Scattered across the California landscape, hundreds of goats represent a unique and natural strategy for wildfire prevention. The ruminant animals are employed to munch on potentially hazardous vegetation — grass, shrubs, and weeds that could fuel dangerous wildfires. Jason Poupolo, parks superintendent for the city of West Sacramento, affirms,

“It’s a huge fuel source. If it was left untamed, it can grow very high. And then when the summer dries everything out, it’s perfect fuel for a fire.”

These goats have become invaluable partners in wildfire prevention due to their ability to graze in hard-to-reach, steep terrains and consume a wide variety of vegetation. This process, known as ‘targeted grazing,’ is being hailed as an eco-friendly alternative to chemical herbicides and noisy, polluting weed-whacking machines.

However, recent changes in state labor regulations are posing a threat to this innovative wildfire prevention strategy. These new rules, which raise the monthly salary of herders from about $3,730 to a daunting $14,000, according to the California Farm Bureau, have put the future of the goat-grazing industry in jeopardy.

Tim Arrowsmith, owner of Western Grazers, provides a grim prediction of what the new regulations could mean for his business:

“Without a fix to the new regulations, we will be forced to sell these goats to slaughter and to the auction yards, and we’ll be forced out of business and probably file for bankruptcy.”

His company, which manages around 4,000 goats, provides crucial grazing services to government agencies and private landowners across Northern California, demonstrating the considerable scale of this looming crisis.

One of the contentious issues is that goatherding jobs necessitate round-the-clock availability, leading to herders being paid a monthly minimum salary rather than an hourly wage. However, legislation signed in 2016 extended overtime pay rights to these herders, increasing the minimum monthly pay and further escalating the operational costs for herding companies.

From January, these labor costs are slated to rise again sharply, as a state agency has decreed that goatherders should no longer follow a separate set of labor rules, but rather be subject to the same labor laws as other farmworkers. This would elevate goatherders’ pay even higher, possibly reaching up to $14,000 a month. These changes, according to goatherding companies, would make providing goat-grazing services untenable, leading to a potential collapse of this sector.

Arrowsmith notes the dire implications of this regulatory overhaul, stating,

“I can’t pay $14,000 a month to an employee starting Jan. 1. There’s just not enough money. The cities can’t absorb that kind of cost. What’s at stake for the public is your house could burn up because we can’t fire-mitigate.”

As California invests heavily in wildfire prevention, having witnessed the destructive impact of wildfires over the past years, the impending challenge to the goat-grazing industry could undermine these efforts significantly.

World Meteorological Congress approves global greenhouse gas monitoring initiative

In a recent development, the World Meteorological Congress approved the Global Greenhouse Gas Watch (GGGW), a project to monitor greenhouse gases on a global scale. The initiative intends to “fill critical information gaps” and provide a framework that brings together surface-based and space-based observing systems, modeling, and data assimilation capabilities.

We should cautiously welcome the initiative and the consolidation of international efforts it represents. As Prof. Petteri Taalas, WMO secretary-general, noted, “There are still uncertainties, especially regarding the role in the carbon cycle of the ocean, the land biosphere and the permafrost areas.”

However, while new data gathering initiatives like GGGW are important, how the collected data will be handled raises questions. Specifically, our concern should be what happens once this data starts being homogenized, filtered, adjusted, or otherwise processed for use in various climate models and political discussions.

The four main components of the GGGW initiative consist of:

• A global set of surface-based and satellite-based observations of CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O concentrations, total column amounts, partial column amounts, vertical profiles and fluxes, and supporting meteorological, oceanic and terrestrial variables, internationally exchanged as rapidly as possible, pending capabilities and agreements with the system operators;
• Prior estimates of the GHG emissions based on activity data and process-based models;
• A set of global high-resolution Earth system models representing GHG cycles;
• Associated with the models, data assimilation systems that optimally combine the observations with model calculations to generate products of higher accuracy.

However, the devil, as they say, is in the details. Remember, scientific progress depends not only on data collection but also on rigorous, unbiased data analysis. So, how will the GGGW ensure that these vast data sets are processed in an impartial manner? We’ve seen instances in the past where data homogenization or filtering led to significant shifts in conclusions about climate trends. How do we ensure we don’t repeat the same mistakes?

Dr. Lars Peter Riishøjgaard, deputy director of the WMO’s infrastructure department, stressed that the initiative will provide “valuable, timely and authoritative information on greenhouse gas fluxes to the UNFCCC parties.” This is all well and good, but we should also remember that these parties are political entities with their own agendas and pressures. Is there not a risk that this rich trove of data might be misused or skewed to fit preconceived narratives?

To safeguard the integrity of this project, we need transparency and open dialogue. The data and the methodologies used to process it should be freely available for scrutiny by independent scientists around the world. That’s the best way to ensure that this initiative lives up to its promise and truly helps us understand the complex issue of climate change.

In summary, we should welcome the GGGW initiative, but caution is necessary. If we’re to avoid the pitfalls of the past, transparency and impartiality in data processing and interpretation are crucial. The climate debate, fraught as it is with contention and political baggage, would benefit greatly from a robust and unbiased source of information. Let’s hope the GGGW can deliver just that.

HT/Mumbles McGuick