Here I apply Kurz's Number to data on acres burned in California, Oregon, Washington and the U.S., to estimate how much CO₂ equivalent wildfires here have produced so far this year. I compare those results to federal data on the amount of CO₂ that all energy sectors (residential, commercial, industrial, transportation and electric power) in California, Oregon, Washington and the U.S. produce.

These calcs are relevant because almost all political and academic efforts to reduce CO₂ focus on energy-related CO₂ only, as if We the People, by driving our pickups, were killing the planet. However, wildfire-produced CO₂ can approach or exceed energy-related, non-wildfire CO₂ in States with big forest fires. All wildfire-produced CO₂ is the responsibility of governments, but we never hear about it. Wildfires destroy persons, homes, wildlife, habitat, watersheds, tourism and $billions in marketable timber, and governments do not make it a priority to prevent and extinguish them. On the contrary, their priority seems to be to cut We the People off from fossil fuel.

It therefore needs pointed out that, when We the People use energy from fossil fuel, we do not destroy any of the above, and we get something in return: cooling in the summer, heating in the winter, transportation or horsepower applied toward needful ends. When governments let forest fires burn, all of the above are destroyed, and all of the energy of forest fires—6000-8000 BTU per pound of wood burned—is wasted. Governments say nothing about this gargantuan waste of energy, for which they are responsible. They have no interest in practicing what they preach when it comes to producing CO₂, protecting lives and habitats, and conserving resources and energy; they utterly fail to keep themselves accountable. Governments rail against We the People and our innocuous use of fossil fuel, while hundreds of thousands of forested acres burn, right under their noses, and they are negligent about preventing and extinguishing them.

As far as I know, no government in the western U.S. even bothers to do the math; they do not do any wildfire CO₂ accounting, nor do they estimate how much energy wildfires waste.

AC means acres. MT means metric tons. MMT means million metric tons:

I use the following numbers of MMT of energy-related CO₂ from all sectors: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation and electric power, for the places that I consider here. The numbers below are from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), as of May 7, 2021:

    State or region   |   MMT
----------------------+---------
   California in 2018 |   362.5
   Washington in 2018 |    78.8
       Oregon in 2018 |    39.5
     The U.S. in 2019 | 5,130
   The Pac NW in 2018 |
           Wash & Ore |   118.3
The Pac Coast in 2018 |
     The Pac NW & Cal |   480.8

For the calcs below, I use acres burned numbers that change daily during fire season, and the above, May 7, 2021, EIA State numbers:

ODF Stats Anomalies:

For my Sep. 17, 24, Oct. 4, 9, 15, 23, Nov. 1, 5, 13 and 22 updates, I used numbers that the Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) published on Sep. 14. This is because the ODF’s Sep. 14 acres burned number is larger than all of its subsequent acres burned numbers up to Oct. 6, which is their latest number as of Dec. 24.

The ODF acres burned stat may be low by as many as 36,111 AC, and the ODF number of fires stat may be low by as many as 19 fires. Here are some anomalous stats that I have found:

The ODF lowered its All lands in Oregon acres burned number after Sep. 14, 2021, while its number of fires increased:

• Sep. 14: 1,767 fires. 827,692 acres
• Sep. 17: 1,780 fires. 802,415 acres. (13 more fires, but 25,277 fewer acres than on Sep. 14)
• Sep. 23: 1,814 fires. 811,759 acres. (89 more fires, but 15,933 fewer acres than on Sep. 14)
• Sep. 29: 1,863 fires. 816,196 acres. (96 more fires, but 11,496 fewer acres than on Sep. 14)
• Oct. 06: 1,891 fires. 816,880 acres. (124 more fires, but 10,812 fewer acres than on Sep. 14)

The ODF did not publish an explication of the Sep. 14 decrease.

The ODF lowered its All lands in Oregon acres burned number after Aug. 16, 2021, while its number of fires increased:

• Aug. 16: 1,562 fires. 590,556 acres
• Aug. 17: 1,566 fires. 583,797 acres. (a decrease of 6,759 acres)
• Aug. 18: 1,575 fires. 590,380 acres. (176 fewer acres than on Aug. 16)

The ODF did not publish an explication of the Aug. 17 decrease.

The ODF lowered its All lands in Oregon number of fires after Aug. 20, 2021, while its number of acres burned increased:

• Aug. 19: 1,578 fires. 595,157 acres
• Aug. 20: 1,589 fires. 601,536 acres
• Aug. 23: 1,570 fires. 619,243 acres. (a decrease of 19 fires)
• Aug. 24: 1,575 fires. 622,946 acres. (the same number of fires as on Aug. 18)

The ODF did not publish an explication of the Aug. 23 decrease.

For my Dec. 5 and later updates, I used the 12/09 NWCC (federal) numbers for Oregon. Post-12/09 NWCC acres burned numbers for Oregon are lower than their 12/09 number, for which reason I use their 12/09 number.

Low NorCal acres per new fire:

Here is an elementary analysis of the week-to-week changes in the number of fires and acres burned for California-protected lands in Northern Cal:

Weekly data for Cal-protected lands in NorCal, 2021

10/15/2021
FIRES     3,120
ACRES   449,215

10/22/2021
FIRES     3,188  ( +68)
ACRES   449,394  (+179)
Avg. acres per new fire: 179 / 68 = 2.63

10/29/2021
FIRES     3,194  (+6)
ACRES   449,395  (+1)
Avg. acres per new fire: 1 / 6 = 0.17

11/05/2021
FIRES     3,292  (+98)
ACRES   449,400  ( +5)
Avg. acres per new fire: 5 / 98 = 0.05

11/12/2021
FIRES     3,300  (+8)
ACRES   449,400  (+0)
Avg. acres per new fire: 0 / 8 = 0

11/19/2021
FIRES     3,314  (+14)
ACRES   449,402  ( +2)
Avg. acres per new fire: 2 / 14 = 0.14

11/26/2021
FIRES     3,323  (+9)
ACRES   449,403  (+1)
Avg. acres per new fire: 1 / 9 = 0.11

12/03/2021
FIRES     3,330  (+7)
ACRES   449,403  (+0)
Avg. acres per new fire: 0 / 7 = 0

12/10/2021
FIRES     3,270  (     -60)
ACRES 1,024,958  (+575,555)
Avg. acres per new fire: 575,555 / −60 = −9592.6

12/17/2021
FIRES     3,274  (+4)
ACRES 1,024,958  (+0)
Avg. acres per new fire: 0 / 4 = 0

12/24/2021
FIRES     3,275  (+1)
ACRES 1,024,958  (+0)
Avg. acres per new fire: 0 / 1 = 0

Avg. acres per new fire, 10/15 - 12/23:
(2.63 + 0.17 + 0.05 + 0 + 0.14 + 0.11 + 0 - 9592.6  + 0 + 0) / 10 = −958.95

Avg. acres per new fire, 11/13 - 12/23:
(0.14 + 0.11 + 0 - 9592.6  + 0 + 0) / 6 = −1598.725

Fires and Acres data from NICC IMSRs

It seems probable to me that, when CalFire reports 1 acre burned per week in NorCal, it may be well under 1 acre. 1 acre is the smallest change in acres burned that the NICC deals with. In other words, we don’t really know how small the reported NorCal fires are, when they report only zero or one new acre per week. They could be nothing more than yard debris fires that someone called in as illegal. They could be arson fires that someone on a fire crew started, or arranged to have started, to keep the crew employed. It has been known to happen.

On 12/10, the NorCal number of fires decreased to what it was from 10/29 to 11/05, while the acres burned increased by an amazing 575,555. That combination makes my Avg. acres per new fire stat a negative number in the thousands. I obtained both the −60 fires and the +575,555 acres from data in the ST/OT column for Northern California, of the Fires and Acres Year-to-Date (by Protection) table in the IMSRs for Dec. 3 and Dec. 10, 2021. The IMSR is an NICC (federal) publication. However, data in the ST/OT column are from States, regarding lands that States protect. Even though CalFire did not publish the stats that I refer to here, the stats are for State of California-protected lands; CalFire must have reported these stats to the NIFC. So, when I refer to CalFire stats below, that is what I mean.

It might be objected that my NorCal calcs that include the 12/10 stats are mathematically invalid, because the Avg. acres per new fire is less than zero. However, my calcs are mathematically valid as long as the number of new fires is non-zero. Had the number of new fires stayed constant, I would have had a division by zero error. Since it has either increased or decreased, I do not have a division by zero error.

It might then be objected that my NorCal calcs that include the 12/10 stats are invalid because, by decreasing their number of fires to what it was approximately one month in the past, CalFire just made all of my post-10/29 numbers of fires invalid. I disagree. If CalFire can pluck a number of fires from the past, and use it for the present, I can, too! If CalFire’s numbers are valid, then so are my calcs. Who am I to judge that the number of new fires cannot be minus sixty, or that the acres burned cannot jump by 575,555 in one week in December, or that both of these cannot happen in the same week? CalFire says they can! And from 10/15 to 12/23, the average acres per new fire in NorCal was −958.95. That stat it is as valid as the CalFire stats for NorCal. I interpret it to mean that CalFire is either fudging numbers or correcting a string of errant ones going back to at least October.

The 12/10 increase of 575,555 acres burned is 128% of the previous (12/03) number, 449,403, of Cal-protected acres burned for the whole year. That is a major correction, or a major fudging of numbers or both; which is the case I don’t know.

Explication and Sources of the Above Numbers

Except for Oregon, I obtain fires and acres burned numbers from Incident Management Situation Reports (IMSR’s, which I call sitreps). During fire season, The Predictive Services Intelligence Section, a section of The National Interagency Coordination Center (NICC), a branch of The National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) publishes these sitreps daily. A link to the current situation report is at the nifc.gov fire info page.

Predictive Services keeps an archive of sitreps here.

The data in those sitreps are as of the previous day. When using data from the sitrep published on day d, I write, “at the close of” day d-1. For instance, where I wrote, “at the close of 2021-06-08”, the sitrep dated 2021-06-09 provided data for those calcs.

I obtain acres burned numbers only from the Fires and Acres Year-to-Date (by Protection) table in the sitreps. These numbers generally either increase or stay the same over time. They may also decrease, in which case a Coordination Center either revised the USFS data, or incorporated revised data from States or other reporting agencies or both. This table is a “designated authoritative source”:

Fires and Acres Year to Date is derived directly from Situation Reports submitted by individual units. The ICS-209 program does not provide data for this table. Note: this table represents fires and acres by the protecting agency (not by ownership). ...

The information included in the IMSR comes from Situation and ICS-209 reports, which are typically updated once a day in the evening. Both the Situation Report and the ICS-209 program are designated authoritative sources by federal land management agencies.¹ (from Understanding the IMSR)

I obtain stats for Oregon from The NWCC daily situation report.

The U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA) publishes data for States yearly. The energy-related CO₂ data that I use here are from 2018, because 2018 is the most recent year for which State data are available. I compare that to this year’s data on acres burned, translated to wildfire-produced CO₂ and equivalent.

To get the 2018 energy-related CO₂ produced by State, I go to this eia.gov page, and download spreadsheets.

As the EIA updates those data to 2019, 2020, etc., you might try this eia.gov data page and scroll down to State CO₂ Emissions.

The sources for the National calcs are the NIFC daily sitrep and this eia.gov page. The energy-related CO₂ number for 2019 is in the Overview of CO₂ Emissions section, in the explication for Figure 1, and also in the full PDF report.

To calculate CO₂ equivalent produced from acres burned I use Werner Kurz’s number: Every hectare (HA) of forest burned produces about 170 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent. The WA-Po published an article mentioning Kurz’s number on May 20, 2016. The National Post re-published that article. Kurz is a Doctor of Forest Ecology, a senior research scientist at the Canadian Forest Service and head of its carbon accounting team.

Since U.S. data are in acres, we need to convert Kurz’s number to MT/AC:

1 hectare (HA) = 2.47105381 acres (AC)
170 MT/HA * 1 HA / 2.47105381 AC = 68.796559 MT/AC
≈ 68.8 MT/AC

Accuracies:

Kurz’s number is an estimate. It ends with a zero, which might or might not be a significant digit. One would need to consult Kurz to find out for sure.

Assuming the zero is not significant, Kurz’s number would more correctly be written, 170 ± 5 MT/HA. The second digit, 7, is significant, otherwise, Kurz would probably have put it at either 160 or 180. But the number, 170, could be anywhere from 165 (which rounds up to 170) up to, but not including, 175 (which rounds down to 170).

I calculate MT of CO₂ equivalent using three significant digits (68.8 MT/AC), then round the result to the nearest MMT, making it an integer. However,

5 / 2.47105381 ≈ 2.0, and a more scientific expression would include the accuracy: 68.8 ± 2.0 MT/AC. For instance, for the U.S. calculation for Oct. 4, 2020:

7,818,340 AC * 68.8 MT/AC = 537,901,792 MT

the actual product is somewhere between,

7,818,340 AC * 66.8 MT/AC = 522,265,112 MT and
7,818,340 AC * 70.8 MT/AC = 553,538,472 MT.

The range of possible values over two is the accuracy for that calc:

(553,538,472 MT - 522,265,112 MT) / 2 = 15,636,680 MT
≈ 15.6 MMT

In rounding the product to the nearest MMT, I am not losing accuracy, because 538,000,000 is in the middle of that range, and the actual number of MMT is somewhere within that range, exactly where we do not know, given ± 2.0 MT/AC as the accuracy of Kurz’s number. Written more scientifically, my results would look like this:

7,818,340 AC * (68.8 ± 2.0 MT/AC) = 537,901,792 ± 15,636,680 MT
≈ 538 ± 15.6 MMT

I’m giving a general accuracy here, instead of in the results: the accuracy of the MT of CO₂ & equivalent numbers is at least ± 2.0 MT/AC. One can more simply calculate the accuracy of those numbers as:

± 100 * 5 / 170 ≈ ± 2.94%

It might be more than that, because there are also uncertainties associated with the acres burned numbers. One is that Kurz’s number is for timber fires. Most of the big, 2020 fires were in timber. But some acres burned were brush, some grass. And as you move east from the Cascades and Sierra Nevadas, there is relatively less timber and more brush and grass. The acres burned numbers that I use here include all fuel types.

Another consideration is hills and mountains. How many actual acres of forest are in a hillside acre of forest?

One acre of mountainous or hilly forest is more than one acre of flat terrain forest. The slope of the hill puts additional acreage in the vertical dimension that is not seen when measuring acreages from aerial or satellite photos, which make everything appear flat.

For an extreme example, consider an imaginary building in New Haven that is 100 × 100 ft², and 400 feet tall. It is covered with ivy on all sides from bottom to top, and the roof, too. Yale wants to inventory all the ivy in New Haven. So they pay for overhead satellite photos, and hire a grad student to trace out the ivy-covered areas of each photo on a touchscreen. A program calculates and sums the areas traced out.

The grad student dutifully traces out 100 x 100 = 10,000 ft² of ivy-covered area on that lot, because that is what the satellite saw, and who would dare interpret satellite photos? But that building actually has 4 x 100 x 400 + 10,000 = 170,000 ft² of ivy. The satellite photo was off by 160,000 ft². That area of ivy was hidden from the satellite in the vertical dimension. The same kind of error happens when using satellite photos to calculate acres of mountainous or hilly forest.

Consider a rectangle of forested hillside. The length of the rectangle is 660 ft., and is along the steepest right line from a lower to a higher elevation on the hillside. Call this the l-t-h line. The width of the rectangle is 66 ft. and roughly follows the contour lines of the hillside. The actual area of that rectangle is 660 ft * 66 ft = 1 acre. Let θ be the angle of the l-t-h line up from the horizontal, that is, the angle that you would move your neck or eyes up from the horizontal to look at an eye-level marker on a surveyor’s grade rod at the top the l-t-h line, if you were standing at the bottom of it. When a satellite views this same rectangular acre of hillside, it does not look like 660 * 66 ft². It looks like 660 cos θ * 66 ft². The missing part, (660 - 660 cos θ) * 66 ft², is hidden from the satellite in the vertical dimension.

If the grade of the hill is 0%, there is no hill:
θ = 0°. cos θ = 1, and the satellite sees an area measuring 660 * 1 * 66 = 1 acre.

If the grade of the hill is 30%,
θ = arctan(30/100) ≈ 16.700°
cos 16.700° ≈ .958 and the satellite sees an area measuring only 660 * .958 * 66 ≈ .958 acre. But it is actually one acre.

If the grade of the hill is 100%,
θ = arctan(100/100) = 45°
cos 45° ≈ .707 and the satellite sees an area measuring only 660 * .707 * 66 ≈ .707 acre. But it is actually one acre.

If the grade of the hill is infinity percent,
θ = arctan(∞/100) = 90°
cos 90° = 0 and it’s a cliff. Probably there are no trees on it, but even so, the satellite sees an area measuring
660 * 0 * 66 = 0 acre, even though it is still one acre. The entire acre is hidden from the satellite in the vertical.

There are uncertainties in all of the numbers that I use, including the energy-related CO₂ numbers. Those are only government estimates, and I don’t know where to find their accuracies.

Kurz’s number is applicable to BC forest fires, and is probably accurate for Oregon and Washington fires, as the ecosystems are similar. His number might be somewhat less accurate for Northern California fires, as the ecosystems are somewhat different. His number might be inaccurate for some Southern California fires, as some ecosystems there are very different. Despite these differences, his is the only number that I know of that relates hectares burned to MT of CO₂ equivalent produced. So I use it for all wildfires, regardless of ecosystem or geographic location. The U.S. Government does not that I know of derive Kurz-type numbers for U.S. ecosystems; it has historically neglected to take into account CO₂ produced by wildfires.
_______________________________

Notes: