Depending on the area that has always been the case, indeed.
In fact, in the most historically prone areas, the Mediterranean part of France, number of fires and surface area burnt have tended to decrease over time since the 1970s [1], which shows that being prepared works and this experience must now be used in more areas of the country.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
That's exactly why they are a better choice, like the imaginary bridges on current Euro banknotes.
The selection of people is also quite poor but that's because people are a poor choice: Most notable historical people are very linked to specific countries, often against other countries so picking neutral ones is hard. They also clearly decided to have an equal number of men and women, which makes it even harder. Obviously there aren't enough different banknotes to represent every country, either.
Faces are a terrible idea for a common currency shared by 21 countries.
You have to pick one writer, good that the English left for good so Shakespeare's out, but how do the French feel about Cervantes vs. Victor Hugo?
The Poles complaining that they didn't get enough recognition because Marie Curie's maiden name isn't given enough prominence should tell you all there is to know about this being a good idea.
> how do the French feel about Cervantes vs. Victor Hugo?
I don't think anybody would mind since there's already Marie Curie, which is an obvious choice because she's both Polish and French. I don't know how the Polish take it but the French have no particular feelings about her being Polish as well.
Maria Skłodowska-Curie was very helpful, at trying to solve #2 and #5 countries (by population) in one stroke. Good that the big 5 EU countries were simple enough to cover.
But why are a Greek-American, and an - unknown to the majority of Europeans - Austrian in there?
How many counties more populous than Austria are unrepresented? Do all EU countries count, or just EZ? (Poland is not EZ, is represented, still complained)
It's an impossible list. Europeans don't necessarily have shared heroes, and if they did, some of these wouldn't be top 6.
Heroes fought and died fighting countries that are in the EU today.
Obviously you can't have them on the banknotes.
As for the smaller countries- well let's face it do you think anyone in Europe gives a shit about Dutch or Estonian history and culture?
Its France and Germany all the way down I'm afraid. At least we still have the veto.
Cynically, this is another use of "think of the children" to make everyone identify themselves when signing up for anything classed as "social media", bearing in mind that everyone has an ID card in France, which can be used via smartphones to identify yourself online using a government app ("your papers always accessible", actual quote) and which will be used in this case, afaik.
This also comes the same week as a French senatorial report proposes to label and control online speech further against so-called "domestic interference",which sounds rather ominous. Even better, Macron also recently said that he wanted news media to get an official label based on their trustworthyness, which is also ominous.
Cynically, this is another use of "think of the children" to make everyone identify themselves when signing up for anything classed as "social media", bearing in mind that everyone has an ID card in France, which can be used via smartphones to identify yourself online ("your papers always accessible", actually quote).
This also comes the same week as a French senatorial report proposes to label and control online speech further against so-called "domestic interference",which sounds rather ominous. Even better, Macron also recently said that he wanted news media to get an official label based on their trustworthyness, which is also ominous.
> this is another use of "think of the children" to make everyone identify themselves when signing up for anything
Nope. I'm pretty rabid when it comes to my privacy. But I also don't like Mosseri and Zuckerberg and Altman preying on kids.
I'd love a perfect solution. But I'll take a flawed one in its place. I've not seen a lot of productive pushback against these proposals beyond demonising all of the parents and other folks who think social media and its ilk have gone too far, unchecked.
Even the popular claim that "natural has is extremely expensive due to the Ukraine war" is misleading. In the UK and Europe high prices are by and large the result of policy and in fact high prices is exactly the aim.
I'm not sure that is true. The reason prices are high in the UK is that the government guarantees specific strike prices to investors to bring investment into new renewable infrastructure. So if someone builds a new offshore windfarm, they are guaranteed a certain return. The underlying strike price is calculated from the cost of natural gas, and therefore the price is being effected by various things, such as the US-Iran war. It is not designed to be a high price, it is just how the government has chosen to attract investment, specifically keeping the underlying price linked to gas.
In Germany: 0.06 € / kWh was policy, 0.14 € / kWh was mainly Ukraine war. It's currently at about 0.10 € (policy + Ukraine war + Iran war). Taxes are fairly low: 0.0055 € / kWh and the usual 19% VAT.
It is policy to ban shale gas and more North Sea gas. In Germany it is also policy to exit nuclear, like it was policy to depend on Russia. VAT is policy. The Ukraine War is a convenient way to deflect from all the policy choices made over the last 20+ years, while still achieving the aim of high prices.
No, the goal of German policy isn't to kill its energy-intensive industry. Like in all countries, the conservative party, biggest member of the governing coalition, has strong ties to the local industry, and the social democrats have no interest in the loss of jobs. "The aim of high prices" is conspirationalist nonsense.
The aim of Nordstream (however misguided that turned out) was low prices.
Minor point: companies get the VAT back or don't pay it in the first place.
However you look at it they don't want fossil fuels to be cheap, as demonstrated by all the policies I mentioned. So the aim is indeed high prices (because this makes other energy sources more attractive) within the constraints of public opinion and the economy
Although the economy is suffering because this is all not well thought-out.
Again, saying it is politically suicide so they don't (mostly, Greens are open about it) but actions speak louder than words.
So what is the hidden agenda then, and by which actions did the government raise prices to 14 cents during the Ukraine war and 10 cents now? Why did they run a crash program to build LNG terminals, which lowered prices?
By all indications, "5-6 cents high" was politically desired, "10-14 cents high" isn't.
I have several banana plants in my garden in Southern England. Musa Sikkimensis and Musa Basjoo, 3+m tall at the moment.
Winters are too cold for them here. So either you heavily mulch them and they start from the roots every spring while the stems die in winter. Or you learn how to wrap the stems to protect them over winter.
It might be possible, or borderline to keep them unprotected within London but outside of there and inland temperatures can drop below -5C even in the South.
On the other hand, I think they have started growing tropical fruits like mangos and bananas in Sicily.
[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy4ker2y1mko
reply