The Clean Air Act Is Making Our Air Dirtier
Wildfire smoke is bad for your health. Environmental regulations make it worse.
The sky turns a rusty orange. The sun dims behind a thick veil of smoke. For millions of Americans, even ones far from wildfire-prone lands, this eerie scene is no longer rare. Extreme wildfires have doubled in frequency and intensity in recent decades, and their smoke is erasing decades of gains in clean air.
Fine particulate matter from wildfire smoke—tiny particles that lodge deep in the lungs—is now one of the most harmful forms of air pollution in America. So you might assume that our nation's clean air laws are working to protect us from such emissions. But here's the paradox: While the Clean Air Act seeks to reduce harmful pollution, it largely overlooks the biggest and fastest-growing source of that pollution: wildfires.
Worse, the Clean Air Act makes it harder to use the very tool that scientists and land managers agree is essential for reducing catastrophic fires and the choking smoke they produce.
Under the act's "exceptional events" rule, regulators may exclude pollution from certain natural disasters when deciding whether an area meets federal air quality standards. Wildfire smoke almost always qualifies for that exemption. Under current rules, wildfires are presumed "not reasonably controllable or preventable," which means that when a megafire blankets a city in dangerous haze, those emissions are essentially excused after the fact.
The planned, carefully controlled burns that can prevent megafires—known as prescribed fires—rarely qualify. They are, by definition, intentional and therefore generally fail to meet the Clean Air Act's requirements for exceptional events. The result is a perverse incentive: The uncontrolled wildfire that blackens the skies is given a regulatory free pass, while the low-intensity prescribed fire that could have reduced the risk of that disaster faces red tape and potential penalties.
As a result, states become reluctant to issue burn permits, and fire practitioners scale back projects rather than risk running afoul of federal standards.
The EPA has recognized this problem and in 2016 revised its rules to, in theory, allow prescribed fires to qualify as exceptional events. Yet the process has proven unworkable. To satisfy Clean Air Act rules, a prescribed fire must somehow be deemed "not reasonably controllable or preventable" and "unlikely to recur"—criteria that controlled, regularly scheduled burns cannot truly meet. A Georgia forestry official recently testified that the state submitted 89 exceptional event demonstrations for prescribed fires in recent years; the EPA has yet to approve or deny any of them. Nationwide, since the rule was updated, only one prescribed fire has been approved for an exemption—a telling measure of how onerous the process is.
Prescribed fire is hardly experimental. For centuries, Indigenous peoples used it to keep forests resilient. Today, fire ecologists and land managers rely on it to thin dense fuels and restore healthier landscapes. The benefits are well documented. One recent study found that in California—where wildfire smoke is among the largest sources of fine-particle pollution—areas treated with prescribed fire burned less severely and emitted less fine particulate matter overall, even after accounting for the smoke from the prescribed fires themselves.
The difficulty of qualifying a prescribed burn as an exceptional event makes the existing rule "an ineffective tool to discount emissions from prescribed fire," according to a 2024 report by a coalition of fire experts, tribal officials, and forestry practitioners. Consequently, the severe health and economic harms of worsening wildfire smoke, they conclude, are "largely neglected, if not inadvertently caused by the Clean Air Act regulations themselves." Last year, the EPA tightened the national standard for fine particulate matter, which only heightens the urgency of finding a workable path to credit prescribed burns for the cleaner air they help secure.
Fortunately, reform may be on the horizon. Last month, Congress considered draft legislation that would streamline how prescribed burns can be treated under the Clean Air Act. The Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act would give states and the EPA the flexibility to recognize prescribed burns as actions that reduce wildfire risk and therefore qualify as "exceptional events," even though they are intentional and recurring. Instead of forcing prescribed fire into a rule designed for natural disasters, the bill would create a clear, simplified process for states to exclude smoke from these burns.
Other changes could help as well. This week, the Senate Agriculture Committee approved a separate bill—the Fix Our Forests Act—that would encourage greater use of prescribed fire by speeding up project approvals in high-risk fire areas and reducing litigation obstacles that often stall or derail forest restoration efforts. The committee passed the legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support.
Such reforms are urgently needed. Prescribed fire is one of the most effective tools we have to break the cycle of catastrophic wildfires and choking smoke. Clean air rules and other environmental regulations should make it easier, not harder, to use it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Trees remediate PM. Additional CO2 in the atmosphere helps the trees grow faster. We will be ok, especially if those uncompetitive green energy white elephants are losing much of their federal subsidies.
No one ever said that regulations, in reality, are supposed to be good for you; for that matter they don't even have to make any sense, but are simply an outcome of the power that a particular agency holds, especially in light of congress' decision to abnegate itself from any of the mess they've created.
Do you want to excerbate a situation?
Pass unnecessary and counter-productive laws.
This is a good example.
I blame Smokey Bear.
Was he in a trunk?
He's changed his name to Vapey Bear.
https://babylonbee.com/news/black-bears-demand-to-be-referred-to-as-bears-of-color
Polar bear supremacy is a threat too big to ignore. They've colonized entire continents. Bears of color hardest hit.
Quit pandaring to them.
Geesh what a convoluted bunch of drivel.
Extreme wild fires have not fucking doubled, citing a BS article from the NYTimes provides no evidence only opinion.
Yes carbon black emissions from wood smoke has always been one of the worst to breath in. This has been true forever, not just recently.
Why do you think humans live longer when they cook and heat their homes with natural gas and coal derived electricity versus when wood fires were the source of energy?
Why do you think the big push for "green energy" really began? It is meant to provide another energy source, electricity, so people can stop using wood, poo, coal etc for cooking and heating which also has proven to bring humans out of poverty.
If you want to stop wildfires then increase the punishments for starting fires and add more investigators and enforcement. Worldwide statistics where honest investigations occur have proven that over 60% of all wild fires are HUMAN CAUSED.
What we have been witnessing is an increase in human caused wild fires, not naturally caused wildfires. Incidents of natural wildfires have decreased over centuries not increased.
The US Forestry service shows that over 85% of fires in the US parks are human caused.
This has nothing to do with the global warming hoax or CO2. It is mostly stupid humans doing stupid things.
Geesh what a convoluted bunch of drivel.
The rest of your post reads as if you didn't read the article or didn't understand it if you did.
The article doesn't mention CO2, global warming, or climate change. It specifically details how the Clean Air Act can and does crack down on the relatively clean(er) forms of emissions you cite while, in fact, allowing more harmful emissions to rise as exceptions.
You've got an almost mtrueman or sarcasmic-level ability to argue with points that no one made outside your own head.
Yes you proved my point exactly. First attempting to include wild fire smoke into the clean air act is nonsensical.
Then attempting to regulate prescribed burns authorization by the amount of smoke they will produce is also nonsensical.
The article does not prove how the clean air act "cracks down' on anything. It proves it is a convoluted bunch of drivel.
"As a result, states become reluctant to issue burn permits, and fire practitioners scale back projects rather than risk running afoul of federal standards."
Funding funding funding...
The simple suggestion that prescribed burns would reduce the amount of toxic wood smoke in the air is ridiculous and can't be quantified.
The fact is the emissions from prescribed burns is not different than a forest fire started by campers not putting out their camp fire properly or someone throwing a cigarette butt out the window or PG&E failing to ensure the transmission lines remain clear of brush or lightning starting the fire.
Nothing related to wild fires should be considered under the clean air act. And Sates attempting to use the excuse the EPA didn't authorize our burns is a copout for we don't have the budget nor the will.
Yes you proved my point exactly.
OK, I get it. You're a dishonest, retarded sea lion.
If the Clean Air Act doesn't '"crack down" on *anything*' then it's useless legislation that should be repealed.
I get it, you do not understand what it is I am saying. Attacking me because your lack of comprehension is sad.
The clean air act helped to remove emissions from coal plants and other factories and refineries that heavily pollute the air like steel foundries.
We witnessed in the early 60's the results of decades of acid rain etc destroying the earth and making the air horrible to breath.
The clean air act helped greatly reduce emissions and did in fact allow for the air quality to become far better than prior and today it is very good compared to the 1950's alone even with the massive increases in population and cars etc today, the air quality is better now.
I should have been more clear to help save you from being confused, getting bent out of shape, but then, I figured people would understand why I said what I did originally.
The Clean air act can not and will not have any effect on wild fire smoke and the idea that wild fire smoke can be regulated under the clean air act is simply stupid.
What is even more ridiculous is somehow prescribed burns which are necessary for effective forest management are being regulated under the clean air act?
I think it is an excuse being used by some States who have reduced their forest management budgets and simply do not have the funding they should allocated to proper forest management to say the clean air act is stopping them from prescribed burns. It provides a very convenient excuse for the state when a wild fire breaks out and takes out a town or buildings or harms people.
Are you comprehending now what I am saying?
I will add now that the democrats and their absurd climate agenda is being turned back the regulations they put in place like this federal review of prescribed burns needs to be removed from the clean air act at minimum and I am sure there is a lot more nonsensical regulations that can also be removed now with the GOP in power.
re: "over 60% of all wild fires are HUMAN CAUSED" - No, not even close. The vast majority of wildfires in the western US are caused by lightning strikes. That said, they would be relatively minor fires that would quickly burn out on their own if we hadn't allowed decades of tinder and kindling to build up. So to the extent that poor land management counts as a 'human cause', I would grant that we have contributed to a huge number of the bad wildfires. But to say that simply increasing the punishments for starting fires will solve it is magical thinking.
Wrong. Look up the data from reliable sources, not media outlets. Try the US forest service for example. Go ahead and come back admitting you were wrong.
Here's a link to Alberta. note the suspected causes. https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/0e45bd0ef9814d5e9ec3f87900a4cfe9/page/Wildfire-status?views=Suspected-cause
As for my point of increasing the penalties for starting wild fires, that at least will have some impact over doing nothing which is the status quo. I never said it will solve the issue, but it certainly would not hurt.
Here's another link https://www.nps.gov/articles/wildfire-causes-and-evaluation.htm
https://www.nifc.gov/fire-information/fire-prevention-education-mitigation/wildfire-investigation
No, not even close. The vast majority of wildfires in the western US are caused by lightning strikes.
It's moot either way. Unless you're proposing to reduce the number of or otherwise oppress the humans in order to prevent wildfires, whether it's humans or lightening, the proactivity to be exchanged for reactivity is the burning/grooming/maintenance of cutting and prescribed burns.
How many prescribed burns get away and run out of control? More than we are told. And before you begin to blame prescribed burns, how many are actually conducted compared to how many would be required to actually control run away wild fires?
Where's the mention in this article of the failure of PG&E clearing the brush around their power lines and ended up destroying the town of Paradise and paying out billions for their neglect?
Now that forest management is being highlighted for the excess fuel in forests making the potential for wildfires increase, not climate change or global warming or CO2, an article like this is written suggesting the problem is not what it really is. Stupid humans doing stupid things.
Don't blame PG&E for doing what the PUC tells them to do. They were told to prioritize paying exorbitant rates for rooftop solar power over clearing their power line rights of way. The state and feds own a lot of forest lands. They need plenty of blame for not clearing them.
No mention of Steve Milloy's debunking of the PM 2.5 nonsense?
One could do worse than start here: https://www.stevemilloy.com/?p=89746
Whether or not Shawn Regan believes Steve Milloy, to not mention him at all is typical of those who prefer pounding the table to being honest.
Not that the EPA doesn't deserve all the slagging it can get. But honest slagging would be better. Referencing woke Nature doesn't help the cause either.
To say the Clean Air Act has made air worse is an absurd statement that ignores a mountain of empirical data based literature that says it has drastically improved air quality and made everyone healthier.
To pretend bureaucracy always accomplishes its goals without ever screwing up is the definition of blinders.
Was it written in COBOL?
It was written in CUCLL.
CUCLL = Collectivist Undercover Cosplaying Liberal Libertine
I coined that!
It was posted by, your different sock?, in another thread?
Fastest-growing source of that pollution, evidence of that? And don't cherry pick some baseline date in the 80s when they were at an all time low. There were far more fires in the 70s than today.
It is certainly a nasty for the lungs.
The last fifty years have regulated soot from stuff we burn for energy. Forests don't care.
Yes the clean air act has gone a long way making the air quality far better today than in the past. It is nonsense to think forest fire emissions can be regulated and using the excuse of the Feds are holding up the states from running prescribed burns because of the clean air act is a convenient cop out.
States have been reducing their forest management budgets for some time and having the clean air act excuse allows them to continue not running prescribed burns making the chances of wild fires increase and the damages they can cause to increase.
Which means they can blame climate change and not their own failed forest management policies or stupid humans which are the biggest reason wild fires happen.
You call that a Wildfire?
Look at what a real five alarm burn did:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232799908_Siberian_fire_as_ldquonuclear_winterrdquo_guide#fullTextFileContent
Libertarians for more government regulation! (And probably for more testing.)
WTF, Reason?
Remember that day the Constitution was amended for an EPA?
Yeah; me neither.
F'En treasonous [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s].
Quoting the NYTimes to make this debunked claim, "Extreme wildfires have doubled in frequency and intensity in recent decades…" shows that the author has an ulterior motive (hint: it's in his bio).
The NYTimes is referencing a Nature paper that claims wildfires are on the rise thanks to climate change. The paper has been disproven and fails for a variety of reasons.
The study doesn’t use the minimum 30-year period required for a climate data comparison as defined by the WMO, but instead uses 21 years of satellite data.
Even the satellite data shows a show a sharp global decline in burned area. The UN’s IPCC also doesn’t see any clear link between climate change and wildfire trends, now or through 2100.
As for "intensity", rising fire intensity in many regions is better explained by poor forest management and increased fuel buildup. That means larger fuel loads, driven by green policies, are directly linked to more intense fires that spread even faster.
Meteorologist Anthony Watts picked apart this study and how the mainstream media ignored these facts to promote a fear-based climate narrative. You can read about it in more detail: https://climaterealism.com/2024/06/no-mainstream-media-extreme-wildfires-are-not-on-the-rise-due-to-climate-change/