Showing posts sorted by date for query WILDFIRE. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query WILDFIRE. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Thursday, January 15, 2026

 

Increased deciduous tree dominance reduces wildfire carbon losses in boreal forests


New research published this week shows that when forests shift from mostly coniferous to mostly deciduous, they could release substantially less carbon when they burn.



Northern Arizona University




As climate change drives more frequent and severe wildfires across boreal forests in Alaska and northwestern Canada, scientists are asking a critical question: Will these ecosystems continue to store carbon or become a growing source of carbon emissions? New research published this week shows that when forests shift from coniferous—consisting mostly of pines, spruces and larches—to deciduous—consisting mostly of birches and aspens—they could release substantially less carbon when they burn.

The National Science Foundation-funded study, led by researchers from the Center for Ecosystem Science and Society (ECOSS) at Northern Arizona University and published in Nature Climate Change, found that boreal forests dominated by deciduous species lose less than half as much carbon per unit area burned compared to historically dominant black spruce forests. Even under severe fire weather conditions, carbon losses in deciduous stands were consistently lower than those in conifer forests.

“This work shows that not all boreal forests burn the same way,” said Betsy Black, who led the study as part of her master’s thesis research at NAU. “As deciduous trees become more common after fire, they can fundamentally change how much carbon is lost to the atmosphere during future wildfires.”

Boreal forests store a large fraction of the world’s terrestrial carbon, much of it locked away in thick organic soils that have accumulated over centuries. Historically, these forests have acted as a carbon sink, but warming temperatures have increased fire size, severity, and frequency, raising concerns that boreal ecosystems could shift to releasing more carbon than they store, accelerating climate change.

“Our previous research shows that deciduous forests can accumulate much more carbon after fire than spruce forests,” said Michelle Mack, ECOSS professor and senior author on the study. “But we were curious about what happens to that carbon when these forests burn. No one had measured that before.”

To answer that question, the team analyzed carbon pools and combustion losses in plots within nearly a dozen large fire scars across Alaska and Yukon. They found that deciduous forests store more carbon aboveground in combustion-resistant tree stems and less in deep organic soils that readily burn, resulting in lower overall carbon emissions during fire.

The study also revealed stark differences in what controls carbon loss between forest types. In conifer forests, emissions were driven primarily by bottom-up factors, such as fuel availability and soil moisture. In contrast, carbon losses in deciduous and mixed forests were more sensitive to fire weather conditions.

“Seeing weather play such a strong role in deciduous forests was surprising, and it suggests that as climate change drives more extreme fire weather, these forests could become more vulnerable in the future,” said Xanthe Walker, ECOSS professor and corresponding author.

Together, the findings suggest that increasing deciduous dominance, which is already widely observed following severe fires in northwestern North America, could help slow the positive feedback between wildfire and climate warming by reducing carbon emissions per unit area burned. By quantifying how much carbon is lost when deciduous forests burn, and identifying the conditions that control those losses, the study provides critical data for improving wildfire and carbon cycle models and forecasting future global carbon dynamics.

Co-authors on the study include Scott Goetz and Logan Berner of the School of Informatics and Computing at Northern Arizona University, along with Brendan Rogers, Winslow Hansen, Anna Talucci, Stefano Potter, and Jacqueline Dean from the Woodwell Climate Research Center and the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies. This research was supported by the National Science Foundation, NASA and the Bonanza Creek Long-term Ecological Research Program.

 

Rethinking climate impacts through human wellbeing




International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis




A new study by IIASA researchers offers a pioneering way to understand how climate change affects people’s lives over the long term. Using a global model and the Years of Good Life (YoGL) metric, the research shows that today’s emissions shape future wellbeing, especially for younger generations.

Human wellbeing is increasingly recognized as a better benchmark for sustainable development than GDP. Yet, while GDP is losing its prominence as a measure of wellbeing, climate impacts are still mostly assessed in monetary terms, most notably through the social cost of carbon, which is based solely on economic damage. The study, titled “Wellbeing cost of carbon” and published in Global Sustainability, takes an important step toward measuring climate impacts in terms that matter directly to people by shifting the focus from economic output to human wellbeing itself.

Linking climate, society, and human wellbeing

Using a global systems model together with the Years of Good Life (YoGL) indicator developed at IIASA, the researchers show how climate change, economic development, and social conditions combined shape long-term human wellbeing. Years of Good Life measures how many years individuals can expect to live in good physical and cognitive health, above poverty, and with overall life satisfaction.

By explicitly modeling feedbacks between natural, human, and economic capital and Years of Good Life, the analysis provides the first quantitative estimation of the core equation of sustainability science using an empirically grounded and intuitive wellbeing metric, going well beyond earlier approaches that could not clearly trace how environmental change affects wellbeing over time.

Key results: up to 11.3 Years of Good Life at stake

The results show that strong climate action could increase individual wellbeing by up to 10.4 Years of Good Life on average, while high-emissions pathways could reduce lifetime wellbeing by as much as 11.3 years. Younger generations face the highest marginal wellbeing losses from today’s emissions, highlighting pronounced intergenerational inequities. The analysis also reveals gender differences, with men experiencing higher marginal wellbeing losses per unit of carbon emitted, despite women often having lower overall wellbeing levels.

“Our study demonstrates that wellbeing can be modeled in a forward-looking and integrated way, capturing the links between climate change, the economy, and social development,” says study author and IIASA Senior Research Scholar, Sibel Eker. “For policymakers, the approach offers a way to compare climate and development pathways, with human wellbeing – not just economic output – at the center of decision-making.”

“For the first time, we can quantify how changes in climate and other forms of natural, human or economic capital translate into gains or losses in human wellbeing across generations and genders. It is time to think about the wellbeing cost of carbon instead of focusing only on economic costs, because what ultimately matters is how today’s emissions shape the quality of life of future generations,” concludes IIASA Distinguished Emeritus Research Scholar and coauthor, Wolfgang Lutz.

Reference
Eker, S., Reiter, C., Liu, Q., Kuhn, M., Lutz, W. (2026). Wellbeing cost of carbon. Global Sustainability DOI: 10.1017/sus.2025.10042

 

About IIASA:
The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) is an international scientific institute that conducts research into the critical issues of global environmental, economic, technological, and social change that we face in the twenty-first century. Our findings provide valuable options to policymakers to shape the future of our changing world. IIASA is independent and funded by prestigious research funding agencies in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe.

Learning about public consensus on climate change does little to boost people’s support for action, study shows





University of Exeter




Providing accurate information about the climate crisis can help to correct misperceptions about how much public support exists for action.

 

However, simply showing that others support climate action does not, on its own, have a meaningful impact on people’s own beliefs or behavioural intentions, a new study based on data from Germany shows, challenging common expectations about the power of public consensus to drive climate action.

 

The study finds that learning about widespread public support for climate action policies can initially make people think such policies are more politically feasible and more likely to be implemented. However, these effects are small and short-lived, raising questions about how effective such communication strategies are in practice.

 

The data were collected in collaboration with YouGov in Germany in 2021 and include 2,801 respondents. The same people were surveyed twice, around two weeks apart. Some participants were shown information about how widespread public support for climate action actually is in Germany. Others were not shown this information.

 

Overall, people in Germany had a fairly accurate sense of how much public support exists for climate action. On average, they did not believe that only a small minority supports action to combat climate change. At the same time, some people underestimated how many others supported climate action and specific climate policies.

 

Among those who underestimated public support, the information shown in the study made a clear difference. When presented with evidence of how widespread support for climate action is, they updated their views about public opinion. This learning was not fleeting. It was still visible when the same people were surveyed again two weeks later.

 

Importantly, this learning was limited to perceptions of public opinion. Knowing that many others supported climate action did not change people’s own beliefs about climate change, such as whether human activity is the main cause, their personal preferences for climate policies, or their intentions to change their behaviour, for example using public transport instead of a car.

 

There was one partial exception. People who learned about broad public support initially found political climate action more feasible. For example, they were slightly more likely to think that policies such as taxing goods based on their CO₂ emissions could realistically be implemented. However, this effect faded by the follow-up survey.

 

The study, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, was conducted within the Debunker Lab, led by Jason Reifler (University of Southampton; formerly University of Exeter). The research is led by Matthew Barnfield (Queen Mary University of London) and co-authored by Paula Szewach (Barcelona Supercomputing Center), Sabrina Stöckli (University of Bern), Florian Stoeckel (University of Exeter), Jack Thompson (University of Leeds), Joseph Phillips (Cardiff University), Benjamin Lyons (University of Utah), and Vittorio Mérola (Durham University).

 

Dr Barnfield said: “Learning how much consensus there is in support for policy action on climate change seems to durably increase people's perceptions of that consensus, even for policies that we didn't specifically tell them about. But that does not seem to have much effect on how much people support or even themselves adopt environmentally friendly actions. This finding might disappoint experts who have argued for this approach as a way to accelerate climate action in democracies.”

 

Professor Stoeckel added: “People do learn what others think on climate change, and that learning can persist. At the same time, our study shows clear limits to what can be expected from this strategy. Simply telling people that climate action is widely supported is likely not enough to change beliefs, preferences, or behaviour.”