A recent story posted by Reuters blames the recent surge in wildfire numbers and severity erupting across Mediterranean Europe on climate change. Data and history debunk such claims. [emphasis, links added]
Satellite data from Europe and the United States show wildfires are in decline globally, including across Europe, and research and reports show wildfires have been common across the arid Mediterranean region throughout history.
In the Reuters story, “How climate change fuels wildfires in Europe,” writer Kate Abnett writes, “[w]ildfires have burnt 227,000 hectares of land since the beginning of the year—more than double the average for this time of year over the past two decades,” noting that while this year’s acreage lost to wildfires is far above the recent average (consistent records have only been kept since 2002), it is far below the recent record.
Abnett uncritically blames climate change for causing southern Europe’s fires, writing:
Scientists say the Mediterranean region’s hotter, drier summers put it at high risk of wildfires. …
Climate change exacerbates this risk, by creating hotter and drier background conditions. In the countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea, that has contributed to the fire season starting earlier in recent years, breaking records for the intensity of fires, and burning more land.
Greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning coal, oil and gas, have heated the planet by about 1.3 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times. Europe has warmed at twice the global average since the 1980s, according to the World Meteorological Organization.
Abnett’s narrative may be compelling, but it is compelling fiction, unmoored from a historical understanding of fire in the region and refuted by hard data and research.
As a matter of geography, the climate of the Mediterranean region is naturally arid, prone to drought, extreme heat, and yes, associated wildfires.
Abnett in particular discusses wildfires in parts of France (examples here and here), Greece (examples here and here), Spain (examples here and here), and even Syria (examples here and here).
Syria is not normally considered part of Europe, but I guess Abnett threw it into the mix because fires are burning there, and it is located on the Mediterranean Sea.
The problem is research and historical reports from each of the countries and regions mentioned by Abnett show that wildfires, often set intentionally by people during wars, have been common there.
Fire helped shape the ecology of the entire region. Some past fires have been huge. For instance, more than 108 years of global warming ago, when global average temperatures were cooler and humans weren’t contributing significantly to atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels, the great Thessaloniki fire burned for 13 days, left more than 70,000 people homeless, and destroyed two-thirds of Greece’s second-largest city.
Factions have used fire as a tool to fight wars throughout history. Many of the fires in Syria today have been set during its ongoing political strife or civil war. In the waning days of the Assad regime, it became common for militias fighting the government to set fires, which drained resources from the regime.
Nowhere in Abnett’s story does she discuss the fact that many fires now burning and that have scorched the region in recent years have been the result of human carelessness, and sometimes intentionally set for political reasons or purely perverse ends.
That’s the history and context Abnett ignores in her rush to climate judgment.
Additionally, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) undermines Abnett’s linking long-term climate change and the increase in wildfires.
The IPCC says in Chapter 12 of its Sixth Assessment Report that there has been no observable change in the wildfire regime. “There is low confidence in any long-term increases in meteorological drought or fire weather at the global scale,” states the IPCC.
The organization goes on to say that based on trends and models forecasts, it does not expect any observable change in wildfire behavior, numbers, intensity, or acreage lost to arise by 2050 or even by 2100.
On this point, the IPCC would seem to be on solid ground since satellite data sets from NASA and the European Space Agency both show a decline in wildfires in recent decades.
In short, since wildfires are declining, it is impossible for climate change to be making wildfires more frequent or severe.
To the extent that people perceive wildfire trends as worsening, it is likely due to [populations, housing, and infrastructure growth expanding into historically wildfire-prone regions, leaving more people affected by wildfires, even when they aren’t as widespread or severe.]
In addition, the 24/7 global news cycle, a factor that never existed in human history before [1980], makes people aware of even distant wildfires when they occur, making fires appear more frequent.
In the end, rather than focusing on the real factors behind today’s wildfires, Reuters chose to continue the drumbeat that climate change is behind everything bad that happens.
This is especially unfortunate with regard to discussions of how to reduce wildfires, since the story ignores real-world means of preventing and/or reducing the extent and damage from wildfires when they occur, such as increased active forest management, improved access for firefighting purposes, and hardening infrastructure.
Instead, the story implies falsely that if only humans stopped burning oil, natural gas, and coal, wildfires would be relegated to the history books. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Wildfires are natural. They have been, remain, and will continue to be a fact of life for the foreseeable future, regardless of fossil fuel use.
But the judicious use of fossil fuels can help fight fires by powering equipment, pumps, and timber removal machinery, for example, and by providing the on-demand electric power and plastics that house electronics used to discover, map, track, and pinpoint suppression efforts.
Fossil fuels also allow society to map potential fuel load buildups and favorable meteorological conditions rapidly, to anticipate and possibly prevent fires before they occur.
That’s what Abnett would have the world give up to prevent a modest rise in future temperatures.
Top photo by Anasmeister on Unsplash
Read more at Climate Realism
