New Internationalist

The Arctic will burn

When it comes to climate change, there are many things of which we can be certain. Though until recently the popular emphasis – both in mainstream media and in politics – stressed what we don’t know, we now know enough to be very, very certain of a number of things.

Climate change is real, and it is happening right now: temperatures are rising, glaciers shrinking, and this year summer Arctic sea ice reached a new low. The examples are endless.

The UN process isn’t working. The insipidness of the treaty signed at Durban was predictable. And as evidenced by Canada’s official departure from the Kyoto treaty, signatories cannot be counted on to keep their word anyway. Even faithful adherence would amount to little: the UN Environment Programme (UNEPreports that by 2020, even with perfect implementation of current pledges under the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), there will be a six gigatonne gap between what is required to limit global temperature rise to 2°C and actual emissions.

So, we can expect a 2°C rise in global temperatures – maybe even 4°C. But what – exactly – is going to happen? This seems to be the only question left worth asking.

Put another way: just how worried should we be? Predicting the future is never an exact science, and there will always be a certain degree of uncertainty. Some places may change little, such as desert interiors. Others will become unrecognizable – or vanish entirely, such as Alpine glaciers and small islands in the Pacific.

One region we may regard as a barometer for change is the Arctic, because it will warm more than regions at lower latitudes – the planet as a whole may warm up by 4°C, but the Poles could warm up by 12°C. The changes will obviously be more extreme.

What will this look like?

While most of us probably picture moist, foggy, tepid bogs, research indicates that large portions of the region may dry – and burn. As counterintuitive as it may seem, fires may become an important feature of the Arctic landscape.

Already there are signs that this is happening. From what we can glean from the geologic record, the Arctic tundra rarely experienced fires 100,000 years ago. But for the past century fires have sparked with increasing regularity and severity. The Anaktuvuk River fire in 2007 burned more than 1,000 square kilometres of tundra, in one flush doubling the amount of Alaskan tundra that has burned since 1950.

This could be just a prelude to things to come, says Dr Philip Higuera, Assistant Professor in the College of Natural Resources at the University of Idaho, who published new research this month in the journal Ecological Applications.‘Our work illustrates that some tundra regions can burn frequently, implying that future warming could certainly result in more frequent tundra burning,’ he explains.

Of crucial importance: fires could lead to more fires, and the Arctic itself may become a driver of climate change. In other words, an actual contributor to global warming, rather than a cooling refrigerant sitting atop the planet.

Burning on the tundra exacerbates climate change in several ways: fires release carbon that has been stored in the soil and vegetation to the atmosphere; the protective insulation above the permafrost is lost, leading to melting and drying; exposed, blackened earth absorbs more heat, leading to more warming and drying.

In a continuing cycle of positive feedback, fires could beget more fires, accelerating climate change the planet over, onwards and upwards.

But this is just one scenario – it is also possible that higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (the raw material of photosynthesis, after all) could fertilize the growth of more trees in the region, which would soak up carbon from the atmosphere and act as a brake on climate change.

To better understand how the landscape might respond to burning, Dr Higerua and his team looked at how various parts of the Alaskan landscape reacted to fires over the past 2,000 years.

‘The bottom line in our new paper is that tundra fire regimes are more diverse than we previously understood, varying with subtle gradients in climate and vegetation, and likewise their ecological and physical consequences will likely vary widely as well,’ says Dr Higuera. ‘Tundra fire regimes are more varied than some media (and science) coverage suggests. But ultimately it’s the classic scientist line of “we need more research”.’

The picture is complicated, and nobody really knows what will happen. Dire predictions for the future, and phrases like ‘catastrophic climate change’, can seem so alarmist that they almost render us complacent – surely the truth can’t be so extreme that the Arctic itself would blaze.

But the very fact that it is a distinct possibility shows just how much our world is bound to change – in ways that few of us have ever thought possible. 

 Photo by US Geological Survey under a CC Licence

Comments on The Arctic will burn

Leave your comment


  • Maximum characters allowed: 5000
  • Simple HTML allowed: bold, italic, and links

Registration is quick and easy. Plus you won’t have to re-type the blurry words to comment!
Register | Login

  1. #1 baz 22 Dec 11

    So many people are fooled by this global warming bullshit. This is a re-occuring event in global history, look it up, do some research. Do you really think the earth will be in a catastrophic state if the temperature rises (from the lowest point in 11,000 years)?

  2. #2 saddestemployeeoftheyearspotter 29 Dec 11

    Are you really paid to say such rubbish Baz?

    That's a fantastic article. Thanks!

  3. #4 Robert Callaghan 30 Dec 11

    Every night seven billion people go to bed near something akin to a campfire, whether it be an ipad or a smouldering cow paddy, we let the glowing light sooth our fears of unknown unknowns and dream of a better day.

  4. #5 hanes 03 Jan 12

    Totally utter drivel.

    Check out Pleistocene> ’Holocene an Environmental History’ Neil Roberts.

  5. #6 Alan 04 Jan 12

    Hey Baz, it's true global climate fluctuations are common events in geological history, so whether the rise is due to our efforts or natural causes, does not matter because politicians won't really do much until it starts to cost a lot, and that will be likely too late to stop it. The key is what to do about it, now or in the future. If temp continues to rise enough to melt world ice as happened in the past (3 million yrs ago), about 1/2 the world's human population and infrastructure will be underwater. That and the decline in food production should make for some nasty conflicts. Are you OK with being partly responsible for ignoring that possibility?

  6. #7 Lsulli 12 Jan 12

    Baz, according to the majority of the worlds scientists, governments and the UN you're wrong on the whole climate change thing but also we're not in the lowest point since the last ice age, that was the Little Ice Age (1350 - 1850), according to NASA we're actually going through the warmest period for 11,000 years, 'look it up, do some research' (Baz, 2011)...

Subscribe to Comments for this articleArticle Comment Feed RSS 2.0

Guidelines: Please be respectful of others when posting your reply.

About the author

Zoe Cormier a New Internationalist contributor

Zoe Cormier is a freelance journalist and science writer from Toronto, Canada and now based in London. She has been shortlisted for the Canadian National Magazine Awards twice. With a background in biology, she now specializes in covering environmental issues and is the resident ‘alternative science’ blogger for the NI. Her work has featured in Nature News, The Guardian, The Globe and Mail, and The Ecologist.

Read more by Zoe Cormier

Get our free fortnightly eNews


Videos from visionOntv’s globalviews channel.

Related articles

Popular tags

All tags

New Internationalist Blogs

New Internationalist hosts several different blogs, from the Editor's Blog to the Majority World Blog, the Gaza Blog to the Books Blog

New Internationalist Blogs