

“As the climate is warming, we’re having more frequent extreme fire weather that leads to big, active fire years. And the fires that burn under those conditions seem to trigger parts of the landscape to shift to this less flammable vegetation type,” Johnstone, an associate professor at the University of Saskatchewan, told DeSmog Canada.

“The idea is that maybe it won’t just be a runaway train where the more the climate warms, the more fire we get,” she said.

Adapting to Climate Risks: Large Fires ‘Catalysts for Change’

How to prevent an endless cycle of destructive climate change impacts is a burning question for anyone working on fire, drought and other problems associated with extreme heat. Johnstone describes her findings as both controversial and profoundly important for how we understand and choose to adapt to the growing risks.

The boreal forests, stretching from the Yukon border to the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, are where the vast majority of wildfire burning takes place. Allowing more of these forests to burn naturally could fundamentally change the boreal ecosystem, from the types of plants that grow there to the animals that call it home.

In the immediate future, this is problematic for the communities and species that depend on the boreal as a source of food and shelter. (Hunters and trappers in northern Saskatchewan are already raising concerns about the effects of fire on their livelihoods.) But over time, a boreal forest dominated by deciduous trees could be less prone to fire and, according to separate research, play an important role in helping cool the planet.

“If large fires are actually a mechanism for resetting the landscape to be less flammable … we need to let large fires burn because they are catalysts of change,” Johnstone said.

Climate Change Driving Factor in Forest Fires

Fire agencies in the Northwest Territories and British Columbia explicitly name climate change as a factor driving heightened fire risks. On its website, even the federal ministry that oversees the development of the oilsands predicts the amount of area burned by forest fires in previous decades could double during this current one, thanks to climate change.

University of Alberta professor Mike Flannigan, a lead researcher on wildfire and climate change, points to temperature as the most important variable driving forest fire risk.

Warmer temperatures (like those predicted by climate models) exacerbate the three conditions needed for fire: dry fuel, an ignition agent like lightning and the hot, dry, windy weather that propels fire across a landscape.

“We need a 15 per cent increase in precipitation to compensate for every [extra] degree of warmth. And models don’t show this as likely to happen,” Flannigan told DeSmog Canada.

Flannigan expressed skepticism that the solution is as simple as allowing more fire-tolerant aspens to overtake the boreal forest. But he echoed Johnstone’s prescription to let the fires burn as naturally and freely as possible.

Which Fires Should Be Allowed to Burn?

In fact, several provinces and territories have taken this approach in recent years, following what Flannigan describes as a “monitor and manage” strategy of selectively intervening in fires that threaten people and developments, resources or species of value.

Fire officials in British Columbia have been taking a “modified response” approach to fires for over a decade, according to Lyle Gawalko, B.C.’s Manager of Fire Prevention. Their policy is to protect, in this order, human health and safety, communities and critical infrastructure, cultural values, watersheds, high value habitat and timber values. 

If a fire starts in an area that’s deemed safe or beneficial to burn and doesn’t threaten these values, officials will simply monitor it to make sure the situation doesn’t become dangerous.

Officials in Saskatchewan have created a policy that explicitly outlines where they will fight fires versus where they will observe and assess as a blaze progresses.

The problem comes in places like Alberta where there’s very little territory that doesn’t have a value on it, Flannigan said.

“It’s almost impossible to let a fire burn without it impacting an oil and gas development, community, or other operation. That’s the problem with co-existing development and fire; it’s hard to let fire take its natural course.”

Science Vs. Politics

Deciding which fires pose a risk is not a simple task for many reasons. Community members as well as local officials in northern Saskatchewan have criticized the government’s policy for leaving remote communities vulnerable.

These competing needs and the public’s fear of fire — and resulting desire to have it extinguished — make the question of how fires are fought not just technical but sociopolitical.

“If I’m a mayor of a small town, of course I’m going to be doing my job as mayor to lobby to get more resources on my fire. But they need to remember is that they may be one of many, many places that need those resources,” said Steelman of the University of Saskatchewan.

“The politics is different from what the science would suggest and that’s not unusual in these kinds of debates. And I think we can expect that into the future as well.”

Given that climate impacts are already influencing the strength and spread of wildfire in Canada, Johnstone highlights the urgent need for a different conversation about how to approach the problem and possible solutions.

“If we acknowledge that we can’t suppress every fire in the landscape and then take that one step further and come to terms with the idea that fire may actually be beneficial in terms of long-term landscape resilience, there needs to be a better dialogue with the public about what our plan is about how we’re going to fight fires.”

Photo: Boulder Creek Wildfire by B.C. Wildfire Service

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Forest fires covering 8,200 hectares of land in northern Alberta continue to burn out of control, spurred on by extremely dry conditions and unseasonably warm temperatures. The fires have forced the evacuation of hundreds of oilsands workers, the irony of which is not being lost on many  (just check out the reactions to this CBC article).

“Climate change during the 21st century is expected to result in more frequent fires in many boreal forests, with severe environmental and economic consequences," said a 2014 Natural Resources Canada post

About 10 per cent of Canada’s oil output — amounting to about 233,000 barrels a day — has been shut down since Monday, May 25, due to the fires. The Bank of America Merril Lynch warned in a research report that if wildfire disruptions persist, there could be a 0.1 to 0.3 per cent hit to second-quarter annualized growth.

An increase in the number of forest fires is likely to make one of the world’s most costly fossil fuel sources even more labour intensive and expensive.

The Natural Resources Canada post notes fire-prone conditions are predicted to increase as a result of climate change, potentially doubling the amount of area burned by the end of this century compared to recent decades.

Forest fires are affected by several factors including patterns of lightning, fuel moisture, temperature, precipitation and vegetation — all of which are impacted by climate change. Other climate impacts such as insect outbreaks, ice storms or high winds may also increase the amount of damaged or dead wood available to fuel the fire.

In the midst of suspended operations due to forest fires, some oilsands executives have been warning the new NDP government in Alberta that “now would be an inappropriate time to introduce a new tax on carbon.” However, Suncor chief executive Steve Williamsrecently called on the Alberta government for across-the-board carbon pricing.

"We think climate change is happening," Williams recently said at an event in Calgary. "We think a broad-based carbon price is the right answer."

Keith Stewart, climate and energy campaigner at Greenpeace Canada, argued whether we admit it or not, we’re beginning to see the costs of climate change: “These forest fires are an example of the carbon price that we are already paying.”

“The price from extreme weather fuelled by climate change — like forest fires… or drought in California — will only go up unless we get serious about transitioning away from fossil fuels and towards a 100 per cent renewable future.”

One way to start this transition is by adopting a carbon tax in the province, he argues. This would help reduce the very carbon emissions that are currently threatening to increase forest fires and their social, economic and environmental impacts.

Will the Bitumen Burn?

In the meantime, the Alberta government is forecasting another week of hot, dry weather for the region, “threatening to further elevate wildfire hazard.”

And as hundreds of oil workers are evacuated as a precautionary safety measure, questions have been raised as to what would happen in the event that the blaze came in contact with oilsand bitumen.

Bitumen is a heavy black viscous oil. Undiluted bitumen has a flash point of +151 C. This means that +151 C is “the temperature to which the fuel must be heated to in order to produce an adequate fuel/air concentration to be ignited when exposed to an open flame,” according to a report by the Alberta Innovates consortium of industry, government and university researchers.

This is a pretty high threshold compared to other fuels, such as conventional light oil which has a flash point of -9 C. This means bitumen itself is considered essentially non-flammable in many instances. (Although diluted bitumen, which is mixed with natural gas-derived condensate, is a different story and the source of major concern around accidents during rail transport.)

But forest fires are hot. According to How Stuff Works, wood's flash point is 300 C. And an average ground forest fire with flames reaching one metre high can reach temperatures of 800 C — well above bitumen’s flash point.

So how likely is it that bitumen would actually come in contact with a forest fire? Not very, it seems.

Bitumen is typically very deep underground and mixed with clay and sand, again, making it not a very flammable substance.

Plus, forest fires are a well-known risk in the region and companies have taken precautions to avoid their billion-dollar operations going up in flames.

An example of preventative measures can be taken from Cenovus Energy, which maintains a tree- and vegetation-free perimeter around its facilities to act as a barrier from forest fires. And, inside the facilities, buildings (almost all of which are made of steel) are spaced far enough apart to avoid fire spreading easily should it make its way in.

Where’s The Fire?

Fire has come within five kilometres of Cenovus Energy's oilsands operations on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range.

The company’s Athabasca natural gas Caribou South plant is now just 3 km away from the forest fire. The project remains shut down in safe mode and no impact has been reported to its infrastructure.

Cenovus’s other oilsands project being developed 150 km south of Fort McMurray at Narrows Lake is about 15 km away from the fire as of May 26, but the project hasn’t seen any production since the crash in crude oil prices at the end of last year. Meanwhile, operations at its Pelican Lake and Christina Lake oilsands projects continue to operate normally.

Also on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range in the area is Canadian Natural Resources’ Kirby South oilsands facilities and pipelines. According to a May 25 company statement, these are in temporary slowdown with production being reduced from 18,000 bbl/day to about 12,000 bbl/day.

Other companies however, continue to operate. Statoil has evacuated about 110 non-essential employees at its Leismer project as a precaution, but production remains unaffected and it does not anticipate shutting-down.

Husky Energy has also reported that its operations in the Cold Lake region have not yet been affected by the fires. But operations at its natural-gas processing plant at its Muskwa natural-gas processing plant in north central Alberta have been suspended.

Image Credit: Alberta Wildfires Info

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.