Amazon fires drive unprecedented global forest loss in 2024
By Manuela Andreoni and Alexander Villegas for Reuters
Almost 7 million hectares of tropical pristine forests was lost in 2024, with Brazil unable to contain fires in the Amazon. File photo.
Photo:
AFP / GUSTAVO BASSO
Massive fires fueled by climate change led global forest loss to smash records in 2024, according to a new report.
Loss of tropical pristine forests alone reached 6.7 million hectares, an 80 percent spike compared to 2023 and an area roughly the size of Panama, mainly because Brazil, the host of the next global climate summit in November, struggled to contain fires in the Amazon amid the worst drought ever recorded in the rainforest.
A myriad of other countries, including Bolivia and Canada, were also ravaged by wildfires.
It was the first time the annual report - issued by the World Resources Institute and the University of Maryland - showed fires as the leading cause of tropical forest loss, a grim milestone for a naturally humid ecosystem that is not supposed to burn.
"The signals in these data are particularly frightening," said Matthew Hansen, the co-director of a lab at the University of Maryland that compiled and analyzed the data. "The fear is that the climate signal is going to overtake our ability to respond effectively."
Latin America was hit particularly hard, the report said, with the Amazon biome hitting its highest level of primary forest loss since 2016.
Brazil, which holds the largest share of the world's tropical forests, lost 2.8 million hectares, the most of any country. It was a reversal of the progress made in 2023 when President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva took office promising to protect the world's largest rainforest.
"This was unprecedented, which means we have to adapt all our policy to a new reality," said Andre Lima, who oversees deforestation control policies for Brazil's Ministry of Environment, adding that fire, which was never among the leading causes of forest loss, is now a top priority for the government.
Bolivia overtook the Democratic Republic of Congo as the second country with the most tropical forest loss despite having less than half the amount of forest as the African nation, which also saw a spike in forest loss last year.
Bolivia's forest loss surged by 200 percent in 2024, with a drought, wildfires and a government-incentivized agricultural expansion as the leading causes. Across Latin America, the report noted similar trends in Mexico, Peru, Nicaragua, and Guatemala.
Conflicts in Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo also boosted deforestation rates, as armed groups used up natural resources.
Outside the tropics, boreal forests, which evolved with seasonal fires, also posted record-high tree loss in 2024, with Canada and Russia each losing 5.2 million hectares in 2024 as wildfires got out of control.
Southeast Asia bucked the global trend with Malaysia, Laos, and Indonesia all posting double-digit decreases in primary forest loss, as domestic conservation policy, combined with efforts by communities and the private sector, continued to effectively contain fires and agricultural expansion.
Another outlier was the Charagua Iyambae Indigenous territory in southern Bolivia, which was able to keep the country's record fires at bay through land-use policies and early warning systems.
Rod Taylor, the global director for forests at the WRI, said that as leaders descend on the Amazonian city of Belem for the next climate summit, he would like to see countries make progress in introducing better funding mechanisms for conservation.
"At the moment," he said, "there's more money to be paid by chopping forests down than keeping them standing."
- Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
4 days ago
- Scoop
Luxon Must End Climate Denial Speculation
The Greens welcome the open letter from world-leading climate scientists to the Prime Minister, urging his Government to abandon any plan to water down climate targets. 'Christopher Luxon must end any further speculation that his Government is on the climate denial bandwagon. After wasting a year playing around with the mythical 'no additional warming' idea, international alarm bells are ringing,' says Green Party co-leader and Climate Change spokesperson, Chlöe Swarbrick. 'The Climate Change Commission is clear that any entertainment of 'no additional warming' from agricultural gasses would mean households and businesses across the rest of the economy carrying a far higher burden. 'International experts are rightfully calling out this accounting trick. It's about fixing numbers on a page while the real world burns. 'While the Government doesn't tend to show any care for people and the planet, perhaps they would understand that pushing ahead with this agenda poses huge risks for our international exports, climate and trade agreements. 'The Greens have shown how we can reduce real-world emissions five times faster than the Government's 'plan,' while reducing the cost of living and improving our quality of life. 'New Zealanders deserve so much better than this Government's low ambitions for our country,' says Chlöe Swarbrick.
RNZ News
4 days ago
- RNZ News
Climate change scientists accuse government of 'ignoring scientific evidence'
Climate change scientists have written an open letter to Christopher Luxon warning that New Zealand government plans to introduce new agriculture methane targets will jeopardise existing agreements. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi More than 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, accusing the government of "ignoring scientific evidence" and urging it to "deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees". The open letter warns the New Zealand government that plans to introduce new agriculture methane targets based on a goal of causing ''no additional warming" will jeopardise New Zealand's commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Global Methane Pledge. The 26 scientists from different countries say adopting targets consistent with no additional warming implies that current methane emissions levels are acceptable when they are not. "Setting a 'no additional warming' target is to say that the wildfires in America, drought in Africa, floods across Europe, bushfires in Australia, increasing food insecurity and disease, and much more to come are all fine and acceptable, signatory Paul Behrens, global professor of environmental change at Oxford University said in a statement sent to RNZ. "The irony is that agriculture, one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, has many large, vested interests that resist and lobby against the very changes and just transitions needed to avoid those impacts," he said. Another scientist behind the letter was quoted prominently in UK newspaper the Financial Times saying the New Zealand government's approach was an "accounting trick" designed to hide the impact of agriculture in rich countries with big farming sectors, namely Ireland and New Zealand. Luxon dismissed the letter, saying academics "should send their letters to other countries" and he was not going to penalise New Zealand farmers because they were already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". New Zealand has one of the highest per-capita methane rates in the world because of its farming exports, as well as high per capita carbon emissions. Agricultural lobby groups argue the government should lower its 2050 methane target so that, rather than aiming to reduce global heating from livestock, it would aim to keep them the same, a target known as "no additional warming". The current target of 24-47 percent by 2050 already reflects the fact that methane is shorter lived at heating the planet than carbon dioxide, but farming groups says it is too high - and the current government appears receptive. Federated Farmers says the current target is unscientific, and the government appointed a panel to conduct a "scientific review" to the side of its independent Climate Change Commission. Lowering the target would fly in the face of advice from the commission, which says reductions of 35-47 percent are needed for New Zealand to deliver on its commitments under the Paris Agreement. Signatory to the letter Professor Drew Schindel is a professor of climate science at Duke University in the US and chair of the 2021 UNEP Global Methane Assessment. "The New Zealand government is setting a dangerous precedent," he said. "Adopting a goal of no additional warming means New Zealand would allow agri-methane emissions to continue at current high levels instead of using the solutions we have available to cut them. "Agriculture is the biggest source of methane from human activity - we can't afford for New Zealand or any other government to exempt it from climate action," he said in a statement sent to RNZ. Shindell told the Financial Times that using the New Zealand government's approach: "If you're a rich farmer that happens to have a lot of cows, then you can keep those cows forever" which "penalises anybody who's not already a big player in agriculture", including "poor farmers in Africa that are trying to feed a growing population". Agricultural lobby groups argue the government should lower its 2050 methane target. Photo: Supplied The letter was prompted by a powerful push by agriculture lobby groups here and overseas for developed countries to base their climate targets on an alternative method for calculating methane's climate impact, which estimates its contribution to warming based on how emissions are changing relative to a baseline. Proponents argue the newer method, known as global warming potential star (GWP*), better reflects methane's short-lived nature in the atmosphere compared to the long-lasting effects of carbon dioxide and should replace the traditional method of averaging climate impacts over 100 years. Experts say both methods are scientifically valid and can be used to reveal different things. The controversy is over using GWP* to argue that farming sectors in wealthy countries do not have to reduce their climate impacts. The letter argues using GWP* to justify not reducing the impact of farming is incompatible with global efforts to limit heating to between 1.5 and 2C. "It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'," Behrens told the Financial Times . The government's science review of New Zealand's methane target has been dismissed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as a purely political exercise. Simon Upton has said there is no particular reason why farmers should get to 'keep' today's levels of heating, particularly given farming's climate impact is larger than it was in 1990. Methane has caused most of New Zealand's contribution to heating so far, partly because it acts more quickly than carbon dioxide, front-loading the impact before it tails off. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said Cabinet was still carefully considering its decision on whether to lower the target and to what level. He said he did not take the commentary to heart and "it doesn't stop the direction of travel we are following in undertaking a scientific review". Simon Watts said he remained happy with how the government's review of New Zealand's methane target was progressing. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone He said he remained happy with the context of the review and the expertise of the scientists the government selected for it. The panel established by the government last year concluded a 14 - 24 percent reduction in methane emissions off 2017 levels by 2050 was sufficient to ensure no additional warming from the livestock industry. The review was led by former climate change commissioner and former Fonterra board member Nicola Shadbolt. However the panel was not allowed to comment on whether "no additional warming" was an appropriate target. That decision remains one for Cabinet to make. Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford University's physics department and one of the scientists behind GWP*, agreed it was a political call - telling the Financial Times that governments, not scientists, must decide whether farmers should undo past warming from herd growth. He said he supported separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide, and said traditional approaches to methane overstated the warming impact of keeping emissions the same, and were slow to reflect the impact of raising or lowering methane. Methane is more potent over short periods than carbon dioxide, so raising or lowering it has an immediate strong impact. New Zealand has separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide. The latter needs to fall to net zero by 2050. The open letter comes almost a year to the day after a top Australian climate scientist told RNZ the government's goal of 'no added heating' from farming's methane was problematic. Professor Mark Howden , Australasia's top representative on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said taking a "sensible" mid-point from various IPCC pathways, methane would need to fall by roughly 60 percent by 2050 to meet global climate goals, though not all of that reduction needed to come from agriculture. Oil and gas industry leaks are also major contributors to methane production, and are under pressure to fall more rapidly, because they do not contribute to food production. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
4 days ago
- RNZ News
Rain bombs cast cloud over Matatā housing growth
A rain bomb in the hills above Matatā in March this year saw sediment and debris-laden water overtop Moore's bridge closing State Highway 2 and entering private properties. Photo: LDR / supplied Whakatāne Mayor Victor Luca says building more homes within Matatā now would be a mistake due to the potential damage from "rain bombs" and worsening weather. Matatā is one of the areas named in the draft Eastern Bay Spatial Plan as a key growth area for housing, with infill housing of up to 700 homes and the potential for development of up to 800 homes eastward of Pollen Street over the next 30 years. At an infrastructure and planning committee meeting on Thursday, council learned that since August, Whakatāne District Council has spent more than $300,000 clearing sediment and debris from Matatā catchpits after it washed down from stream catchments due to localised "rain bombs". Most of the cost was incurred between between February and May due to several heavy rain events in the hills above the town during that period. Rain bombs are usually associated with burst of heavy rain that has potential to do damage. Luca said it would be a mistake to densify Matatā with what was going on there at the moment. "Climate change is the elephant in the room and we seem to have consistently underestimated the effects. "There's a micro-climate [in the Matatā catchment]. It's not totally predictable, but it looks like things are going to keep getting worse. "These rain bombs that come - this is the second in 20 years but they don't have to be linear, there could be another one in a year or two. "This has to be fixed and the people living there have to be given some comfort." A rain bomb in the hills above Matatā in March this year saw sediment and debris-laden water overtop Moore's bridge closing State Highway 2 and entering private properties. Photo: LDR / supplied After the 2005 debris flow, the council placed sediment and debris catchpits in Matatā both at the Awatarariki Stream on the western side of the town and Waitepuru Stream on the north-eastern side of the town. A $70,000 annual maintenance budget is supposed to cover the cost of keeping these catchpits clear so that the town and lagoon do not suffer debris flooding events. Despite this, earlier this year a heavy rainfall event localised in the hills above Matatā saw sediment and debris overwhelm Moore's Bridge, which crosses the Awatarariki Stream, blocking State Highway 2 and entering properties on Pioneer Place. While some of the cost overrun for removing debris was covered from an emergency stormwater fund, $112,000 of unbudgeted spending needed to be approved which would likely come from an internal loan. This amount also included the repair of a blown out stormwater pipe in Murupara. Three waters manager Jim Finlay suggested this sediment and debris coming down the rivers could be mediated with rock weirs slowing the flow of the water, at an estimated cost to the council of $140,000. "It's terrible that we're just sitting there waiting for this to happen and you have to clean up each time and if you don't you are possibly going to have flooding down the highway and through the town from both of those streams." He likened it to "someone having a party in your house every week and you've got to go and clean up the mess". Councillor Gavin Dennis recently presented to the Bay of Plenty Regional Land Transport Committee about the Moores Bridge incident which resulted in a debris flood. He asked that the bridge be improved and that New Zealand Transport Agency and New Zealand Rail increase their maintenance on their State Highway 2 and railway bridges. Finlay said New Zealand Rail had since cleared out their culverts on the Awatarariki Stream and had further work planned for clearing culverts on the Waitepuru Stream. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
