The quest to avert the most severe wildfires has increasingly embraced advanced technology. Various companies are introducing AI systems for fire detection and drones capable of extinguishing initial flames. Additionally, a Canadian startup claims to be targeting the source—lightning.
Lightning-induced blazes can be significant: The wildfires in Canada during 2023 emitted close to 500 million metric tons of carbon, and fires ignited by lightning consumed 93% of the burned area. Skyward Wildfire asserts that it can prevent wildfires from initiating in the first place by mitigating lightning strikes.
This ambitious claim has been scrutinized by my colleague James Temple in his latest article. (You should check out the entire piece; it contains a wealth of captivating history and intriguing science.) As James highlights, significant uncertainty remains regarding the efficacy of this approach and the conditions under which it might operate. However, I was left pondering another question: If we could prevent fires sparked by lightning, would we actually want to?
As you move across a carpet, friction causes electrons to shift, resulting in ions accumulating and forming an electric field. In the context of lightning, it’s the interaction of snowflakes and small ice bits known as graupel. They become separated by rising air currents, leading to a charge difference that ultimately triggers an electrostatic discharge—lightning.
Since around the 1950s, scientists have speculated if it could be possible to thwart lightning strikes. Some proposed utilizing metallic chaff, which consists of fiberglass fibers coated in aluminum. (The military had already adopted this material to interfere with radar signals.) The premise is that the chaff can function as a conductor, curtailing the accumulation of static electricity that would typically lead to a lightning strike.
The theory is reasonably sound, but findings thus far have been variable. Some studies hint that substantial amounts of chaff may be necessary to effectively hinder lightning. Many of the initial experiments testing this method were limited in scale. Moreover, Skyward Wildfire has not provided much information regarding their efforts, as they have not shared field trial data or released any peer-reviewed research that we could locate.
Even if this strategy can indeed avert lightning, should we proceed with it?
Lightning-driven fires could become an escalating concern due to climate change. Research indicates that such fires have significantly risen in the Arctic boreal region, where climate warming is most pronounced.
However, fire itself is not intrinsically negative—numerous ecosystems have adapted to incorporate fire. Some of the most devastating wildfires today stem from a mix of climate-exacerbated conditions and policies that have permitted fuel to accumulate, leading to uncontrollable blazes when they do ignite.
Some specialists concur that approaches like Skyward’s must be employed carefully. “Even if we have the technical ability to prevent lightning-ignited wildfires, we still need to consider when and where to intervene so we don’t worsen the fuel accumulation issue,” noted Phillip Stepanian, a technical staff member at MIT Lincoln Laboratory’s air traffic control and weather systems division, in correspondence with James.
We are also aware that methods such as prescribed burns can significantly decrease the danger of extreme fires—if we permit and fund them.
The company asserts it does not plan to eliminate all lightning or every wildfire. “We do not aim to abolish all wildfires and advocate for prescribed and cultural burning, natural fire processes, and proactive forest management,” said Nicholas Harterre, who manages government collaborations at Skyward, in an email to James. Instead, the company seeks to diminish the chances of ignition on specific high-risk days, Harterre explained.
Some early responses to this story suggest that technological solutions to wildfires are entirely missing the point. Many of these solutions “fundamentally misunderstand the problem,” as Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, remarked in a comment on the story on LinkedIn. The issue isn’t the existence of fire, Swain argues, but its escalating intensity and its intersection with society due to human-induced factors. “Preventing ignitions does not address any of the underlying causes of increasingly destructive wildfires,” he concludes.
It’s hard to believe that investigating additional firefighting methods is a misguided approach. However, it seems both crucial and quite challenging to discern which techniques are worth implementing and how they can be utilized without placing us in even greater potential jeopardy.
This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.
