As Britain surfaces from a summer of prolonged drought, record heat and wildfires, the evidence is becoming harder to ignore. Climate change is increasing the likelihood of the extreme heat and dry conditions that make wildfires more common and dangerous.

Scientists overwhelmingly agree that human activity is driving climate change, yet the right-wing media appears determined to find almost anything else to blame.

Their latest target is rewilding, the restoration of ecosystems by allowing vegetation and natural processes to return with less human intervention. Their argument is that allowing vegetation to grow has created vast ‘tinderboxes’ and that environmental policies are therefore responsible for Britain’s worsening wildfire problem.

There is a serious discussion to be had about how land should be managed to reduce fire risk, but turning that discussion into a conspiracy about rewilding is another matter entirely. It also creates a notable contradiction. Newspapers claiming to defend ‘evidence-based’ land management are promoting a narrative that ignores much of the scientific evidence about what is actually driving extreme wildfire conditions.

The Telegraph’s rewilding blame game

When a 371-acre wildfire began at the RSPB’s Minsmere reserve in Suffolk before spreading to National Trust-owned Dunwich Heath, the Telegraph sought to pin the blame on ‘rewilding.’

The paper reported claims that the area had become a ‘tinderbox’ because of the RSPB’s ‘rewilding agenda,’ quoting Countryside Alliance chief executive Tim Bonner, whose organisation has consistently opposed rewilding.

Bonner accused organisations of refusing to manage vegetation because of ‘political ideology’ and an ‘obsession with rewilding.’

Yet the organisations actually responsible for managing the land gave a very different explanation.

The RSPB said the summer’s fires were “unprecedented in scale, driven by drought and prolonged heat exacerbated by climate change.”

The National Trust likewise pointed to prolonged drought and exceptionally low rainfall across England and Wales.

The Trust’s communications director Celia Richardson summed up the absurdity: “Some of the oldest surviving heathland in the UK burns in unprecedented temperatures and Telegraph headline says “rewilding” is to blame.”

There is an obvious problem with treating vegetation management as the primary explanation for catastrophic fires. Devastating wildfires have also occurred on intensively managed land. Scotland’s first recorded ‘megafire,’ at Dava on a managed grouse moor in June 2025, is one example.

And talking of grouse land. A recent article in the Murdoch-owned Times headlined “Wildfires suggest rewilding needs a rethink,” claims that “Green enthusiasm for ignoring the old-fashioned thinning and clearing of land does create habitats – and kindling.”

But there is a wider vested interest behind this particular vision of ‘traditional’ land management. Grouse moors are managed to support driven grouse shooting, a pursuit associated with Britain’s wealthy landowners and the ultra-rich, for whom vast swathes of upland Britain are maintained as private shooting estates.

That matters because much of this land is managed through intensive heather burning. Environmental campaigners have long argued that such burning can damage peatlands, which are naturally wet ecosystems that store carbon and support a wide range of wildlife.

So, when the right-wing press present burning and intensive management as the sensible alternative to rewilding, it’s worth asking whose interests that version of ‘sensible’ land management serves.

Climate science tells us that higher temperatures dry out vegetation and make it more flammable.

Indeed, there is evidence that some forms of ecological restoration can make landscapes more resilient to extreme weather. Rewilding can increase carbon storage, restore water-retaining soils and wetlands, provide shade and diversify vegetation.

Rewetting peatlands can also reduce the continuity of flammable vegetation. RSPB senior policy officer Tom Aspinall has explained that burning can encourage heather, an oily highly flammable plant, while rewetting and diversification can introduce a wider range of vegetation and disrupt the ability of fires to spread.

A balanced debate?

In response to a front-page story in the Daily Mail claiming that ‘eco-dogma’ and Labour’s environmental policies had caused the record number of UK wildfires, Rachel Millward, deputy leader of the Green Party, accused the newspaper of “turning reality on its head” by blaming rewilding while denying readers the facts about climate change.

“This is another deeply irresponsible headline from a deeply irresponsible newspaper,” she told Left Foot Forward. “The Mail seeks to blame the climate crisis on anything other than its main cause – burning fossil fuels.”

There is, of course, a legitimate debate about whether particular landscapes are being managed in the best possible way.

University of York associate professor Andreas Heinemeyer, who has studied UK moorland ecology for 15 years, widens the discussion to include the common practice of vegetation control through burning. He argues that the supposed conflict between those who support burning and those who oppose it has become a “false culture war.”

For Heinemeyer, policy should be based on “unbiased and robust evidence” rather than “false and misleading claims about burning.”  

Amen to that but there seems little prospect of the right-wing media presenting a balanced discussion any time soon.

Trump’s war on conservation

And such misinformation isn’t confined to Britain. As with so many of the culture wars peddled by the right, the inspiration comes from across the Atlantic, where the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal recently ran an editorial arguing green policies were fuelling fires in Europe.

It’s a depressingly common thread. When wildfires become more frequent and extreme, the right-wing media repeatedly looks for an environmental policy to blame, anything, it seems, except the fossil fuel emissions driving global warming.

Donald Trump has taken a similar approach to environmental protection in the US.

His administration has rolled back protections covering huge areas of public land and weakened conservation safeguards. He has repeatedly attacked environmental regulations as the work of “radical climate activists,” including complaining that endangered-species protections have placed land off limits to development and even military training.

The same political instinct is visible on both sides of the Atlantic, to portray environmental protection as an ideological project, then use environmental problems as evidence that environmental protection has failed.

But the consequences of weakening habitat protections are not ideological. Habitat loss remains a leading driver of extinction. The Rewilding Institute has warned that rolling back habitat protections removes the foundations needed for ecosystems and wildlife to recover.

 

France’s far right exploits the fires while opposing green policy

The same contradiction is playing out in France which suffered a summer of record heat. By the end of July, the area burned by wildfires had already broken the annual record. 

Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally has spent years opposing green regulations. Yet the party seized on France’s worst blazes in years to accuse President Emmanuel Macron’s government of failing in one of its most basic duties, protecting people and their homes.

As Politico noted: “As France has sweltered through record heat, the National Rally has so far paid little political price for its lack of credibility on climate and environmental policy.”

Rather than addressing the causes of climate change, the party focused on adaptation, how governments can protect people from its consequences. During a June heatwave, for example, it proposed financial assistance for installing air conditioning in homes and public buildings, presenting the measure as an immediate response to concerns about health and safety.

It is a familiar political manoeuvre: exploit the consequences of a warming climate while sidestepping the policies needed to tackle its causes.

The French example makes clear that this is not simply a British media obsession with rewilding. Across the right, climate impacts are increasingly being used to attack environmental policy, even when the policies being attacked are aimed at addressing the underlying crisis.

Follow the evidence not the culture war

The Met Office says 2026 is on course to be the hottest UK summer on record. Temperatures reached 38.1°Cat in Kew Gardens, while 2026 became the first year on record in which temperatures reached at least 35°C in May, June and July. A summer this hot has been made around 130 times more likely by human-induced climate change, according to the Met Office.

Dr Stephen Cumbers, a medical doctor and chartered scientist, summed up the implications: 

 “None of this means every wildfire, death or hot day can simply be labelled ‘climate change’,” he wrote. “Nor does the evidence dictate a single policy programme. But it does make continued delay increasingly difficult to justify.”

His conclusion should be the starting point for the debate.

“The message to government should be neither alarmism nor complacency.

“Take the evidence seriously. Be honest about the risks and costs. And make energy and climate decisions on evidence rather than short-term political convenience.”

There is nothing wrong with questioning how particular landscapes are managed, or examining whether controlled burning, grazing, rewetting and other interventions can reduce wildfire risk.

What is wrong is turning that legitimate scientific and ecological debate into a political conspiracy in which rewilding is blamed for a wildfire crisis occurring amid record heat and drought.

The right-wing media’s argument ultimately collapses under its own contradiction. It demands that environmentalists “follow the evidence” while repeatedly ignoring the evidence when it points towards climate change.

Britain might need better land management, but it also needs an honest conversation about what is making wildfires worse.

Blaming rewilding won’t make the climate crisis disappear. In the meantime, the debate (or lack of debate) does feel like those astronomical arguments of the early modern period. Long after scientists and seafarers had proved that the earth was round and went round the sun, there were still those who insisted on the opposite. Are climate change deniers the flat earthers of our time? 

Gabrielle Pickard-Whitehead is author of Right-Wing Watch

The post The great rewilding conspiracy: the right fight the science while Britain burns appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The Mail on Sunday produced another corker of a front-page last week.

“Burnham BBQ phone alert sparks chaos,” it declared, after millions of people across England and Wales received an emergency alert warning of a “very high risk of wildfires nationally”.

The PM subsequently confirmed that the emergency alert system had been activated at the request of fire and rescue officers. The message simply asked Britons not to undertake activities that could cause a fire, including using disposable barbecues, firepits, garden incinerators or fireworks.

According to the government, it was the most extensive use of the emergency alert system to date.

And yet, rather remarkably, the alert itself appeared to trigger a different kind of emergency: a collective meltdown among  much of the right-wing press and commentariat.

The Mail splashed on claims that Tories were accusing the prime minister of “cry wolf” by misusing a system intended for imminent threats. Other headlines warned that “999 [was] swamped with calls,” that drivers were allegedly “career[ing] across motorways as siren blares”, and that Andy Burnham was guilty of “prime ministerial posturing.”

GB News joined the chorus. “Andy Burnham’s emergency alert backfires as Britons ‘opt out’ of receiving new signals,” it declared, reporting claims that social media users were “furious with the alert,” including one person who accused the government of “abusing the system.”

The Sunday Telegraph was at it too, with a front-page story about Burnham’s emergency alert “backfiring” as thousands supposedly opted out.

And Conservative councillor Susan Hall couldn’t resist joining the pile-on. She retweeted a post from an Express journalist complaining that the government was “making use of the emergency alert system to tell people not to light disposable BBQs during a drought,” adding: “My thoughts exactly – what sort of country are we living in?”

Quite what sort of country she thinks Britain should be is an interesting question. Apparently, one in which emergency services should refrain from warning people about an elevated risk of wildfires.

Fortunately, the absurdity was not lost on everyone.

One social media user responding to the Mail’s front page pointed out the rather important fact that the emergency services themselves had requested the message. Another respondent to Hall’s post observed: “One that wants to protect its citizens from fire.”

But then such a reaction from sections of the right comes as little surprise, as it fits neatly into a wider pattern. The same political and media voices that routinely demand that governments “do something” when disaster strikes can become remarkably sceptical when preventative action is actually taken.

And then there’s another uncomfortable dimension to the outrage – climate scepticism.

Britain is not traditionally associated with catastrophic wildfires. Its temperate maritime climate and reputation for grey, wet summers have long made them seem like a problem belonging to southern Europe, California or Australia. But as the climate changes, periods of extreme heat and drought can create conditions in which vegetation becomes dangerously dry and fires spread more readily. Britain has already experienced devastating wildfires, including fires that have destroyed homes and threatened communities.

That changing risk is precisely why Burnham has argued that the UK needs to “face up” to climate change and accelerate the transition to clean energy. He has also said he would seek to commission firefighting aircraft, which are commonplace in countries where large-scale wildfires are a more established threat.

There is nothing remotely radical about recognising that a changing climate can create changing risks.

Surely, it would be irresponsible of the PM not to.

The post The BBQ meltdown: the right turn wildfire warning into a culture war appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Britons are increasingly feeling the effects of a changing climate, but many believe the government is failing to respond with the urgency the crisis demands. New polling shows that three in four people are concerned about climate change, while a growing majority expect the extreme heat experienced this summer to become a recurring feature of British life.

The findings also expose a widening divide between public concern and political rhetoric. While 74% of Britons are concerned about climate change, the radical right continues to downplay its dangers, even as extreme weather is disrupting people’s everyday lives and placing new pressures on households.

A new Ipsos poll of 1,085 adults across the UK found that 87% believe Britain will experience severe heatwaves like those seen this summer in future summers. More than half of British adults (56%) say extreme summer weather has disrupted their ability to carry out normal daily activities, including working, exercising and sleeping.

Yet despite this growing public concern and direct experience of extreme heat, many Britons believe the government is falling short. 37 percent say the Labour government has done a “bad job” dealing with climate change since coming to power in July 2024, compared with just 13 percent who say it has done a “good job.”

The figures suggest a clear disconnect between the scale of the challenge facing the country and the public’s assessment of the government’s response. With extreme heat already affecting people’s ability to work, sleep and go about their daily lives, climate change is no longer simply a long-term environmental concern. It’s becoming an immediate political and public policy challenge.

The poll also highlights the political consequences of failing to meet that expectation. When asked which alternative parties would do better or worse on climate change, the Green Party is most positively viewed, 35 percent saying a Green government would do a better job dealing with climate change, compared with 24 percent who say it would do worse, while 37 percent expect it to do about the same.

55 percent believe a Reform-led government would do a worse job on climate change, while 39 percent say the same of a Conservative government.

The findings confirm a definitive divide between public concern about the climate and the rhetoric of the radical right, which continues to minimise the severity of climate change despite the crippling effects of extreme weather.

“While over half of British adults report that their daily routines were disrupted by the heat, we see a distinct gap between public concern and practical action,” said Raquel de Luis, head of energy and environment at Ipsos in the UK.

“A significant portion of the public feels the Labour government is falling short on climate response, yet individual households are struggling to adapt independently, with affordability standing as a primary barrier to installing effective home cooling measures.

“Moving forward, the key challenge for Westminster will be delivering accessible, cost-effective infrastructure and adaptation support that enables households to build resilience against recurring summer heat without adding to their financial burdens.”

In response to the poll, civil society campaign group Best for Britain said: “The radical right downplays the dangers of climate change – or flat-out lies about them. They are not in line with the British public. We need to take urgent action now.”

The findings point to a growing expectation that the government needs to do more. As extreme heat becomes a more familiar feature of British summers, the public appears increasingly concerned not only about climate change itself, but about whether the government is responding with the urgency, investment and practical support the situation demands.

The post Three in four Britons fear climate change is getting worse – and say UK government isn’t doing enough appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

In 1965, a presidential advisory panel issued a report warning that pervasive chemical and carbon pollution was harming environmental health and changing the climate. Five years later, President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act.

Since that 1970 law and its amendments were passed, combined emissions of a half-dozen harmful air pollutants from vehicles and industrial sources have decreased by nearly 80 percent.

But mounting evidence shows that pollution from wildfire smoke is eclipsing those air-quality gains. The unchecked burning of fossil fuels is creating warmer, drier conditions that make wildfires more intense and destructive, and blanket communities in toxic smoke that is more harmful than pollution from other sources.

Read full article

Comments

© Anadolu / Contributor

The Daily Mail has been rebuked after it ran a front page story yesterday claiming that ‘eco-dogma’ and ‘rewilding’, not climate change, has caused the record number of UK wildfires this summer.

New figures released on Wednesday by the National Fire Chiefs Council reveal that England and Wales have suffered 1,017 wildfires so far this year, already matching last year’s record-breaking total.

The Mail article quotes a spokesperson for landowners and a rewilding critic, who say ‘Labour’s rewilding drive’ and the restrictions on controlled vegetation burning, have turned “swathes of countryside into tinderboxes”, causing the wildfires.

Rewilding is where vegetation is left to grow naturally with minimal human intervention, helping ecosystems to recover and supporting greater biodiversity.

Another figure quoted in the article was Andrew Gilruth from the Moorland Association, who said: “Rewilding sounds like a good idea, unless you end up facing a wall of flames.”

He also claimed that there is “far, far too much vegetation covering our landscapes” and until rewilding is reversed “the wildfires will get worse and worse”. 

The article does mention that temperatures have reached 38 degrees this week, but it doesn’t mention climate change or the role that rising temperatures play in wildfires spreading.

Climate science shows that higher temperatures driven by climate change dry out plants and make them more flammable. Scientists also maintain that most fires are started by humans.

There is also evidence that rewilding captures carbon dioxide and helps create a variety of vegetation and healthy water-retaining soils, reducing the likelihood of wildfires. 

Reacting to the Daily Mail’s claims about rewilding causing wildfires, Rachel Millward, deputy leader of the Green Party, told Left Foot Forward: “This is another deeply irresponsible headline from a deeply irresponsible newspaper. 

“As usual The Daily Mail is turning reality on its head and denying its readers the facts about climate change. The Mail seeks to blame the climate crisis on anything other than its main cause – burning fossil fuels.

“Alongside cutting down our fossil fuel use, rewilding is one of key things we can do to slow global warming. It draws down planet-warming carbon dioxide, provides shade and cools the land, helps prevent flooding, and starts to restore the huge variety of wildlife and plant life that we have been losing.”

Friends of the Earth’s senior nature campaigner, Sienna Somers, also called out the Mail’s claims, stating: “The reason vast swathes of Britain are burning is climate change, not rewilding – and it’s ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

“Without tougher action to protect communities and curb the emissions that are driving the climate crisis, things will only get worse.”

Somers added: “Decades of degrading our land have helped create this situation. Rivers have been straightened and wetlands drained, creating tinder-dry conditions for wildfires to rip across our landscape.

“Rewilding and restoring nature at scale should be treated as national infrastructure. We need to invest in transforming our degraded peatlands, rivers, wetlands and woodlands so they can hold and store water, provide shade, reduce the risk of fire and drought, and help protect communities from flooding.

“Restoring nature and rewilding are part of the solution – not the problem.”

Olivia Barber is a reporter at Left Foot Forward

The post Daily Mail rebuked over ‘irresponsible’ claim that rewilding has caused record number of UK wildfires appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The Telegraph has been criticised after attempting to link the devastating Suffolk wildfires to ‘rewilding’ rather than the extreme weather conditions that experts say have dramatically increased fire risk.

Rewilding, alongside organisations such as the National Trust and the RSPB, has long been a favourite target of the right. Few episodes illustrate that better than the controversy surrounding Sir David Attenborough’s series on wildlife in 2023, when the BBC chose not to broadcast an episode examining the destruction of nature on its main channels amid concerns about a political backlash.

Senior BBC sources  told the Guardian that the decision was taken partly to avoid criticism from Conservative politicians and the right-wing press. At the time, the Telegraph had attacked the BBC for creating the series and for taking funding from “two charities previously criticised for their political lobbying” – the WWF and RSPB.

It was hardly surprising therefore to see the newspaper publish the headline this week entitled: “Rewilding blamed for Suffolk wildfire.”

The article is focused on the 371-acre blaze that began on the RSPB’s Minsmere reserve before spreading to the National Trust-owned Dunwich Heath. It claims residents and experts believe the area had become a “tinderbox” because of the RSPB’s “rewilding agenda.”

One of the principal opponents cited is an anonymous local resident who criticised the RSPB’s land management and alleged its “green projects” had put nearby communities at risk. The piece also quotes Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance, an organisation that has consistently opposed rewilding, who said the RSPB should “follow the evidence.”

“Refusing to manage upland vegetation because of political ideology or an obsession with rewilding is completely irresponsible,” Bonner added.

“As the Countryside Alliance has pointed out repeatedly, organisations that manage land should listen to science and evidence, and put landscapes, nature and livelihoods first. The RSPB are playing with fire.”

Only towards the end of the article were readers presented with responses from the organisations responsible for managing the land.

The RSPB said this summer’s fires had been “unprecedented in scale, driven by drought and prolonged heat exacerbated by climate change”.

A spokesman said: “While we work hard to reduce risk, it is important to recognise that wildfires are indiscriminate; they can ignite and spread quickly across a range of landscapes – from heathlands, grasslands and peatlands, to farmland, woodlands and areas close to homes and communities – particularly in hot, dry and windy conditions.

“We carry out ongoing habitat management across our reserves to reduce fire risk, including cutting firebreaks, rewetting peatlands, restoring bogs and wetlands, and improving water retention across vulnerable areas.

“We also run public awareness campaigns urging people not to use disposable barbecues, light campfires, or leave litter that could spark a blaze.”

The National Trust confirmed that assessment, pointing instead to prolonged drought and exceptionally low rainfall across England and Wales.

A spokesperson said:

“Our Suffolk colleagues are part of the local community and care deeply for Dunwich Heath and have long worked to reduce fire risk – maintaining fire breaks and regularly cutting heather.

“When the fire broke out, our team, neighbours, local agencies and the wider community rallied immediately, working alongside emergency services to cut additional breaks and help contain the blaze.

“Evidence shows healthier, wetter landscapes are more resilient to fire, which is why we prioritise nature restoration over routine burning.

“The wider issue is clear: climate change is accelerating, and we urgently need national leadership to help protect people, places and nature as we face a long recovery together.”

While the Telegraph’s headline suggested rewilding itself was responsible for the blaze, both conservation organisations pointed to the growing scientific consensus that hotter, drier conditions driven by climate change are creating unprecedented wildfire risks across many different landscapes.

The article prompted a backlash online. Celia Richardson, the National Trust’s director of communications, wrote on X:

“Some of the oldest surviving heathland in the UK burns in unprecedented temperatures and Telegraph headline says “rewilding” is to blame.”

Many readers accused the newspaper of using an environmental disaster to advance an ideological argument. One commenter wrote: “Who would want to advertise or buy this out-of-date, once-quality newspaper?”

Another said: “The truly jaw-dropping fact is that the Telegraph is still regarded as a serious newspaper.”

Others noted that catastrophic wildfires have also occurred on intensively managed land, including Scotland’s first recorded “megafire” at Dava, a managed grouse moor, last year. Critics argued that presenting rewilding as the primary cause of wildfire ignores both the wider evidence and the increasingly central role that climate change is playing in driving extreme fire conditions.

The post Telegraph criticised for blaming Suffolk wildfires on ‘rewilding’ appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Oil giants are facing renewed criticism after reporting billions of pounds in profits, with campaigners accusing the industry of profiting from conflict while the climate crisis intensifies.

Both BP and Shell have posted bumper earnings following a rise in global oil prices triggered by disruption to supplies during the Iran conflict.

BP reported quarterly profits of £4.2bn, up from £1.7bn a year earlier and well ahead of analysts’ expectations. The results follow another strong quarter, underlining how geopolitical instability has translated into soaring returns for the company.

Much of the increase has been linked to the disruption of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a route that normally carries around a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas. As attacks disrupted traffic through the waterway, benchmark crude prices climbed sharply, boosting revenues for the world’s largest fossil fuel producers.

The latest figures cover the first full quarter of the Iran conflict, whereas previous earnings reflected only the early stages of the crisis.

The financial windfall comes as the impacts of climate change continue to intensify.

Across Europe, deadly heatwaves and wildfires have swept through several countries, while England and Wales recorded their driest July on record, with around half of England officially in drought.

Despite these increasingly severe climate impacts, BP has reaffirmed its commitment to expanding fossil fuel production, reversing previous plans to reduce oil and gas output.

“Amassing $5.7 billion (£4.24bn) in profits shows how corporate gains have become entirely divorced from the public good – ordinary people are feeling the heat when it should be the polluters paying the price,” said Greenpeace political campaigner Angharad Hopkinson.

BP is far from alone in benefiting from the conflict in the Middle Wast

The world’s largest oil producer, Saudi Aramco, announced a 44 percent increase in profits, while Shell recently reported a 70% surge in half-year profits to £12.6bn, saying the effects of the US-Iran conflict had contributed to its strongest quarterly performance in four years.

Responding to Shell’s results, Greenpeace campaigner Rudy Schulkind urged more progress.

“We’re running out of words to describe the obscenity of these numbers,” he said.

He added that the profits came as “Europe is engulfed by apocalyptic wildfires, communities across Asia are reeling from devastating floods, and the UK battles through drought and yet more dangerous heat.”

Environmental groups say the latest profits strengthen the case for governments to increase taxes on extraordinary fossil fuel earnings and accelerate investment in clean energy.

Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Danny Gross called for Andy Burnham to oppose the proposed Rosebank oil development and instead back policies that would expand renewable energy.

“Andy Burnham must reject the climate-harming Rosebank oil project.

“Instead, he should strengthen the windfall tax on gas and oil companies and use the proceeds to speed up the transition to a cleaner, cheaper energy system that boosts energy security and protects both the planet and people’s pockets.”

The post Oil giants face backlash as Iran conflict fuels multi-billion-pound profits appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

The wildfires afflicting communities across the world can now be tracked more easily by anyone using Europe’s free and open satellite imagery service—all thanks to a wildfire visualization script originating from nearly a decade ago.

The Copernicus Browser provides free access to the latest satellite imagery taken by the European Space Agency’s Sentinel satellites for the European Union’s Earth observation program. The three satellites of the Sentinel-2 mission have proven especially useful for wildfire monitoring by providing multi-spectral imaging at resolutions as granular as 10 meters in visible light and near-infrared bands—and the Copernicus Browser previously offered 10 default visualization layers using different combinations of spectral bands.

Now Copernicus Browser has also added a straightforward “wildfires” visualization layer for Sentinel-2 imagery that went live on August 4. Anyone clicking on this layer while looking at a wildfire location can see active fires in white or yellow, burning vegetation in red, and burned landscapes in dark brown or black.

Read full article

Comments

© European Union | Copernicus Sentinel-2

Several US senators have written a letter to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), inquiring about the agency’s “plans to crack down on prediction markets” that offer “contracts for individuals to bet on wildfires.”

“Offering bets on destructive wildfires threatens to minimize communities’ suffering, all so the rich and powerful can profit,” wrote the group of senators, who represent Oregon, California, Nevada, Minnesota, and New Hampshire.

The document specifically cites that Polymarket hosted bets in January 2025 on the wildfires in Los Angeles, and it mentions another website that specifically accepts “simulated bets” exclusively on California wildfires.

Read full article

Comments

© Getty Images

As devastating wildfires continue to sweep across Spain, forcing tens of thousands of people from their homes and scorching hundreds of thousands of hectares, Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has renewed his attack on climate scepticism, accusing political opponents of undermining efforts to confront what he described as a worsening climate emergency.

Speaking at a press conference this week, Sánchez appealed once again for opposition parties to support Spain’s National Pact on the Climate Emergency, a strategy finalised in December 2025 after an extensive public consultation involving civil society organisations, environmental NGOs and scientists.

The pact outlines 15 priority measures aimed at improving Spain’s resilience to climate-related disasters. These include the creation of climate refuges for people displaced by extreme weather events, reforms to forest management to reduce combustible vegetation, and stronger prevention and emergency response systems.

Announcing that the areas devastated by the latest fires would be designated disaster zones, Sánchez argued that Spain could no longer afford political division over climate policy.

“The climate emergency is worsening year after year, and we are required to be united to fight against fire, as well as in prevention and reconstruction,” he said, adding:

“Therefore, I make an explicit request, a single appeal to all regional governments: Climate denial is the worst fuel for the fight against the climate emergency.”

European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) figures confirm more than 207,000 hectares have burned in Spain since the beginning of 2026. The country has already experienced one of its deadliest wildfire seasons in recent years, including a blaze in Andalusia in early July that claimed 13 lives.

The latest fires around Madrid have triggered one of the largest civilian evacuations in modern Spanish history. More than 56,500 people have been evacuated since the fires erupted last week, while a further 27,797 residents have been ordered to remain indoors. Madrid regional president Isabel Díaz Ayuso described the fires as “the biggest natural catastrophe in the history of Spain.”

Sánchez has repeatedly called for cross-party backing for the climate pact after every major wildfire, but those appeals have consistently been rejected by the conservative People’s Party (PP).

Ester Muñoz, who represents PP’s parliamentary group in Congress, dismissed the prime minister’s calls, saying that the claim that “climate change kills” had become “a mantra the left keeps repeating to avoid taking responsibility” for what she characterised as the government’s poor management of the crisis.

Other PP figures have also argued that the recent fires were caused not by climate change but by negligence and human activity. The party’s position mirrors that of the far-right Vox party, with which the PP governs in several autonomous communities, including Castile and León, Extremadura and Aragón. Vox leader Santiago Abascal has repeatedly denounced what he calls “climate fanatics” for linking increasingly frequent heatwaves and more destructive wildfires.

The rejection of Sánchez’s appeal has provoked criticism from climate scientists, who say the evidence connecting climate change to worsening wildfire conditions is now undeniable.

“We have enough evidence to say, independently, that it is climate change that is causing these ever more devastating fires,” said biologist Maria José Sanz, director of the Basque Centre for Climate Change and a former member of the IPCC team that was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

“It is urgent for society to understand that we must organise differently, with better prevention and improved administrative coordination, both in Spain and at the European level.”

The post Spain’s climate-sceptic right rejects Sanchez’s climate emergency pact as wildfires force mass evacuations appeared first on Left Foot Forward: Leading the UK's progressive debate.

Drones capable of spraying water and fire retardants have been practicing how to snuff out wildfires early in California and Alaska this summer—demonstrating a possible rapid-response tool for firefighting as climate change transforms wildfire season into a nearly year-round risk for much of the United States.

Most drones are significantly smaller than crewed aircraft and have shorter flight ranges, meaning they cannot replace large airtankers in delivering massive payloads of water or other fire-suppressing payloads to remote wildfires. But companies and fire agencies—along with organizers of the $11 million XPRIZE competition—are testing whether drones can help firefighting crews respond more quickly to small fires and put them out before they become more destructive.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, also known as CAL FIRE, ran its own field test involving five autonomous drones that worked together to deploy between 500 and 1,000 gallons of foam combined for suppressing fires on July 15, according to the TV station KPMH. The demonstration was organized with the help of the nonprofit FireWERX and the California-based company Seneca, which is making the drones commercially available starting in 2026.

Read full article

Comments

© Seneca

As smoke from hundreds of burning wildfires spread across Canada and the United States, the first three operational satellites in the Google-backed FireSat program successfully launched into orbit. The satellites will begin providing wildfire detection capable of spotting even small fires in the United States, Australia, and Europe before the end of the year.

The launch of the microsatellites aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California on July 7, 2026 marks a transition to “initial operational capability” for the FireSat constellation managed by the nonprofit Earth Fire Alliance. After a three-month testing period, the three satellites will begin actively providing data to fire agencies while covering every fire-prone region on Earth at least twice per day.

FireSat represents the first satellite constellation purpose-built for detecting wildfires, including spotting smaller fires that other satellites may miss. The satellites were designed by California-based satellite manufacturer Muon Space and have received over $15 million from Google to support initial deployment. Other notable financial supporters include the Bezos Earth Fund that committed $26 million.

Read full article

Comments

© Muon Space