Focus on tangible policies—not political finger-pointing— to reduce fire risks

With the picturesque town of Jasper badly damaged by fire, Albertans and Canadians across the country are wondering how such destruction was allowed to happen.

Much of the public debate assumes that the disaster, in some way, was human-caused or aggravated by governmental negligence or incompetence. Some argue that government policies to suppress natural wildfires, which were widely implemented across North America after the Second World War, allowed the build-up of massive amounts of fuel for potential mega-blazes. Others argue that governments have been negligent by failing to allow aggressive logging of dead trees and by using insufficient controlled burns to manage fuel loads of underbrush. Some, of course, blame climate change—specifically human-caused climate change. And yes, the climate has changed, warming about 1.2 degrees Celsius since 1850, which may contribute to a heightened risk of forest fires (although there’s no ability to attribute any single climatic event to climate change).

But focusing on these issues misses the forest for the trees and raises philosophical questions about humanity’s relationship with nature, specifically, whether or not it’s desirable—much less feasible—for humanity to think we can control nature at large scales and turn the world into a giant tame botanical garden. Further, focusing on these questions of “too much” or “too little” intervention mostly serves political interests trying to beat each other over the head about climate policies, which are at best capable of only slightly—very slightly—affecting the risk of future forest fires.

Rather, having studied environmental, health and safety policy for several decades, I believe we should focus on very different specific questions about how the fire was allowed to ravage Jasper. These questions cut through the foggier questions of how we manage nature and instead focus on how we manage human risks.

So, was the very specific area around Jasper—not the entire forested lands of Alberta—managed aggressively enough? In 2018, 350 hectares of trees around Jasper were removed. Apparently, that was not enough to protect the human-built environment. Parks Canada will have to answer that question in time.

Did the provincial and federal governments fall short in maintaining sufficient fire-fighting capabilities to protect Jasper? According to some reports, this was a significant source of failure, where the federal government, which maintains no ability to fight fires at night, failed to coordinate with Alberta’s provincial government, which does have night-fighting capabilities.

Did the town of Jasper take enough precautions to protect itself from the risk of conflagration? Are building codes in Jasper sufficiently stringent at fire-proofing human structures? Is the fuel burden within the township itself sufficiently controlled? More broadly, how much are we willing to spend to reduce risks? And how far should we aim to reduce those risks?

The answers to these questions could help produce tangible policies that may help reduce the risk of fire damage in the future.

There’s a lot of finger-pointing right now. Political point-scoring is the order of the day, particularly in the realm of climate policies. But using the Jasper fire for political ends distracts from the important questions about whether or not anybody or any level of government should try to tame nature outside of human-built environments. And about what policies will work best to protect towns like Jasper.