this post was submitted on 22 Sep 2025
63 points (97.0% liked)

Canada

10498 readers
684 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
63
Study Estimates 2023 Canadian Wildfire Smoke Caused 82,000 Premature Deaths Globally (www.theenergymix.com)
submitted 1 week ago by Sunshine@piefed.social to c/canada@lemmy.ca
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Honestly, when put into context, those numbers are "nothing".

The WHO estimates that outdoor air pollution resulted in over 4 million premature deaths worldwide in 2019 alone! When combined with indoor air pollution, we're talking over 6.5 million people per year. (source)

Other studies say vehicle exhaust kills over 300,000 a year. (source)

[–] streetfestival@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I disagree. 82,000 premature deaths are certainly not nothing. You can say "yeah, well those 82,000 made up only 2% of worldwide premature deaths from outdoor air pollution that year," (using the 2019 estimate you cite) - but so what? What's gleaned from that part-vs-whole comparison? I guess it's a good thing there's so much existing air pollution that our wildfires didn't drive those worldwide numbers up more? /s (Also look at it per capita: it was one season; we're a large country, but we've a teeny human population)

Could we have killed more people if the affected forests were surrounded by a much denser human population, say such as in China or India? /s

More relevant, I think, is comparing Canada's contributions to these types of deaths year over year. These numbers should disturb.

And these numbers certainly aren't nothing to the even larger number of people affected by wildfires, such as those who can't go outside during wildfires because of health risks. Or their family members. Or those providing them medical or social care.

[–] Showroom7561@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

I agree with you, and put "nothing" in quotes for a reason.

Wildfires are mostly out of our control, but nearly all other forms of air pollution (ok, except volcanoes) are in our control, and we really need to step up our game as a global community.

I guess that's the point of bringing up the comparison with the whole.

If we were to allocate resources, would it be better to mitigate things outside of our control, or should we use those resources to reduce or stop the things that are in our control?

And to that point, what effect would respirators have on these numbers? I noticed in recent reports, where people in Canada were harmed or died because of wildfire smoke, there was never a mention of wearing respirators, especially by those living in the area of those wildfires.

If governments handed out free P100 masks, would people even wear them? Would there be political fights over the "right" to not wear a mask, and add to the burden of those 80,000+ deaths?

More people are dying from car exhaust, yet there seems to be a massive push against active transportation.

The entire thing is frustrating. The things we can control, we seem to fight over, and end up with millions dying prematurely because of it.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

It's a temperate forest and a huge carbon sink.

We should do better globally at preventing its burning.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wildfires are part of the natural cycle of forests. To some degree the extreme fires we've had in recent years has been because we did such a good job preventing them in previous decades, a backlog has built up.

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Wut???

[–] rImITywR@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Pretty typical climate change denial bs.

People express concerns about rapid rise in [CLIMATE CHANGE WARNING SIGN], and some smarmy weasel comes in and says "dontcha know some level of [CLIMATE CHANGE WARNING SIGN] is good, akshually".

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ah yes, people must be either 100% WITH YOU or 100% AGAINST YOU.

I'm not a climate change denier. That doesn't mean that I believe every single thing that ends up in a headline must be a clear-cut harbinger of climate doom, with no complexity behind it. Wildfires are one of those complicated things, Smokey the Bear's simplistic "nothing must burn ever!" Approach was a disaster for forest management. We do need some amount of wildfires for healthy forests.

If you reread my comment:

To some degree the extreme fires we've had in recent years has been because we did such a good job preventing them in previous decades, a backlog has built up.

Emphasis added.

[–] rImITywR@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

dontcha know some degree of wildefire is good, akshually

Said the smarmy weasel.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, you're the one who's made those words up and who is using ad hominems.

Did you know that a lot of pine tree species produce serotinous cones, which are literally dependant on fire to open? They're glued shut with resin that melts when fires come through, which lets them spread seed in the aftermath of a fire when conditions are optimal for new seedlings to sprout. An odd adaptation for trees if fire is some kind of alien imposition that humans invented and imposed on nature. The Wikipedia article on controlled burns has more detail on how fire can be beneficial to forest ecosystems.

[–] rImITywR@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We're not talking about normal wildfires. We're talking about increasingly severe fires that are happening more frequently. And in particular, this fire that directly killed 82k people. And how these are going to keep happening and keep getting worse, killing more and more people.

Chiming in saying with "wildfires are good" makes you look like you are trying to deflect from that conversation. Making you look like a smarmy weasel.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 1 week ago

The comment I originally responded to said:

We should do better globally at preventing it's burning.

No caveats or complexity about what's a "normal" wildfire or not. My contribution was just to point out that there are "normal" wildfires, and we shouldn't be suppressing every possible fire under every circumstance.

You are now agreeing that there are "normal" wildfires in this comment.

And in particular, this fire that directly killed 82k people.

No, these deaths were explicitly indirect. And they weren't a result on one particular fire, they were from all wildfires in 2023. The premature deaths represent the chronic impacts of wildfire smoke, which interacts with pre-existing risk factors and conditions, such as heart or lung disease, to potentially contribute to shortening a person’s life.

None of which relates to whether wildfires play a role in healthy forest ecosystems, which is what I was talking about.

Chiming in saying with "wildfires are good"

And I also didn't say that. For someone accusing me of being a "weasel" you sure are making up a lot of stuff.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Here's the first link I dug up on the subject, here's another from a different source if you don't trust the government. There are lots out there, could you be more specific about your question?

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think you misunderstand what constitutes normal forest fires compared to country wide wildfires that suffocate the entire continent 3 years in a row.

This isn't normal. It's caused by a radical increase in global temperatures and a decrease in precipitation and weather patterns the likes of which we have never seen before.

And this isn't just affecting Canada. It's worldwide.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

And I was supposed to get any of that from "Wut???"

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yes. It's a common reply to comments to point out that they don't make sense, or defy rational thought.

In your case, it's pointing out that the wildfires we have experienced for 3 years in a row, where entire regions have had to be evacuated, villages nearly disappeared, where large areas of North America have faced extreme levels of smog pollution is... normal and long overdue. It goes against what every climatologist and other experts have said.

So because of that, your statement comes across as ignorant and as denying climate change. That's why people are baffled or upset at your statements.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 0 points 1 week ago

In your case, it's pointing out that the wildfires we have experienced for 3 years in a row, where entire regions have had to be evacuated, villages nearly disappeared, where large areas of North America have faced extreme levels of smog pollution is... normal and long overdue.

Which I didn't do. You imagined that, and then didn't even mention what you'd imagined I'd said when trying to get me to justify it.

So because of that, your statement comes across as ignorant

Says the guy whose only response was "Wut???"

[–] Bebopalouie@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

Hmm what are the stats on other wildfires. If scaled would it be the same amount of deaths let’s say per 1000 on different fires.