Residents of Cotignac, France, faced a rapidly intensifying wildfire on July 21 2026. FBM Media/Getty
Hundreds of thousands of people have fled their homes in southwestern France and Spain as extreme wildfires intensify. At least three people have died, including two firefighters. Many houses have been lost.
While this region is no stranger to fire, our analysis shows these wildfires are off the charts. A very hot summer primed many areas for fire. When they ignited, they spread ferociously. The area of land burned in France is already 40% larger than the previous record year.
Some fires pose threats to large cities such as Bordeaux in France and Madrid in Spain. For the first time ever recorded in France, a fire thunderstorm (pyrocumulonimbus) formed over fires and made them worse. French President Emmanuel Macron described the fires as “unprecedented”.
A Spanish firefighter told AP the fires were extremely hard to fight:
the fire is so virulent and has such power that no matter what you do, you can’t put it out.
Authorities are scrambling to control the fires before another heatwave begins later this week.
How bad are these fires?
We have compiled data for this article showing just how unusual these fires are, compared with previous wildfires.
Three of the 15 largest wildfires since the European Union began recording data 20 years ago have burned during the past month.
In France, the energy output from the fires measured by NASA satellites is double the previous record for July. With another month or two left in the fire season, France is on track for its worst season since satellite records began in the early 2000s.
The Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal) and France’s Mediterranean regions are well known to be wildfire-prone. Last year, our research predicted wildfires would worsen in these areas under moderate climate change of 1.5°C and 2°C above average pre-industrial temperatures. Global warming has hit 1.5°C over the past three years.
What we didn’t expect was the appearance of massive, intense fires along the more humid Atlantic coast of France, near Bordeaux. These fires are worse than we predicted.
What’s making them so bad?
Spain and southwestern France are in the grip of severe drought and recurrent intense heatwaves well outside the range of records kept since 1940. Temperatures across the region have been around 4–5°C above average for June. This is what we would expect as the climate changes.
More heatwaves are forecast as the European summer wears on. As a result, 2026 is likely to become a clear outlier for extreme heat in western Europe.
Uncontrolled wildfires are not a surprise after a prolonged drought and extreme heatwaves. Arid conditions and dry ground make it much easier for vegetation to burn.
We don’t know how these fires started. But we do know densely populated areas are reliable sources of ignition. Fires can start from a tossed cigarette, lightning strike, car backfire or if someone deliberately lights them.
It’s possible to reduce the chance of ignitions when conditions make intense fires likely, but it’s not realistic to stop them altogether.
Huge fires like these do a great deal of damage, in both the short and long term.
Because many of these fires threaten towns and cities, authorities have ordered mass evacuations. This protects human lives, but makes it more likely houses and other structures will burn if there’s no one to defend them.
We don’t yet know how many houses have been lost. But the scale of the fires suggests there will be significant losses.
We also don’t yet know how bad the toll from smoke will be. Millions of people have been exposed to harmful wildfire smoke. Big fires like these prompt many people to seek care at hospitals for respiratory and cardiovascular issues. There’s a small but noticeable effect on mortality.
Beachgoers at Lake Lacanau in southwestern France watch a plume of smoke from the Gironde wildfire. Smoke can damage human hearts and lungs.Maximilien Lamy/Getty
What does it mean for the climate?
The size and energy release of these fires will drive a spike in greenhouse emissions, as burned vegetation releases carbon to the atmosphere.
Across the Northern Hemisphere, forest fires are becoming more intense and more common. Wildfires are currently hitting Canada and the United States. In recent years, fires have ignited in unexpected places, such as Scotland and even Greenland.
Intensifying fires make it harder for us to tackle climate change. Forests are vital natural stores of carbon. But they are now shifting in some places to a net source of carbon.
If unchecked, this could trigger a dangerous feedback cycle that would further destabilise Earth’s climate.
There is little doubt climate change has made France and Spain’s wildfires worse. They represent yet another reason to redouble our efforts to tackle climate change and stabilise our climate.
For authorities responding, it will be vital to use adaptation responses to reduce risks from the next wildfire crisis. These include reducing fuel loads and fire hazards, using methods such as prescribed burning, forest thinning and incorporating green firebreaks into urban landscape design.
No country has yet solved the challenge of responding to wildfires made worse by climate change. The intense fires gripping France and Spain show how urgent it is to be prepared.
David Bowman receives funding from the Australian Research Council, New South Wales Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre and Natural Hazards Research Australia.
Calum Cunningham receives funding from the Australian Research Council.
Grant Williamson receives funding from the NSW Bushfire and Natural Hazards Research Centre, and Natural Hazards Research Australia.
Since South Australia’s toxic algal bloom started to kill millions of marine organisms in March 2025, the media has been filled with images of dead and suffering coasts, plants and animals.
The bloom has been described by First Nations communities as “a profound cultural wound”. And it has continued for more than a year, ebbing and flowing in severity.
Even if people in SA avoid the beach, it is impossible to avoid the violence of the bloom. Distressing images are everywhere on social media and news feeds, with stories emphasising death, damage and human powerlessness. While there’s no easy fix for the bloom itself, addressing this unnecessary suffering is possible.
How media covers death and destruction in nature
This year, the ABC broadcast two investigations with upsetting content. One was about women’s health and the other an ecological disaster. Both episodes featured multiple scientific experts and tackled distressing material. One gave good warnings about upsetting content. The other did not. Comparing them illuminates an opportunity for positive change.
The Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Four Corners program aired Scarred, about medicine and women’s safety, in February. It released Toxic Tide, on the algal bloom, in March. These investigations reflected an inconsistent approach to audience safety.
The reporting in Scarred aligned closely with established ABC editorial policies and Australian Press Council guidelines. The episode opened with an explicit content warning, empowered victims and closed with support information, directing viewers to services.
The visual content throughout Scarred was reasonably neutral, focused on people, buildings, blurred scans, and mundane scenes such as a surgeon washing their hands.
This approach reflects a broader awareness: repeat exposure to traumatic events — visual or spoken — can trigger further harm.
Trauma awareness takes decades to build and formalise into practice. In the case of women’s safety, conversations in the early 2000s led to research and, eventually, an Australian Press Council Guideline in 2023.
The reporting in Toxic Tide was starkly different. Despite distressing content that included videos of dead and suffering animals and coastal ecosystems, there were no warnings. There was no support information at the conclusion of the report, and the episode ended pessimistically.
This approach isn’t unique to adult audiences. The Behind the News episode about the algal bloom, for audiences aged 8–13 years, followed a similar pattern. It presented ecosystem death and suffering without warning or support. It did conclude, at least, with hope.
A screenshot taken of the Four Corners episode of Scarred, which included content warnings for viewers.Four Corners/ABC TV
How could media do it better?
Australian media professionals today have access to policies such as the Australian Press Council’s advisory on reporting family and domestic violence and the Mindframe national guidelines on safe reporting about mental health concerns.
These documents emphasise minimising harm, using language and imagery carefully, avoiding sensationalism, educating the audience and providing pathways to support. Yet the same materials are not available for reporting on distressing environmental news.
SA’s experience with the algal bloom suggests it’s time to extend the logic of existing media guidelines into the environmental domain. A dedicated framework for reporting on environmental disasters would not censor or dilute journalism. It would strengthen it.
Such guidelines could encourage upfront warnings about distressing content. They might include contextual framing that avoids fatalism. They should include support resources — not only crisis lines but educational resources, community services attuned to environmental anxiety, and opportunities for action.
Crucially, guidelines could prompt journalists to consider narrative balance: pairing exposure to harm with pathways for agency in response to environmental bad news. Without this, coverage risks tipping from information into overwhelm.
Whether the subject is violence against women, mental health, toxicity on our coasts, or perhaps now bird flu, we must ensure the duty of care to audiences keeps pace with the realities being reported.
Amy McLennan works for the Australian National University, is a John Monash Scholar and a member of The Algal Bloom Shed. The Shed received some start-up funding from the General Sir John Monash Foundation.
Andrew Meares works for the Australian National University and is a member of The Algal Bloom Shed. He worked as a photojournalist and photo editor at The Sydney Morning Herald from 1991 to 2017.
Jacqueline Stephens works for Flinders University and is a member of The Algal Bloom Shed. She is a member of the National Executive Council of the Australian Science Communicators.
The Earth keeps getting hotter and experts fear this year’s El Niño, nicknamed ‘Godzilla’ because of its predicted intensity, could raise global temperatures by up to 3.6C. Environment correspondent Damien Gayle spoke to climate scientists to understand how the weather phenomenon and the climate crisis pose a huge threat to the planet
Australia is shifting away from coal-fired power plants, as batteries and other renewable technologies gain traction.mikulas1/Getty
Last summer, Australia’s electricity grid underwent a quiet but consequential shift.
Across the east coast, gas-fired power stations – long viewed as the only way to keep the grid functioning on our hottest or coldest days – barely ran.
The amount of energy generated by fossil gas this year dropped to its lowest point in 25 years. Batteries are now filling this gap, as a cheaper, cleaner alternative at peak times.
And wholesale electricity prices are 47% lower than this time last year, thanks to record renewable and battery generation.
This shift sits at the heart of the CSIRO’s latest GenCost report, which tells a story of two technologies heading in opposite directions: batteries getting cheaper and gas getting more expensive.
The steady shift away from coal
In Australia, most of our electricity historically came from coal. But each year we’re becoming less reliant on this finite and polluting resource. Coal usage has dropped by 25% in the past decade. In the first three months of 2026, renewables supplied a record 45% of electricity in Australia’s east coast grid.
This matters because electricity generation produces 32% of Australia’s carbon emissions. These emissions are worsening climate change, leading to more extreme weather and leaving many Australians physically and financially vulnerable.
Our coal power stations are also ageing. Like an old car, these stations are now breaking down more often and becoming more expensive to fix. When coal plants suddenly go offline, it pushes electricity prices up.
The federal government is aiming for 82% renewable energy by 2030 nationally. To meet that target, we must develop new wind and solar projects. But we also need new “firming” technologies, such as batteries and pumped hydro, to make sure we always have energy available.
The latest GenCost report confirms that renewables, backed by batteries, are the cheapest source of new electricity.
Critically, the cost of big, grid-scale batteries fell by 11–16% in 2025. And the CSIRO expects costs to keep dropping each year. This is because we get better at building these technologies as we build more of them.
More batteries
Across power grids, electric vehicles, computers and phones, we’re installing more and more batteries each year. Between 2024 and 2025, global battery storage capacity jumped by 40%. Australia is leading the charge, ranking third in the world for battery installations.
Research shows each time global battery storage doubles, the cost of manufacturing battery cells drops by 21%. In the future, this may boost the development of new battery technologies. This self-supporting cycle means the cheaper batteries get, the more ways we can use them. And the more we use them, the cheaper batteries are to make.
Gas plants rely on gas turbines. Unlike batteries, gas turbines are produced in relatively small numbers by only a handful of global manufacturers. This is because they are complex machines that often require specialised materials.
Demand for new gas turbines was low for the past decade. But it’s now increasing, largely due to the data centre boom in the United States. Power demand for data centres is already pushing up prices. Major gas turbine manufacturers are warning it will now take four years just to make and deliver a new turbine.
Gas plants also face other challenges. Gas is not always available at critical times. Australia’s newest gas turbine, Kurri Kurri in New South Wales’ Hunter Valley, only has enough available gas to run for about ten hours at a time and reportedly takes more than 24 hours to refuel. This makes it less flexible and more expensive than new eight-hour batteries.
Another challenge is the high cost of gas sourced from fossil fuels. As Australia’s gas exports grew, domestic gas prices surged to international levels. To date, this has been the main factor driving up household electricity prices.
Together, these challenges mean the cost of gas generation is unlikely to drop anytime soon.
To be clear, gas turbines may still be valuable in future.
As Australia makes its clean energy transition, batteries will increasingly do the heavy lifting. But my research shows the grid will likely need stored fuel for backup power generation, for example if a stretch of cloudy, windless days coincides with high demand. This may even involve building extra gas turbines, but using them less often as emergency generators for the grid.
However, these turbines cannot run on fossil gas going forward. Over the next 10–20 years, global carbon constraints will require us to transition from fossil fuels. Instead we can use alternative fuels such as biodiesel, a biodegradable fuel made from vegetable oils or animal fats. Green hydrogen from renewable energy or green methanol produced from agricultural and forestry waste are other options. This transition makes further investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, such as gas pipelines or gas fields, much riskier.
In the meantime, the incredible surge of batteries in our homes, cars and broader network means our grid is already shifting away from gas. That’s promising news, both for our planet and our hip pockets.
Joel Gilmore is a Climate Councillor. He is also Executive Manager Planning & Analysis at Iberdrola Australia, a company that builds and operates gas turbines, batteries and renewables.
