Reacción a "Study assesses benefits of prescribed forest fires for air pollution"

The study quantitatively estimates the benefits of low-intensity fires in terms of smoke emissions. Based on data from over 1,000 fires in California and simulations, the authors calculate that sustained use of low-intensity fires in coniferous forests could reduce the cumulative pollution from fine particulate matter (PM2.5) caused by fires by around 10% over a decade. The reasoning is that in low-intensity fires, much of the fuel (for example, logs or organic matter on the ground) does not burn. Furthermore, they reduce fuel continuity and prevent large accumulations that favour very severe fires, where everything or almost everything burns, resulting in the emission of large quantities of smoke. It is a robust study given the volume of data and the methodology used, although it is worth remembering that not all ecosystems respond in the same way.

For Spain, the underlying conclusion is highly relevant, as after decades of rural neglect and policies focused on extinguishing as many fires as possible, we have accumulated fuel and increased the likelihood of extreme fires, such as those experienced in the summer of 2025. California is not Spain, but it does offer a useful warning about yet another consequence of the systematic suppression of fire. Here, low-risk fire grazing, controlled burns or prescribed burns are underused techniques that generally result in low-severity fires. We knew that these burns serve to reduce the severity of future fires and prevent catastrophic events, and now, following this study, we can also say that they may be useful for protecting air quality in the medium term. The growing body of scientific evidence in favour of these techniques should have implications for the development and implementation of fire and landscape management policies.