Climate-driven extreme fire danger cannot be prevented by carbon neutrality alone
image: (a) Changes in carbon dioxide emissions (dashed lines) and concentrations (solid lines) over 400 years under different carbon forcing scenarios Net-negative scenario (blue): Carbon emissions increase linearly until 2050, then decline, reaching a minimum in 2196, after which carbon neutrality is maintained. Net-zero scenario (red): Follows the same emissions pathway as the carbon reduction scenario, reaches carbon neutrality in 2123, and maintains it through 2400. (b) Changes in the frequency of extreme fire weather relative to the present climate under each scenario Spatial distribution of changes in the frequency of extreme fire weather (Left) under the net-negative scenario and (Right) under the net-zero scenario. Days of extreme fire weather are defined as days exceeding the 95th percentile threshold of the daily Fire Weather Index (FWI) derived from the present reference period (P0: 2001–2031). Changes relative to the present represent the difference between the N7 or Z7 period shown in panel (a) and the P0 baseline period. (c) Changes in the intensity of extreme fire weather relative to the present climate under each scenario Spatial distribution of changes in the intensity of extreme fire weather (Left) under the net-negative scenario and (Right) under the net-zero scenario. The maps show future changes in annual maximum Fire Weather Index (FWI) value, indicating the peak fire danger index throughout the year, relative to present-day conditions
Credit: POSTECH
A new study warns that unless atmospheric carbon is reduced immediately, future summers will become even hotter and future wildfires even more destructive.
A research team led by Professor Seung-Ki Min of the Department of Environmental Engineering at POSTECH (Pohang University of Science and Technology) has found that merely achieving “carbon neutrality” by reducing emissions is not sufficient to significantly reduce extreme wildfire risk. The team argues that active “carbon reduction” - removing carbon dioxide already accumulated in the atmosphere - must be pursued in parallel. The study was recently published in Science Advances.
Large-scale wildfires are becoming more frequent and more intense worldwide. Each year, thousands of people lose their lives, ecosystems are devastated, and enormous economic losses are incurred. Wildfires are often viewed as disasters triggered by ignition sources such as lightning strikes, discarded cigarettes, or human negligence. However, the real driver lies elsewhere. Large wildfires are fundamentally driven by climate conditions shaped by temperature, humidity, and wind. As temperatures rise and the air becomes drier, forests become tinderboxes, allowing fires to burn longer and spread farther.
Using climate simulations, the POSTECH research team compared two possible futures. One scenario achieves carbon neutrality by reducing carbon dioxide emissions to “net-zero” levels. The other goes further by implementing carbon reduction measures aimed at achieving “net-negative” emissions, thereby lowering the concentration of carbon dioxide already present in the atmosphere.
The results were clear. Under the net-zero scenario, extreme fire danger remained high across many parts of the world. In some low-latitude regions of the Northern Hemisphere, the danger even increased. In contrast, under the net-negative scenario, declining atmospheric CO₂ concentrations led to lower temperatures and higher humidity, substantially reducing the conditions conductive to wildfires. These mitigating effects were particularly pronounced in regions already highly vulnerable to wildfires.
These findings cannot be explained by temperature changes alone. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations influence large-scale oceanic and atmospheric circulation systems, reshaping precipitation patterns and temperature distributions worldwide. Changes in major climate systems, such as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and shifts in the Intertropical Convergence Zone, play a critical role in determining regional fire weather danger.
The study delivers a clear message: carbon neutrality is not the endpoint of climate action, but its starting point. Just as turning off a faucet does not remove water that has already overflowed, halting emissions alone cannot reverse climate change that is already underway. Carbon reduction - including carbon capture and storage technologies, carbon removal technologies, and nature-based solutions such as forest restoration - is therefore essential. This implies that policy and technological development across energy, environmental management, urban planning, and disaster response must be fundamentally reoriented. The research demonstrates that a carbon-neutral world is not necessarily a safe one.
Professor Min stated, “Carbon neutrality only stops further increases in extreme fire risk; it is not a solution for reversing the danger that has already intensified. To protect societies and ecosystems from extreme wildfires, we need net-negative emission strategies that go beyond carbon neutrality.”
This study, conducted by Professor Seung-Ki Min and Dr. Yujin Kim of POSTECH’s Department of Environmental Engineering, was supported by the Mid-Career Researcher Program of the National Research Foundation of Korea.