[mytailorisrich]

The elephant in the room is that many of those fires are criminal and that the French government has arbitrated budget restrictions against investing in fire-fighting equipment, especially planes.

It so happens that the current fire near Bordeaux is roughy in the same area as the historic fire of 1949 in which 82 people died (and currently still smaller, hopefully it will stay that way) [1], as someone else already mentioned.

Wildfires in Fontainebleau are not new, either, even if this year's one it is historically large. First laws against fires in the in forest and obligation of inhabitants to help in case of fire date from the 14th century [2].

Yes warming trends do not help and increase risk (hence need to invest in equipment and prevention) but there is also fabricated drama and lack of perspective, which are unfortunately how everything is reported nowadays.

[1] https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendie_de_1949_dans_la_for%C...

[2] https://www.fontainebleau-photo.fr/2013/08/les-incendies-de-...

[evomassiny]

About a third of those fires are criminal [0], yes that's a lot, but the majority are still accidental or natural.

Even the criminal ones are only enabled because of the dry vegetation, caused by the recent heat waves. IMO focusing on what caused the spark is missing the root cause: global warming.

And yes you can argue that such fires existed previously, but what's concerning is that the frequency on which they are happening is increasing rapidly

[0]https://observatoire.foret.gouv.fr/themes/les-causes-des-inc...

[mytailorisrich]

In the South of France, dry vegetation in summer is normal. Areas where this is most expected, the Mediterranean, have actually seen a decrease of fires over time as preventive measures and fire-fighting readiness have increased. [1] See graph for "Nombre de feux de foret in zone mediterraneene 1973-2024", graph for "surfaces parcourues", and text.

That's why I am suggesting to keep a cool head and to take a step back to analyse things rationally. In any case that is good advice to adapt to warming, too. If you go down the rabbit hole of media reporting you are going to have a nervous breakdown.

[1] https://observatoire.foret.gouv.fr/themes/l-historique-des-f...

[Loquebantur]

A rational approach to existential threats is indeed good advice, but to surrender in the face of complexity is not.

The human induced climate catastrophe is due to a systemic failure and consequentially needs to be addressed on a systemic level. The economic system and policies need to be adapted, even against the implied subjective interests of the biggest holders of capital and assets.

They like to paint that as "impossible", but of course it's not.

[mytailorisrich]

Thanks for illustrating my point...

[Loquebantur]

Well, actually, you're exemplifying mine.

Being trapped in an Overton window selected for you by those invested in upholding the status quo is what leads to your emotional stress.

The fundamental disconnect between the existential threat of climate catastrophe and the official un-reaction to it is what leaves you unable to cope with actually very much white-washed reporting on the topic.

[Arodex]

>warming trends do not help

Understatement of the year, here, after the third heatwave of the year with a fourth on the way and record after record being shattered.

>(hence need to invest in equipment)

Easy.

>fabricated drama and lack of perspective

The one with a lack of perspective is not the ones you think.