The onset of summer means that wildfires are likely to occur more often. Last month one raged in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. As crews sought to tame it, questions arose as to its origins, effects, and how to view such forces.
Investigators believe human activity caused the fire. This immediately puts a bad taste in our mouths, as we accuse mankind of selfishness, carelessness, and destruction of our surrounding world. Indeed, the very thought of an unattended campfire or discarded cigarette butt igniting a forest-consuming conflagration is repulsive. “Conservation” and “sustainability” have not always been popular buzzwords.
It was not until the mid 1800s that Westerners began to view the environment as a thing of beauty, and as environmental historian William Cronon put it, “…a landscape where the supernatural lay just beneath the surface…expressed in the doctrine of the sublime…” Cronon has explained that cultural perceptions of human relationships to the wilderness have shifted, and the current discourse that we embrace reflects the romantic writings of towering figures such as Thoreau, Emerson, and Muir. We think of untamed nature as a cathedral to be preserved and only lightly trodden by our feet. This preservationist ethos has its merits, as protecting vast and beautiful spaces from the development, industry, and encroachment of society is vital to preserving nature itself as well as our cultural identity that has spawned from it.
Viewing nature and civilization as separate entities raises problems, Cronon points out. The value of “sustainability” is that it allows for an interaction between the two forces, which ultimately is an unescapable and acceptable dynamic if we are to live maturely on our planet and in our environments. The key is not necessarily to leave all nature alone, but to find a responsible manner in which to interact with it. Naturally, if the Alaska wildfire was caused by human activity, this was not a responsible interaction with nature.
It would seem the logical response to fight the fire and put it out. After all, “…fire officials are worried that recreational cabins and secondary homes…may be at risk.” This raises several points of interest. First of which is the obvious implication that the primary motivation for putting out the fire is the protection of human life, human residences, and economy & tourism; this trumps the genuine concerns for the health of the environment. However, especially considering that the fire was probably caused by human activity, putting it out has been determined the right way to go. California is already experiencing an above average occurrence of fires, and predicts an active season. Consequently, they have retrofitted Black Hawk helicopters to be an extreme response mechanism, unofficially called the Firehawk.This comes partly in response to a series of large fires in the San Diego area last May.
What if the Alaska fire was ignited by natural causes? We tend to view those differently. The mindset of separation between society and nature abounds in this concern. We hesitate to intervene with natural forces, citing that the lack of human involvement denotes a need to let nature run its course. Why, then, do we also instigate controlled burns? Despite continuing struggles to find a responsible way of living in the environment, we take it upon ourselves to be the guardians of nature. When is it acceptable for us to intervene, and when should we leave things alone?
People have a difficult time accepting change. This is problematic, considering nature is constantly in flux; change is vital. The environmental historian Nancy Langston argued that “…we only perceive a crisis when we have first learned to observe, and then to value, a particular set of relationships that are about to be destroyed.” When hailing “conservation” and “preservation,” what are we trying to protect: the environment as we see and value it, or the environment as it functions? California is expecting a particularly active wildfire season, and the coming years are expected to see increased damage from fires. A report by Headwaters Economics suggests that there are climate change-induced factors such as “higher temperatures, widespread drought, earlier snowmelt, spring growth, and expanded insect and disease infestations…” In this sense, the occurrence of wildfires is broadened from a case-by-case basis to the general and wider concerns of human global impact.
When should we start fires, and when should we put them out? How sure can we be that a particular wildfire occurred naturally, by direct human activity, or secondarily by shifting ecological parameters? The Alaska wildfire and California fire season are examples of mankind’s struggle to find appropriate ways of interacting with our fragile world.
—
Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.
Featured image courtesy of [Famartin via Wikipedia]
