People Across America Are Choking on Wildfire Smoke

“Dramatic” rise in soot and ash has degraded air quality for millions, scientists warn.

A haze of wildfire smoke obscures the afternoon sun in Oakland, California, September 8, 2020.Michael Mechanic

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Millions of Americans are now routinely exposed to unhealthy plumes of wildfire smoke that can waft thousands of miles across the country, scientists have warned.

Wildfires cause soot and ash to be thrown off into the air, which then carries the minuscule particles that can be inhaled by people many miles away, aggravating a variety of health conditions. The number of people in the US exposed to unhealthy levels of these particulates from wildfires at least one day a year has increased 27-fold over the last decade, a new study found, with 25 million people in 2020 alone breathing in potentially toxic air from fires.

Pockets of deeply unhealthy air have emerged mainly in the US west, the staging ground for wildfires of increasing intensity that have been fueled by years of fire suppression and global heating, priming forests to burn. Six of the seven largest wildfires in Californiaā€™s recorded history have occurred since 2020.

Wildfire smoke can result in the closure of schools, the postponement of flights and even cause cycling races and Pearl Jam concerts to be canceled. But its most pervasive impact is a regression in air quality barely seen since the advent of the Clean Air Act in 1970, which helped lift dangerous, choking smog conditions from many polluted US cities.

ā€œWe are seeing the undoing of a lot of that clean air progress, especially in the west,ā€ said Marshall Burke, a scientist at Stanford University and co-author of the study published in Environmental Science and Technology.

ā€œThereā€™s been really dramatic increases in wildfire smoke as air pollution, in some places fully reversing the impact of the Clean Air Act. Itā€™s been remarkably quick. Our air pollution regulations are not designed to deal with this. Itā€™s a worrying problem.ā€

The new study is based on a model that calculates how wildfire smoke has raised background pollution levels in locations across the US. It measures the presence of PM2.5, tiny particles about one-thirtieth of the width of a human hair that can travel through the air and bury themselves deep in the lungs of people when inhaled.

Wildfire smoke has added about five micrograms of these particles to locations in the US west, on average, which is a sizable increase from national levels, which are about 10 micrograms from other sources of particulate pollution, such as the emissions from cars, trucks and power plants.

Unlike these other sources, which are regulated by government, wildfire smoke is less predictable, reaches farther and is more egalitarian in whom it affectsā€”the wealthy and white as well as poor people of color who are disproportionately exposed to pollution from nearby highways and factories.

ā€œWildfires produce an amazing amount of particulates that can travel thousands of miles, unlike other pollution,ā€ said Burke. Last summer, New York experienced some of the worst air quality in the world due to smoke from wildfires several thousand miles away on the west coast of the US.

A decade ago, fewer than 500,000 people in the US were exposed to any days of an air quality index of 100 or above due to smoke, a level that is deemed unhealthy. Now, Burke said, 5 million Americans are living in areas with such levels at least one day a year.

ā€œIf you donā€™t live near a highway or power plant your air quality is likely to be fairly good, but incursion from wildfire smoke is changing that and thereā€™s evidence this will increase,ā€ he said. ā€œHonestly, it was surprising to see how quickly these extreme exposures have gone up.ā€

The dangers posed by wildfire smoke are of increasing concern for experts in various places around the worldā€”a summer of intense wildfires in Spain, France and Portugal has resulted in Europeā€™s highest wildfire emissions in 15 years. The probability of catastrophic wildfire events around the globe will increase by 30 percent by the end of the century even if planet-heating gases are rapidly cut, according to the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

ā€œAs the globe warms, wildfires and associated air pollution are expected to increase, even under a low emissions scenario. In addition to human health impacts, this will also affect ecosystems as air pollutants settle from the atmosphere to Earthā€™s surface,ā€ said Petteri Taalas, secretary general of the World Meteorological Organization.

ā€œWe have seen this in the heatwaves in Europe and China this year when stable high atmospheric conditions, sunlight and low wind speeds were conducive to high pollution levels.ā€

Research has linked wildfire smoke to the worsening of several conditions. Fierce wildfires in California in 2020 caused people to inhale smoke that raised their risk of heart attacks by up to 70 percent, a study found, with the smoke causing an estimated 3,000 deaths in people older than 65.

A separate study published in May found that people living within 31 miles of wildfires over the past decade had a 10 percent higher incidence of brain tumors and a 5 percent higher chance of developing lung cancer compared with people living farther away.

Breathing in wildfire smoke while pregnant, meanwhile, raises the risk of premature birth and even worsens outcomes for people who contract Covid-19. Francesca Dominici, a Harvard University professor who led the research on the link between wildfire smoke and Covid, said Burkeā€™s new study is ā€œwell validatedā€ and an ā€œexciting area of research.ā€

ā€œThe results are interesting and concerning,ā€ Dominici said, adding that there is ā€œemergent evidenceā€ that PM2.5 from smoke is more toxic than particles from other sources.

George Thurston, an environmental health scientist at the NYU School of Medicine, said that there is still more to be learned about the impact of wildfire smoke, with some research suggesting fossil fuel combustion is in fact more harmful, but that the new study is an ā€œimportant additionā€ to the estimates of exposure of wildfire smoke.

ā€œWe need studies like this to assess how big a risk this is, because the Environmental Protection Agency exempts these fires from air quality standards,ā€ Thurston said. ā€œThis sort of work helps us to work out if new standards are required.ā€

Burke said the threat of smoke became obvious to many in California in 2020 when the skies over the San Francisco Bay Area turned orange. Some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the world have suffered from poor indoor air quality due to smoke, alleviated only by air filtration.

ā€œThe sun never came up in the Bay Area, which really brought home this is a different era we are living in,ā€ Burke said. ā€œWe naively thought we were safe in our homes but the health guidance is inadequate. In my own home I closed all the windows and doors and yet I got a monitor and found the indoor air quality was appalling.ā€

Drastic cuts to greenhouse gases, better forest management where fuels are thinned or burned away in a controlled manner and improved guidance to households will all be required to improve the situation, Burke said. ā€œWe shouldnā€™t think about wildfires just in terms of numbers of homes burned down but also how many people have been exposed to pollution, because there are huge impacts that we just arenā€™t thinking about,ā€ he said.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate