Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Recent European wildfires (especially in 2026) are driven more by accumulated fuel loads from poor forest management policies, human ignitions (including suspected arson), and normal weather extremes than by long-term “climate change.”
Recent European wildfires (especially in 2026) are driven more by accumulated fuel loads from poor forest management policies, human ignitions (including suspected arson), and normal weather extremes than by long-term “climate change.”
A simple(ton's) guide to understanding climate change and wildfires:
Yes, the Biscarrosse wildfire was started by a van that caught fire. The flames spread to roadside vegetation before moving into the forest. That is a fact.
This is the strongest point and aligns with expert consensus.
Decades of:
Successful fire suppression (putting out small fires quickly).
Rural depopulation + land abandonment.
Policies favoring reforestation, deadwood retention for biodiversity, carbon storage, and limited thinning/harvesting.
…have dramatically increased fuel continuity and loads in Mediterranean landscapes.
Experts call this the “fire paradox”: better suppression of routine fires builds denser vegetation and underbrush, priming the landscape for rarer but far more intense, uncontrollable “next-generation” or “sixth-generation” fires when extreme weather hits.
Spain’s mid-20th-century afforestation added millions of hectares; shifts toward biodiversity and less active timber management left more deadwood/brush.
Similar dynamics in France (deadwood preservation), Italy (harvesting limits for erosion), and elsewhere.
Recent wet springs + dry summers exacerbate this by growing lush vegetation that then cures into prime fuel.
Data nuance:
Burned area in the five key countries has high variability but no explosive secular trend matching CO₂ rise. Major historical peaks occurred in the 1980s.
Recent bad years (2017, 2022, 2025) stand out, but management explains a lot of the severity once fires start. Megafires have increased in frequency since ~2020 in southern Europe.
Climate factors:
Warming trends can extend fire seasons, increase vapor pressure deficit (drying power of air), and worsen heatwaves/droughts in some years.
However, data for these specific countries does not show a strong, consistent rise in burned area correlating directly with CO₂ levels over the full period. Attribution is complex — weather extremes (which have always occurred) interact with fuel and human factors.
— Concerned Citizen (@BGatesIsaPyscho) July 27, 2026
Arson and Human Factors
The piece highlights suspected arson, including migrant-linked cases.
There are documented arson investigations in 2026 incidents, and human causes overwhelmingly dominate.
French authorities have arrested suspected arsonists; some regional reports note patterns.
Broader claims tying this systematically to migrants are harder to verify at scale and risk overgeneralization (some past claims in Greece, for example, were unsubstantiated).
Criminal arson, labor disputes, negligence, and infrastructure (power lines) are consistent risks. The article uses this to challenge pure “climate” framing — valid, as ignition + fuel + weather = the formula.
Deeper Truth
Wildfires here result from compounding drivers:
Fuel (management/land use — primary amplifier of severity).
EU reports increasingly acknowledge prevention deficits — more focus on suppression than proactive fuel reduction, grazing, thinning, mosaic landscapes, and prescribed burns. Prevention investments yield high returns.
EFFIS (European Forest Fire Information System)
The graph appears accurate and is based on official EFFIS (European Forest Fire Information System) data for the five main EU Mediterranean countries: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, and Greece.
It shows annual burned area (in 1,000 hectares) from ~1980 to 2025, with high year-to-year variability driven by weather, and a red line marking the long-term average of ~443,000 ha. This matches historical summaries from EFFIS and related reports.
Key Observations from the Data
No clear long-term upward trend in total burned area:
There are spikes (e.g., mid-1980s, ~2005, 2017, recent years like 2024–2025), but many recent years are below or near the average. Some analyses show stable or slightly declining trends in burned area for several countries over decades when normalized or viewed in full context.
High variability:
Fires are heavily influenced by specific hot/dry years, heat domes, El Niño/La Niña patterns, and winds — classic Mediterranean climate behavior with natural extremes.
Recent context:
2024–2025 saw significant activity (e.g., Portugal had a high year in 2024), but this fits within historical fluctuations rather than a dramatic new regime. EFFIS reports note 2025 as a high year for the broader EU, but the five-country sum aligns with past bad seasons.
The world is burning less
Despite breathless climate reporting of ever-more fire
Total area burned across the world has declined over past 125 years
Healthy skepticism is not just compatible with science — it is an essential part of the scientific method.
Questioning claims, demanding strong evidence, examining assumptions, and testing narratives against data is how science advances. Blind acceptance of any consensus, no matter how popular, is where science dies.
Recurring wildfire smoke raises questions about Canadian forest management.
For the past several years, we have covered the smoke emanating from blazes in Canada’s mismanaged forests. Furthermore, a number of the fires were investigated for potential arson.
Just like heat domes, smoke from Canadian wildfires appears to be a regular feature of American summers.
For the past several years, we have covered the smoke emanating from blazes in Canada’s mismanaged forests. Furthermore, a number of the fires were investigated for potential arson.
Now, over 800 wildfires are being reported across Canada, with smoke affecting air quality in New York.
More than 830 wildfires were burning in Canada on Wednesday, along with more than a dozen in northern Minnesota, forcing mandatory evacuations and spreading unhealthy smoke down to the Lower 48.
Some of the largest wildfires are burning in west-central Ontario, consuming thick forests and releasing an incredible amount of smoke.
The wind is now directing that smoke into the U.S., creating dangerous air quality for millions across the upper Midwest and Northeast on Wednesday and through the end of the week.
On Wednesday afternoon, air quality had reached unhealthy levels in New York City and the Eastern Lake Ontario region, the Central New York region and parts of Western New York, according to air monitoring site AirNow.
There are currently 838 wildfires burning across Canada. More than 100 are in northwestern Ontario, sending thick smoke to the Great Lakes and Northeast U.S. pic.twitter.com/nJS5QaJvqY
Air quality in the Midwest is also being adversely impacted, and two of the fires have crossed over into U.S. territory.
Two of the largest blazes — the Bear Trap and Thumb fires — have crossed the border into Canada, officials said.
“Fire management anticipate another very high fire danger day today with increased fire activity and fire growth,” the agency said.
Already this week, state authorities around the Great Lakes have issued alerts for poor air quality. In northeastern Minnesota, the state’s pollution control agency said that the air quality would likely remain “very unhealthy for everyone” through Thursday. Just across the border in southern Ontario, Environment Canada issued an orange-level alert on Tuesday for air quality and urged people to avoid spending time outside.
Smell smoke this morning? Its coming from a wildfire outbreak in Ontario. While it should not impact air quality much today, smoke at the surface could increase Wednesday into Thursday, potentially reducing visibilities and air quality. High temperatures may also be limited. pic.twitter.com/6QdV5965nt
Meanwhile, in Canada, a wild video is making rounds showing a freight train surrounded by huge flames from the roaring Canadian wildfires near Armstrong, Ontario.
The video, which was taken inside the train, shows raging flames around it. A crew member can be seen also capturing the incident on their cellphone.
The train car was stopped in Armstrong, Ont., which is north of Thunder Bay. A CN Rail spokesperson told Global News all employees in the area were evacuated overnight Monday.
“CN has temporarily suspended rail operations near Armstrong, ON as a precaution due to wildfire activity in the area. As a safety measure, CN employees in the area and residents of the Town of Armstrong were evacuated overnight,” the spokesperson said in an email.
🔥 ON FIRE: Wild video shows a freight train surrounded by huge flames from the roaring Canadian wildfires near Armstrong, Ontario. According to local sources, three Canadian National Railway Company (CN Rail) trains were halted on their tracks because of the fires in the area. pic.twitter.com/8DluFdM1Gp
However, there may be an upside to the smoke. As meteorologist Chris Martz notes, the smoke layer may take the edge off the heat.
The Canadians need to get their wildfire situation under control.
This is now the third year in a row that we are having to deal with these smoke plumes being blown downwind, reducing air quality in the northeast.
The one good thing is that it should help keep a lid on temperatures the next two days as forecast highs range 95–100°F on model guidance. But with the smoke layer, shortwave flux will be reduced, so highs will be in the low-mid-90s.
The Canadians need to get their wildfire situation under control.
This is now the third year in a row that we are having to deal with these smoke plumes being blown downwind, reducing air quality in the northeast.
Back in 1992, a review examined how prescribed burns have been a natural and effective forest management tool in Canada and argued for their expanded, science‑based use to reduce fuel loads, support healthy forests, and maintain ecosystem function.
Published in The Forestry Chronicle, the authors show that prescribed burning can be cost‑effective and ecologically compatible with many management objectives. The authors concluded that continued and adaptive use of prescribed fire, integrated with responsible timber harvesting and clearcut‑area treatments, is essential for long‑term forest resilience and should remain a core tool in Canadian forest policy and operations.
Perhaps Canada should revisit this 1992 paper, which shows controlled burns and sound forest management practices are effective in preventing massive wildfires. https://t.co/cSqFailjPtpic.twitter.com/PTpEYeCGd2
There are many things that seemed to have worked better in 1992, especially in Canada. Perhaps it is time to return to more traditional approaches rather than bitterly clinging to eco-activism and climate cultism.
Multiple mainstream media outlets published stories this week uncritically publicizing the claims of a climate change interest group, Climate Central (CC). According to CC, climate change has caused higher weather disaster costs in the United States this year than ever in history – or at least since 1980, which is as far as the records CC uses go back. These claims are false. While the costs of extreme weather events and wildfires were high in early 2025, there are no trends that indicate climate change is responsible.
Multiple mainstream media outlets published stories this week uncritically publicizing the claims of a climate change interest group, Climate Central (CC). According to CC, climate change has caused higher weather disaster costs in the United States this year than ever in history – or at least since 1980, which is as far as the records CC uses go back. These claims are false. While the costs of extreme weather events and wildfires were high in early 2025, there are no trends that indicate climate change is responsible. Rather, higher populations, increased development in disaster prone areas, poor water management, and human evil in the form of arson, were the cause of the abnormally high disaster costs.
The tenor of The Guardian, NBC, and other outlets covering CC’s disaster cost report was nearly universal. Climate change resulted in worse weather disasters and higher costs in early 2025 than ever before, a fact that would have been missed absent CC’s work since President Donald Trump cut funding for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration program, which has previously monitored such costs.
Per The Guardian:
The first half of 2025 was the costliest on record for major disasters in the US, driven by huge wildfires in Los Angeles and storms that battered much of the rest of the country, according to a climate non-profit that has resurrected work axed by Donald Trump’s administration that tracked the biggest disasters.
In the first six months of this year, 14 separate weather-related disasters that each caused at least $1bn in damage hit the US, the Climate Central group has calculated. In total, these events cost $101bn in damages – lost homes, businesses, highways and other infrastructure – a toll higher than any other first half of a year since records on this began in 1980.
As NBC News wrote:
The first half of this year was the costliest ever recorded for weather and climate disasters in the United States, according to an analysis published Wednesday by the nonprofit organization Climate Central.
It is information that the public might never have learned: This spring, the Trump administration cut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration program that had tracked weather events that caused at least $1 billion in damage. The researcher who led that work, Adam Smith, left NOAA over the decision.
To be clear, Climate Central is not an objective authority on the causes and consequences of climate change, or a neutral party regarding proposed solutions. Rather, it was created and exists solely to produce and promote material blaming human activities for causing climate change resulting in catastrophic consequences that threaten human life, and to promote government enforced solutions that limit fossil fuel use.
Leaving aside the motives of the organization that produced the report, the news coverage of the report was inaccurate from the start. The stories ignore the history of natural disasters in the regions that have been impacted this year, the demographic changes that have resulted in the higher costs, and, most importantly, the lack of any long-term discernable changes in weather patterns and the incidences and severity of extreme weather events for the areas affected.
Looking at where the disasters occurred in the first half of this year, from CC’s own tracking we find the weather events were tornadoes that occurred during typical tornado season stretching from Texas through the plains to the upper mid-west. This area of the country is commonly referred to as “tornado alley” because such events are so common there during the spring and early summer. So, nothing unusual there. What critically undermines the CC report and the media’s suggestion that the rising cost of tornadoes is due to climate change is the fact, as explored in Climate Realism, here, here, and here, for example, that neither the number, frequency, nor severity of tornadoes has increased as the Earth has slightly warmed.
Other events include flooding in areas of the country historically known for spring flooding as a result of snowmelt and severe spring snowstorms – many of the areas are popular riverfront towns or communities. Climate Realism has repeatedly debunked media claims that flooding is getting worse – data show it isn’t. If flooding is not becoming more frequent or severe, climate change can’t be causing higher costs related to flooding.
Finally, more than 60 percent of the $101 billion disaster costs that CC says resulted from climate change altered weather events are attributable to just a single event: the January 2025 wildfires that decimated a large swath of Los Angeles. The Los Angeles fires were horrific, of a kind not experienced there in recent history, but not unusual historically. The huge damage was a result of a combination of factors, good seasonal rainfall in recent years creating lush natural growth combined with and regular lawn and tree watering in wealthy enclaves, followed by a severe drought, creating conditions for a wildfire, and strong Santa Anna winds to drive a fire quickly across the landscape once started (once again a natural feature of the area). With these conditions, all that was needed was a spark, which a perverse arsonist provided. Once the fire started, winds drove it quickly across a tinder dry landscape and firefighters found a shortage of water in reservoirs as a result of political decisions made by the state government.
Los Angeles is not warmer than is was in the 1950s and precipitation has actually increased slightly in the region since 1895. Despite climate alarmists and advantage seeking, virtue signaling Democratic politicians attempting to blame climate change for the fire and its severity, the evidence indicates it had nothing to do with it.
If climate conditions haven’t change appreciably across the United States, in the sense that the more extreme weather patterns are emerging, the question is, why have costs related to weather disasters gone up so much in nominal dollars? Keep in mind that in inflation adjusted dollars as a percentage of GDP, the costs of natural disasters have fallen over time. (see the figure, below)
As should be obvious to any honest observer exercising the least bit of common sense, the reason for rising disaster costs is clear, the expanding bullseye effect. As Climate Realism has explored in dozens of articles previously, with more people moving into ecologically/climatically desirable locations, locations prone to natural disasters, erecting more homes, businesses, and related structures and infrastructure, property has gone up dramatically in value overtime. When a disaster like a wildfire (in this case an arson started wildfire) strikes, more people and property is impacted and related costs are higher. Climate Realism discussed this very point in articles linked, here, here, and here, to take but a few examples. Quite simply, when a hurricane hits Miami or Galveston now, there are more buildings and structures to destroy at those locations than there was 100 years ago.
One can acknowledge that CC is right, natural disasters are imposing higher costs in nominal dollars now than they did in the past, without jumping to the completely unfounded claim that climate change is the cause. Legitimate journalists and honest news outlets, as NBC News and The Guardian purport to be, should check their facts before parroting the false rantings of a climate lobbing group as the truth. Misleading, false alarm stories like these are perhaps why trust in the media is low and falling.
In Episode #177 of The Climate Realism Show, The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely also tackle the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including a misleading Bloomberg chart that “climate denialists can’t ignore,” how arson, not “climate change,” caused the Pacific Palisades fire, why the predicted increase in EF5 tornadoes never materialized, and how inhalers are now being targeted by climate activists.
In September 2025, no hurricanes made landfall in the United States — the first time that’s happened in a decade. What’s going on with this year’s hurricane season? We ask WeatherBELL Analytics’ Joe Bastardi, one of America’s best hurricane forecasters, to share his insights.
In Episode #177 of The Climate Realism Show, The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely also tackle the Crazy Climate News of the Week, including a misleading Bloomberg chart that “climate denialists can’t ignore,” how arson, not “climate change,” caused the Pacific Palisades fire, why the predicted increase in EF5 tornadoes never materialized, and how inhalers are now being targeted by climate activists.
Tune in LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X, and join us in the live chat.
Multiple Democratic officials were quick to point to climate change after the devastating Pacific Palisades fires ravished California earlier this year, though the Trump administration announced Wednesday that the fires were lit by an arsonist.
Multiple Democratic officials were quick to point to climate change after the devastating Pacific Palisades fires ravished California earlier this year, though the Trump administration announced Wednesday that the fires were lit by an arsonist.
Acting U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli announced Wednesday that a suspect was arrested in connection with the criminal investigation into the January Palisades fire that burned for 24 days, eviscerated acres of land, destroyed homes and killed a dozen people. Several Democratic officials almost immediately posted about how climate change caused or worsened the fire in January, long before the cause of arson was discovered.
“Donald Trump must treat this like the existential crisis it is,” Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote on X on Jan. 8. “Climate change is real, not ‘a hoax.’”
Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey wrote that the wildfires in Los Angeles were “climate change-induced” on Jan. 30, as well as Democratic California Sen. Alex Padilla on Jan. 24. Democratic Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse also called out President Donald Trump over the fires and climate change in January.
“Nice to see Time magazine calling out the Trump lies and putting accountability where it belongs: on climate change driven by decades of fossil fuel false propaganda and political corruption,” Whitehouse wrote Jan. 10.
Democratic California Rep. Jared Huffman wrote on Jan. 10 that “right now, our priority is immediate aid and safety for those affected. Once relief is secured, it’s time to demand real action. The GOP majority can no longer ignore the climate crisis or the solutions that will actually make meaningful change.”
Democratic Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom posted that the conditions were “unprecedented,” with Bass branding the fire as a “natural disaster” and Newsom stressing that “climate change is here, and it is real” in January.
“Two things can be true: a wildfire was started by arson and was spread by hurricane-force winds that are increasing because of climate change,” a spokesperson for Newsom’s office told the Daily Caller News Foundation and linked to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration fact sheet on how climate change might have influenced the fires.
As we witness more tragic climate change-induced disasters like the wildfires in Los Angeles, broadcast AM radio continues to be a critical lifeline for people across the country. That's why I'm reintroducing my AM Radio for Every Vehicle Act.
Emergency management and policy experts told the DCNF previously that the January Palisades and Eaton fires were exacerbated by a key reservoir sitting empty for months in the lead-up to the fires and fire extinguishers running dry due to water infrastructure issues.
“We saw this coming, and we have said, ‘I told you so’ every time there’s been a super fire. This time, the super fire happens to be even more catastrophic, because it’s happening in one of the most densely populated areas in the United States,” Edward Ring, director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, told the DCNF previously. “It’s the same message, which is that we have neglected our water infrastructure. We have mismanaged our forests and chaparral in the name of environmentalism, and we’re paying the price.”
Newsom announced at the time that he would call for an investigation probing the factors that led up to fire hydrant failure and the reported unavailability of the reservoir.
Notably, several legacy media outlets were also quick to attribute the Palisades fire damage to climate change.
Staff for Bass, Markey, Padilla, Whitehouse, Huffman and Sanders did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
The article proceeds to claim that “Britain has already suffered a record number of wildfires in 2025, following one of the driest springs on record”, accompanied by a graph that only goes back to 2012!
It goes on to talk about the “age of drastic climate change – and, specifically, persistent dry spells”
Where do they get this drivel from? Dry spells in spring are no more persistent than in the past:
Moreover, the Met Office keeps on forecasting wet winters, which would reduce the amount of dead or dormant gorse, heather, bracken and grass. What made the difference this year was a dry February, not the spring itself.
Fire fighters regularly admit that the real issue has long been arson, deliberate or otherwise. People drive out to these moorlands in their millions on sunny days, something that was not possible a few decades ago. When there they often set fires going from portable BBQs and dropped cigarettes.
As with a lot of these silly stories, it is only in the last few years that we have had the satellite technology to accurately map these fires. EFFIS, for instance, was implemented in 2003, making a nonsense of Telegraph claims that there were some years in the past with no fires at all.
There is no reason to resort to the climate bogeyman, and the Telegraph looks foolish for doing so.
That’s right, the same folks who scolded that the world will “burn” unless the government forces every one of us to buy an EV or stop driving, are now torching the world’s best EVs with Molotov cocktails.
“Wow, you guys like petty acts of domestic terrorism, huh?” asked bemused Daily Show host Jordan Klepper when his audience hooted, cheered and applauded a news clip reporting “multiple cases of possible arson targeting Teslas and cyber trucks.”
Could it be that the anti-America, anti-capitalist Left’s obsession with electric vehicles was never about saving the planet at all?
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, America’s top entrepreneur, brought us reusable rockets, internet for all, amazing A.I., robots that actually work, and much more.
Elon just rescued Butch and Suni, two astronauts who were stranded on the I.S.S. for over nine months.
EVs were nowhere until Elon showed the world, they could be amazingly innovative and incredibly cool. Tesla EVs may very soon be fully self-driving.
Making EVs cool was a tall achievement considering that EVs suffer from short range, long charging times, heavy weight, prohibitive expense, batteries that burn uncontrollably and require scarce rare earths that are too often mined under appalling circumstances.
Despite those challenges, Elon’s Tesla is now mass producing electric vehicles that are solid choices for some. They are not the best choice for all. Elon’s cool with that.
You’d think the Left would be erecting monuments to the man who made their EV dreams come true. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Protesters used a Tesla EV to carve “DON’T BUY A TESLA” onto a beach in Wales. They included an image of a man extending his arm out straight. This, despite the bizarre notion that Elon telling an audience that his heart goes out to them was somehow an authoritarian salute, has been massively debunked.
Tesla was removed from the Vancouver International Auto Show the day before it opened, reports The CBC. Organizers cited “safety” concerns. Tesla vehicles have also been removed from Vancouver’s EV subsidy program. “Safety” is frequently the rationale employed to justify institutions retaliating against free speech and has been used to silence speakers on college campuses.
Minnesota Governor and former V.P. candidate Tim Walz has been celebrating the recent drop in Tesla’s stock price. As if rooting against an important company that created 80,000 American jobs was not bad enough, Walz and the Left’s cheering against Telsa requires shamelessly cherry picking their stock data. Tesla stock may be down from the high it achieved in January resulting from the “Trump bump,” but remains up nearly 34% over the last year and 18,000% since it went public!
The Left cannot forgive Elon for bringing free speech to X/Twitter, endorsing President Trump, and now for applying his unmatched talent to rooting out waste and making government more efficient.
As Congressman Wesley Hunt put it, “Musk, Musk, Musk, Musk, Musk, Musk Musk. What’s funny about it to me is, you’re mad at the guy that found the fraud, but not mad at the people who wasted YOUR money.”
Ah, California lawmakers are at it again, pushing the boundaries of legal absurdity with a bill that would allow victims of natural disasters to sue oil companies for damages. Yes, you read that correctly—wildfire victims could now take ExxonMobil to court as if hurricanes and forest fires suddenly started appearing the moment someone filled up their SUV.
Ah, California lawmakers are at it again, pushing the boundaries of legal absurdity with a bill that would allow victims of natural disasters to sue oil companies for damages. Yes, you read that correctly—wildfire victims could now take ExxonMobil to court as if hurricanes and forest fires suddenly started appearing the moment someone filled up their SUV.
The bill, introduced by two Democratic legislators, is based on the idea that oil and gas companies have been deceptively hiding the risks of climate change while, presumably, twirling their mustaches and laughing maniacally. The argument is that fossil fuel use has “intensified storms and wildfires,” costing Californians billions of dollars and even sending the state’s insurance market into turmoil.
There’s just one problem: this entire premise has already been tried—and laughed out of court. Sher Edling, the law firm spearheading climate litigation, has been slapping lawsuits on oil companies for years using this exact strategy, and guess what? It has failed over and over again. Courts have rejected these cases, recognizing that pinning every natural disaster on Big Oil is about as scientifically rigorous as blaming your morning coffee for rush hour traffic.
Sher Edling: The Lawsuit Factory
Sher Edling has been on a mission to sue oil companies into oblivion, using the same flimsy arguments that courts have repeatedly rejected. Their entire playbook is based on two thoroughly discredited document sets:
The proposal claims that the oil industry intentionally deceived the public about the risks of fossil fuels on climate change that now have intensified storms and wildfires and caused billions of dollars in damage in California. Such disasters have also driven the state insurance market to a crisis where companies are raising rates, limiting coverage or pulling out completely from regions susceptible to wildfires and other natural disasters, supporters of the bill said.
Yet, despite their track record of failure, they keep finding new ways to push this nonsense. Now, instead of arguing in federal courts (where they’ve been shut down repeatedly), they’re shifting their strategy to state-level litigation, hoping that activist judges in California will give them a sympathetic ear.
Scapegoating Oil Companies While Ignoring the Real Culprits
One of the most ridiculous aspects of this proposal is that it conveniently ignores other major contributors to California’s wildfire crisis. For example:
Arson: A significant portion of wildfires are caused by human activity, including arson. But sure, let’s blame oil companies instead.
Forest Mismanagement: California’s refusal to conduct controlled burns and proper land management has turned its forests into literal tinderboxes. But again, let’s blame Shell for that.
Utility Companies: The bill ironically acknowledges that utilities are already held liable when their equipment sparks fires—but instead of focusing on better grid management, legislators want to widen the blame net to oil companies.
The Ultimate Goal: Legalized Extortion
This entire effort is just another attempt to shake down energy companies for cash. If the courts won’t force oil firms to pay, maybe political pressure and activist lawsuits can do the trick. Sher Edling isn’t in this fight because they care about climate change—they’re in it because climate lawsuits are big business.
But here’s the real kicker: Even if these lawsuits succeed, who do you think will pay for it? Oil companies aren’t charities—they’ll pass these costs directly to consumers. That means you, the everyday driver, will end up paying even more at the pump because of a lawsuit based on junk science and legal gymnastics.
If approved, California would be the first state in the U.S. to allow for such lawsuits, according to the bill’s author, state Sen. Scott Wiener.
“We are all paying for these disasters, but there is one stakeholder that is not paying: the fossil fuel industry, which makes the product that is fueling the climate change,” Wiener said at a Monday news conference.
California legislators are once again proving that they would rather chase after boogeymen than address the real causes of natural disasters. Instead of focusing on practical solutions like forest management, infrastructure improvements, or even investigating why their own policies have driven insurance companies out of the state, they’re opting for another round of performative legal theater.
But hey, why deal with reality when you can just sue Exxon instead?
The topic of forest fires takes place regularly in this blog. You can actually set the clock according to it, whenever there is a fire, especially in Germany, then climate change is brought out. It gets really bad in summer, because it is more or less suggested that high temperatures set the forest on fire by themselves. Of course, this is complete nonsense. Even in midsummer, temperatures are not reached that mean spontaneous ignition.
The topic of forest fires takes place regularly in this blog. You can actually set the clock according to it, whenever there is a fire, especially in Germany, then climate change is brought out. It gets really bad in summer, because it is more or less suggested that high temperatures set the forest on fire by themselves. Of course, this is complete nonsense. Even in midsummer, temperatures are not reached that mean spontaneous ignition.
Forests burn particularly well when there has been no precipitation for a long time. So it must be dry. And it burns when people are out and about in the forest who deliberately or negligently set it on fire. Natural sources are almost completely ruled out as a cause of fire in our country. There are almost always people involved, whatever the motives may be.
RBB has an interesting story about arson in the forests of Brandenburg. The state has to contend with an additional difficulty. There are numerous former military training areas there. Extinguishing work on ammunition-contaminated soil is life-threatening. While fires can be extinguished well in normal forests, this is not possible due to danger to life and limb if ammunition is lying around.
According to statistics from the State Forestry Office, there are indications that around 400 of about 1,800 forest fires have occurred in Brandenburg since 2019 that the fires were set intentionally. “On average, this proportion is around 20 to 25 percent of all forest fires per year,” explains Brandenburg’s forest fire protection officer Raimund Engel in an interview with rbb|24. In many cases, police investigations have been underway for years.
It is likely that some arsons are not even included in the statistics as such, says Engel. “Only if there are concrete indications of arson do we state ‘suspicion of intent’.” Witness statements or suspicious objects that forensic technicians find at the scene of the escape can tip the scales. According to Engel, firefighters and forensic technicians have already found hairspray cans, matches or suspiciously placed barbecue lighters on the fire areas. Without such traces, the cases often disappear into the category of “unknown cause” – since 2019, 650 cases.
According to the Brandenburg police, it is difficult to say how often it is possible to catch and charge arsonists in forests. Such information could not be queried individually, as arson in forests would not be recorded separately from other arsons, it said.
Discounting volcanoes and meteorites, there are two types of ignition sources for wildfires – dry lightning and humans. We may further sub-divide human ignition sources into accidental and deliberate.
Human-started fires: denialist meme or growing problem, Part 1
Discounting volcanoes and meteorites, there are two types of ignition sources for wildfires – dry lightning and humans. We may further sub-divide human ignition sources into accidental and deliberate.
Deliberate fires, including wildfires, are nothing new, and examples abound. But there are some key questions about wildfire arson that it would useful to have answers to. What proportion of fires are arson? Is it increasing? What motivates arsonists? Is their motivation changing?
The question of what proportion of wildfires are arson has become a minor skirmish in the climate wars. One side likes to emphasize arson as a way of diminishing the role of climate change; the other side likes to diminish arson as a way of emphasizing the importance of climate change. As usual, I prefer to find out the truth. The truth, after all, is the only useful answer, except as propaganda.
Naturally this topic is going to take up more than a single blog post – it wasn’t when I started, but then the earth started falling away beneath my feet. So my explorations will emerge in bite-sized digestible chunks, I hope, of which this in an introductory.
My starting point was the 2019-20 Australian bushfires – “Black Summer.” What did the 2020 Royal Commission say about arson? I obtained the 594-page document, went CTRL-F, typed “arson”, and found two hits… both relating to the name “Carson.” The word “arson” is not in the Royal Commission report, anywhere. You would think the Royal Commission might find it worthwhile to report what it found about the causes of fires. But they don’t. Beyond the boiler-plate climate change genuflections, there is nothing at all about ignition sources. [A slight exaggeration; they note that pyrocumulonimbus clouds can create dry lightning far ahead of fire fronts, and start new fires there.] [Note: New South Wales’s own Inquiry found that most of the largest fires were started by lightning, and that none of the large ones were arson.]
But we know that arson played at least a small role in the 2019-20 bushfires, so this seems a strange omission on the part of the Royal Commission. Perhaps the deliberate fires were small and easily contained? It would be useful to know. It would also be useful to know what motivated the arsonists. Pyromaniacs, or motivated by self-interest, thrill-seeking, or acting out a role in an apocalyptic cult?
I wonder what Wiki says. Wiki is a trustworthy source, isn’t it? Its page on the 2019-20 bushfires has a subsection titled “Exaggerated extent of arson,” which is not matched by an equivalent subsection titled “Exaggerated extent of climate change.” In these paragraphs, Wiki takes pains to discount the role of arson. Arson, it is claimed, is a denialist ploy. Its first excerpt (from The Guardian) makes clear its position:
The Guardian reported “Bot and troll accounts are involved in a ‘disinformation campaign’ exaggerating the role of arson in Australia’s bushfire disaster, social media analysis suggests… The false claims are, in some cases, used to undermine the link between the current bushfires and the longer, more intense fire seasons brought about by climate change.”
Well, we will get to the longer and more intense fire seasons brought about by climate change another day. Suffice it to say that according to Wiki we need to move on from discussion of arson.
Giovanni Torre wrote for The Telegraph that “Australia’s bushfire crisis has led to what appears to be a deliberate misinformation campaign started by climate-change deniers claiming arson is the primary cause of the ongoing fires… Social media accounts, including Donald Trump Jr’s Twitter account, circulated the false claim that 183 people had been arrested for arson during the Australian fire crisis…”
To its credit, Wiki immediately admits that 183 people were in fact arrested in connection with the fires – but only 24 in connection with arson. But up and down and front to back, arson as a potential cause is diminished.
Without knowing anything about the frequency of arson, an obvious default assumption is that it is generally increasing. That is because, if we take as an assumption that a constant low proportion of people start fires, then as the population grows, so will the population of firestarters. We might also guess that, being human, arsonists are lazy. They won’t drive for hours into the bush and then hike ten miles from the nearest track to start a fire there. They’ll start one closer to home. If true, this has two consequences. First is that the fire is likely to be discovered faster and dealt with before it gets out of control. Second is that it begins in proximity to people, and has the direct potential to cause harm immediately, whereas remote natural fires have to gain quite a head of steam before they interact with people. In fact, in a modern technological society, a fire that starts in a remote place should be incapable of killing civilians in a not-remote place, as there should be plenty of time for evacuations. Something else we might wonder about is how easy it is to decide whether a particular fire was arson or not. (More on which on another day.)
Searching back through the archives of wildfiretoday.com, it is easy to find anecdotes about arson. Before Black Summer, Australia’s ABC ran a story about copycat firestarters in Western Australia:
“Bushfire media coverage causes ‘copycat’ fires, WA firefighter says”
Some guy’s ipse dixit, even if he knows what he’s talking about, is not great evidence. But what does he say?
Bushfires have dominated the news in Western Australia since the new year, but for volunteer firefighters, the 24-hour media coverage has a dark side. It is called copycat syndrome, which they believe is at least partly responsible for a spate of deliberately lit fires this season. “The more media exposure you get, you just seem to see the copycat syndrome, as we commonly call it, starting to come out,” said Dave Gossage, a volunteer firefighter for 34 years. “Sadly, in this space of deliberately lit fires, no matter who lights them, they often don’t understand the consequences. “You’ve only got to look at the Roleystone fires 12 months on and people are still rebuilding their homes.”Via Wildfiretoday.com
…
Dr Katarina Fritzon from the Centre for Arson Research at Queensland’s Bond University said about a third of fires nationally were deliberately lit but she believed only a small sub-group of arsonists fully understand the damage they can do. She described these offenders as people who are “particularly drawn to fire and get very excited by the stimulation that they get from setting fires”.Ibid.
Going back further, to the “Black Saturday” fires of the 2008-9 bushfire season, arson was blamed for the death of ten:
Brendan Sokaluk, 39, appeared on Tuesday in Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in Australia via video link from prison. He is facing 191 charges related to one of the fires that burned across Victoria on February 7, including 10 counts of arson causing death, intentionally causing a bushfire, criminal damage, recklessly causing injury, and possessing child pornography.Via Wildfiretoday.com
Sokaluk was thrown in jail, and may by now have been released, according to these news snippets:
And another from Black Saturday:
Two teenage boys were arrested for starting a fire in Australia on Black Saturday last February 7 in which a disabled resident burned to death. The Maiden Gully fire near Bendigo killed Kevin “Mick Kane, 48, destroyed 60 homes, caused $29 million in damages, and burned 875 acres.Via Wildfiretoday.com
Nevertheless, there is a lot less evidence for widespread arson in the 2019-20 season. Searching for news on this you will find that climate change is squarely blamed; and as with Wiki, many outlets place any mention of arson as a mark of denialism.
But if you delve into the archives, it was not always thus. The Sydney Morning Herald was willing to run an article on arson in New South Wales in January 2020 (i.e. in the middle of Black Summer).
A data collation and investigation plan has been developed to review the cause and impacts of the more than 1700 bushfires already reported to police; and consider the 12,000 fires recorded by the Rural Fire Service since August 2019,” police said in a statement released on Friday. Of those 1700, police say that 716 were deliberate lit.
…
Another 745 were of an undetermined cause, while 156 were caused naturally, police believe.
…
New figures provided by police on Friday showed that legal action has been taken against 55 people for fires that were allegedly deliberately lit since August 1. That figure includes people dealt with under mental health provisions, those given cautions and those charged with criminal offences. Legal action has also been taken against 126 people for allegedly failing to comply with a total fire ban, against 41 for throwing out a lit cigarette and against 70 juveniles for bushfire-related offences.SMH, op. cit.
Note that the numbers of different causes do not add up to the total number of bushfires, even given that one of the “causes” is “undetermined.” But the upshot appears to be that the largest fires of Black Summer were started by lightning. Quite a few fires were started by arsonists, but (reading between the lines and applying Psychology 101) these were close to human habitation and quickly spotted and stifled. There is always the lurking possibility that a truly nefarious human could be bothered to drive 20 miles out of town and start a fire in such a way that it would be later ascribed to the weather, but we have no evidence of that.
More on arson in a future episode. I will also hopefully get around to covering dry lightning and how it is likely to change in frequency going forwards, if at all. There are also one or two other things to clear up.
But for now, I leave you with a Wednesday bonus story from the 2019-20 bushfire season. Not a story about arson, but about how bovine stupidity can cause a rapid conflagration when the conditions are right (with apologies for the language; I’m sure there are actually fruitier exchanges between the parties on record but I can’t find them any more):
“Are we authorised to land in some of these areas for the guys to get out and have a piss?” [an anonymous presumably male major] said.The Guardian
Well, the guys landed their chopper and got out – but their bladders were not full enough to counter what happened next:
Smoke and visibility issues meant the landing light was switched on, but “the heat from the aircraft’s landing light caused the dry grass which the aircraft came in contact with to ignite”.
“Within 3-5 seconds of touch down a fire was ignited underneath the aircraft, which was fanned by the rotor wash,” Defence documents said.ABC
The guys hot-footed it back aboard, and by now apparently bursting, made a bee-line straight back to the airfield. They arrived 45 minutes [According to the ABC; The Guardian says 17 minutes] later, and mentioned in passing to some guy leaning on a broom that they might have started a fire somewhere, while vaguely waving in the direction of Namadgi. Meanwhile smoke had already been seen, and spotters were running around like decapitated chickens trying to find the source. By the time they did, it was too late to snuff the fire out.
The fire, which burned for five weeks, was declared out of control after 6pm [4.5 hours after it was started] when more than 1,000ha were alight and would eventually grow to burn 87,923ha throughout the ACT.The Guardian, op.cit.
Note: refer also to John’s piece from two years ago on the Greek wildfires, and comments below.
You must be logged in to post a comment.