Aggressive fire suppression policies, which have been the dominant approach for nearly a century, paradoxically worsen wildfire problems by allowing fuel (dead wood, undergrowth) to accumulate over time, making future fires more intense and harder to control; effective wildfire management requires a balanced approach that includes prescribed burns to clear fuel loads while accepting that some fires are natural and necessary for forest health.
Deep Dive
Prerequisite Knowledge
- No data available.
Where to go next
- No data available.
Deep Dive
The Truth About Canadian FIRES!
Added:Hey everybody, it's Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain. Yes, we're going to travel to the far north wastelands of Canada, to the Billy Joel inspired, "We did start the fire!" This is Canada on Fire. What is going on and what can be done about it?
July 2026, this is Canada wildfires. That is a scattershot of Nerf gun sky shot lightning strike accuracy here.
There's a lot of fires that are going on.
I actually could point out here, like I have to mention this every third show, after high school, I worked up north in Canada for a year and a half.
I have been out to these kinds of areas, to the places where there are nothing but black flies and swamps and sweat and tears and cold and heat.
And the trees even thin out because you get too far north. So I've been to these kinds of areas, areas you have to fly in. I spent the winter in a tent in minus 35 degree weather.
I know a little bit about this region and I just wanted to point out, maybe it gives me a bit of credibility? Maybe not.
All right.
So this is just Ontario, 18th July, 2026. These are the scatter shots up here of the fires.
So where are the fires?
The wildfires causing the smoke are all over Canada at this point.
Some of the fires have been burning since June, with one fire near Collins burning since May, 130 miles north of Thunder Bay, or as it's known locally, Tunder Bay, Tunder Bay!
I actually spent quite some time there as well.
There was a significant outbreak of fires during the July 8th-12th, corresponding with hot, dry weather and likely lightning strikes.
July 13th and 14th saw rapid expansion of existing fires and the start of new ones. So by now, there are 800 to 970 active wildfires with over 180 in Ontario alone.
50 to 100 of the total fires are close enough to human settlements to necessitate evacuation.
Most of the active wildfires, about 85% to 95%, are in remote wilderness and boreal forest areas far away from human settlements. This is the place that's like you've got to drive three days, the road runs out, and then you've got to hike in for a couple of days to get there.
Not easy to fight, except, of course, from the air, which we'll get to later.
The extent of the wildfire smoke is not inconsiderable. This is quite the skid mark all over North America.
As you see, it's going all the way from north of Thunder Bay, across Philadelphia, New York, Providence, Boston, and out into the ocean where, even the whales are coughing, I believe.
Southwestern, southern Ontario, much of the U.S. northeast, many major cities.
Why? Why? Why so much fire? Well, the direct cause of the wildfires is hot and dry weather drying out fuel for the fires.
But the available fuel for the fires is exacerbated by aggressive fire suppression, and allowing fuel to accumulate.
So it's just one of these paradoxes of forest management that the more you suppress fires, the worse fire you're going to get.
Lightning strikes are the most likely cause of the most remote fires.
Of course, we'll talk about arson and that sort of stuff. But if you're going to do arson, you probably don't want to hike for a couple of days to get there and a couple of days back, because you might not outrun the flames you start.
Fires near human settlements are typically attributable to accident or negligence, contributing 20 to 40% of all wildfires. Only you can prevent forest fires, the old Smokey guy from at least my youth. Is he still around?
Out hunting communists, perhaps.
Arson also contributes to the tune of 5 to 10 percent of human-caused fires or around 2 percent of all fires. Now, of course, it depends where you do the arson, where these evil guys do the arson, because if it's a particularly dry stretch and the wind happens to pick it, it can go much worse.
So, many posts on X point that the federal government's mishandling is the reason behind this year's flare-up.
True, false? Let's find out.
So wildfires spread through several means, gossip sewing circles being the most.
Embers are carried downwind, which can spread existing fires and ignite new ones.
Large fires create new weather systems, entire new weather systems, much like my forehead, called pyrocumulonimbus, I always get the tongue twisters, which themselves emit lightning strikes, increasing the potential for new fires.
So the fires summon the clouds, which summon the lightning strikes, which summon the new fires.
They also heat and dry out the air, which further dry out fuel downwind.
Of course, fuel is just the term for dry tinder and timber and undergrowth that can spread the fire.
Why are the fires still going? Well... once a wildfire gets going, it's very difficult to contain and extinguish, unlike my social media career.
Many of the fires in Canada are in very remote areas without roads.
Crews have to be flown in via helicopter. Boy, and if you ever want to have some exciting times in northern Ontario, get flown in by some guy, known one-eyed squinty Pete via helicopter. I've been there a couple of times. It's a little dizzying.
Aerial fire suppression is only part of the equation. Marshy areas make it difficult to move heavy equipment in the summer.
A single wildfire can take weeks to contain, much less extinguish.
And of course, you're very much dependent on the weather.
Population and forest coverage in North America. So Canada has about 9,000 times more trees than people, and most of that forest is very far away from major population centers.
Canada has got the famous younger brother syndrome with the United States.
We claim to dislike it enormously, and we huddle as close as possible to the American border continually.
There's really not much up in northern Canada. You can go for days and days and days and see nothing but more forest, more forest and more forest until it thins out to tundra.
So what are the costs of the wildfire? Insured losses include property damage, interruption to businesses, and some evacuation expenses, about $3.1 billion nationally in 2023.
Total government spending, including evacuations, emergency services, and initial recovery, cost $1.1 billion alone in 2023, just in Quebec.
Fire suppression alone was about $210 million of this figure.
232,000 people were evacuated across 282 events. So, if you're only spending $210 million and the expenses are $3.1 billion, let's just say there's room not just for the smoke to rise, but perhaps, perhaps for the spending to rise.
Healthcare impacts, again from Quebec, $585 million in extra ER visits, hospitalizations, and repeated burdens.
Quebec, I think it has the highest smoking rate in Canada, so it should be fine with forest fires because these are people who smoke in church.
Some sources estimate fires cost Quebec alone up to $8 billion in 2023.
So you could probably spend a little bit more to save some of that money.
All right. Definitions. Apparently, I have a few American friends and some friends in Europe who listen and watch to the show. So we're going to... we're going to do a little metric/imperial back and forth. So hectare, an area of land equating to 0.01 square kilometers, just shy of 2.5 acres.
Or, for our American friends, about two American football fields.
Roughly the size of a professional soccer pitch. Enough space to park 150 to 200 cars.
And if they all idled, it still wouldn't equal a forest fire.
Boreal forest, the vast northern forest belt across Canada, contains conifer trees like spruce, pine, and fir. Think Christmas.
Contains deciduous hardwoods like aspen, birch, and balsam poplar. In peatlands and bogs, contains moss, sedges, and low shrubs.
In open areas or wetlands, contains grasses and sedges.
Boreal forests are highly adapted to fire. The Canadian boreal forest, I actually counted this myself, 526 million hectares.
I lost count at about 520. I had to start again. It was a tough weekend, man.
All right. This is going to be a shocker for me. I am a small to no government kind of guy.
So in 2021, while still doing his warm-ups for the Katy Perry videos, Justin Trudeau promised $450 million for new water bombers before the next season.
A single water bomber costs $80 to $85 million.
Because it's the government and every hammer is $500.
From 2020 to 2026, the size of the water bomber fleet nationwide remained at 64.
Oh, that just seems a little low for millions and millions and millions of hectares.
Now, an interesting sort of side note, I did double check, this seems to be true.
The Black Hawk is the most used firefighting helicopter in the entire world. Except, except in Canada. Why? Why except in Canada? Well, Transport Canada banned it in Canada in 2024.
They banned US operators from bringing them in in 2025. So the most used heavy firefighting helicopter in the world is operated with a near perfect safety record in the United States, Australia, Europe, New Zealand, South America, Asia, South Africa.
Ah, but Transport Canada has banned it twice.
With one exception, the RCMP is allowed to use it for border patrol.
So apparently it's safe, but just not near fires, which is what it's partly designed to deal with.
So Alberta's next water bombers don't arrive until 2031.
Ontario itself has nine water bombers with other provinces lending aid.
Experts, reports, and past fires all informed the government that dead wood needed to be cleared and forests needed to be managed.
Previous fires include 2016 Fort McMurray, 589,552 hectares.
2017 to 2018 record BC fire seasons. That's not Before Christ.
That's British Columbia, which is the California or the left coast of Canada.
So BC fire seasons in 2017, 1.2 million hectares and change.
2018, 1.35 million hectares. 2021, Lytton was destroyed with 83,747 hectares burned.
2023, worst wildfire season in Canadian history, 15 to 17.2 million hectares.
2025, second worst on record with mass evacuations, 8.3 to 8.9 million hectares.
Is it climate change?
We'll see. I like to keep you all in suspense.
So given all the broken promises of, oh yeah, totally, man, we're totally, totally going to get more water bombers.
Where did the money end up going?
Well, $29 billion in total of Canadian taxpayer money went to Ukraine.
Between 2024 and 2025, the government sent $500 million to Palestinian causes.
$2.65 billion was sent in 2022 to international climate finance to developing countries.
About a billion dollars per year from 2021 to 2024 was earmarked for grants to immigration and refugee resettlement and citizenship programs.
So with just these figures, which is a fairly small slice of the entire spending, that's 705 water bombers.
Cue Jordan Peterson. He's not with us at the moment. Clean your room, eat meat, and clean your room. All right.
So how does one manage wildfires?
So, at the risk of stating the obvious, without human beings, wildfires would happen. They're actually healthy for the forest in the long run.
They clear out the dead wood. They clear out some of the strangling undergrowth.
They clear out the canopy to some degree so new trees can grow more efficiently.
And so, it's going to happen. There's lightning. There's heat and all of that.
Humans, of course, do not want fires. Humans also extract resources such as lumber, which disrupts the existing ecosystem.
However, species in forests evolved to cope with burn and regrowth cycles.
Hence, an effective way to manage wildfires is to perform prescribed burns.
I know, it's a little counterintuitive, right? But... what you do is you go and burn a bunch of stuff that's really old and rickety and dry, and that way new forest grows in and it's controlled and managed.
This involves sending crews and equipment to intentionally set fires, which clears out dead wood and simulates the natural cycle.
It's worth noting that aggressive fire suppression, right, making sure you don't have any fires, has been known to exacerbate the problem of wildfires since the 1930s.
Almost 100 years. Almost a century of, this is the best way to do things, followed by government saying, really? Let's try the opposite.
Canada makes performing prescribed burns an onerous process to the point that in 2023, the worst wildfire season in recorded history, only eight prescribed burns covering 532 hectares were conducted by Parks Canada, the federal authority.
B.C. conducted 23 burns covering 2,241 hectares.
Alberta only released the area with burns covering 1,374 hectares.
Other provinces haven't released public figures, but based on available data from local authorities, which only account for a few hectares per burn, only 200 to 800 hectares across the rest of Canada. This is a rule of thumb, guesstimate, so don't hold me to it.
This makes the national total for 2023 somewhere between 4350-4950 hectares burned.
I mean, it's worth noting the 2023 season would have made it difficult to conduct prescribed burns.
But as we mentioned before, the decades of oversuppression and utter neglect, including obstacles in performing prescribed burns, is what contributed directly to the 2023 season being so dangerous in the first place.
So it's fair to assume, that this would have been a lighter year for prescribed burns to begin with.
In other provinces, the burns were conducted by conservation authorities and municipal prairie burns in Ontario, limited training of park burns in Saskatchewan and occasional indigenous cultural burns.
Of the prescribed burns in 2023, there was one that escaped containment conducted by Parks Canada near Banff, but it did not rise to the level of a wildfire.
It burned three unplanned hectares for a total of 21 hectares burned.
So the prescribed burns themselves did not contribute to the 2023 wildfire season.
It also is... a little side rant here, just a tiny, tiny, oh, I'll restrain myself as best. I will not let the fire of my rant burn uncontrolled.
Wait, it's already happening. All right.
So one of the things that needs to be taught in schools, but in general is not, in general is not taught in schools, is there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
So people, of course, find it weird that the government sets fire to the forest.
No, the whole point, man, was to not set fire to the forest, was to not have the forest fire burn, and now you're making the forest burn, is a trade-off, right? So if we burn the forest now, it'll be less easy to burn in the future.
Teaching people that there aren't just, you know, well, I don't like to see fire, I don't like to see bunnies running, and I don't like to see trees collapsing.
Well, it's going to have to happen one way or another. We either do it in a controlled way or nature does it in an uncontrolled way.
So, teaching people in school, in government schools, that there are no solutions, only trade-offs.
It's a foundational Thomas Sowell insight and economics as a whole, there are no solutions, there's no solution called no fires, there's only a trade-off.
And helping people to understand that there are no solutions, only trade-offs would make this stuff a whole lot easier, but it would make it tougher for politicians to promise the moon while delivering hell.
Monsieur Bob Gray, a BC-based fire ecologist, boy, doesn't that sound like something out of Dungeons & Dragons, says that Canada should perform prescribed burns of tens of thousands to the low hundreds of thousands of forests every year to make any real dent in fuel loads and future wildfire behavior.
BC alone used to burn over 100,000 hectares historically.
Now they burn less than 10K per year. I think in BC they're very, very worried that they might accidentally burn at least one marijuana plant.
It's very difficult for them.
Wildfires consume multiple millions of hectares in the worst seasons.
Well, what if we just burned it all?
From Professor Ryan Katz-Rosene on X: a prescribed burn costs between $1,500 to $8,000 per hectare.
There are 526 million hectares of boreal forest.
If we prescribe burn 5% of the forest each year, representing a 20-year fire return rate, it would cost between $39.5 billion and $210.4 billion per year.
So up to 36% of Canada's total annual budget. Obviously, that's not productive, positive, or of value.
This is a bit of a straw man. One problem here is the government's ownership of the forest, over 90%, which bans private enterprise from finding the best solution to deal with it. It's a sort of fundamental insight of economics.
All human desires are limitless or unlimited or infinite.
All resources are finite, and people respond to incentives.
So if you are in any government department and you're charged for solving a problem, the more you solve the problem, the lower your budget next year.
The less you solve the problem, the more your budget next year.
There's only one time that actually worked in the government directly for a summer.
And part of that time was them frantically figuring out how to spend the remainder of their budget so they didn't get cut next year.
And what happens to people in the government if they fail to solve a problem?
Well, the welfare state was designed to eliminate poverty.
What's happening now that poverty is entrenched and you have a permanent underclass.
Nobody loses their job. Nobody has any problems. If you don't have skin in the game, you just can't make good decisions.
Another problem is that not all of the forests would need to be managed in this way. Fires remote from human settlements could be allowed to burn naturally with relatively little impact to people.
Jan Beverly from the University of Alberta testified in 2024 regarding communities with extreme fire exposure.
She identified 149 million hectares with extreme fire exposure.
65 million hectares of that area was within long-term tenure areas.
Narrowing that down to where people actually live, she reported that they'd still need to treat 4 million hectares with FireSmart treatments.
The 65 million hectares in Jan Beverly's testimony is already partially managed as 1% of that area is harvested per year.
It would also contain roads for access. And, by the by, if you ever want to have a very exciting video game experience, just drive on logging roads where the logging trucks get paid by the load.
So they are careening around on two of their eight wheels and you have to really dodge pretty quickly. It's very, very exciting.
FireSmart, by the by, is a Canadian government advisory program that prescribes how to mitigate wildfire risk within human settlements. It typically includes, vegetation management. Where's your stash, man?
Clearing flammable plants, thinning trees, creating fuel breaks, home and structure hardening, non-combustible roofing, screening vents, community planning and education, emergency planning, and interagency cooperation.
Natural fire return rates range from 50 to 500 years, so 5% is quite aggressive.
The cost also combines private and public burns into a single range.
How much would it cost if private enterprise took over wildfire management?
Unfortunately, the $1,500 to $8,000 per hectare range is the only data we have on burns in Canada.
Private versus public ranges are not separated out in any publicly available data. The U.S.
has even less private boreal land ownership, but we can look at some of the costs there.
Boreal forests in the contiguous 48 states is limited to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Private forest ownership is relatively high in these states, but boreal forest only occupies the northern portions of these states and is mostly owned by state and federal governments.
It's worth noting that there are other kinds of burns performed in the U.S.
with lower cost per acre, but these burns are on prairies or non-boreal lands.
We're focusing on boreal forest costs here since it's what's relevant to Canadian wildfire management.
Costs for prescribed burns are not broken out according to forest type.
A small 2022 survey in Wisconsin revealed a rate of $508 per acre for all types of forests or $1,255 per hectare.
This rate contained both public and private respondents and was heavily weighted towards private consultants and family forest owners.
Alaska is covered in boreal forest and is almost entirely publicly owned.
They can they can conduct burns at $50 per acre or $123 per hectare.
Alaskan burns can often be ignited via airdrops and require minimal ground crews.
So, costs range based upon efficiency.
How much would it cost to burn privately? Boreal forest is overwhelmingly held by the provincial governments between 87% to 92%.
The federal government holds 4% to 7%. Private land is 3% to 6%.
Indigenous land owned or co-managed 2% to 5%.
If we take the highest rate from the U.S., $1,255 per hectare for joint public-private burns and translate that to Canadian dollars, we get $1,760 per hectare.
This means that U.S. practices with mixed private and public efforts are only slightly over the low end of Canada's burn range, which I find quite interesting.
The GDP of Canada attributable to the private sector is about $1.8 trillion.
No government budget allocation is needed. Using Professor Ryan's assumptions, let's just say that the high end for private enterprise would be $46.3 billion per year or about 2.5% of private production.
Now, of course, exact figures vary depending on how boreal forest is defined.
Different agencies use different definitions. Some land is in transition due to modern treaties and indigenous land claims.
GDP does not include, sorry, does include government production, so we don't really want to count that if we're considering how much it would cost the private sector to handle wildfire management.
Private enterprise contributes 82% to 85% of GDP in Canada.
If we consider Jan Beverly's testimony and say that all 61 million hectares that sit between remote forests and human settlements need to be managed at 5% per year, the total cost comes to $5.7 billion or 0.3% of private production.
Now, another thing to remember is, of course, where it's burning without any impact on people and it's entirely natural, does it really need to be managed?
Which arguably no, but I will say this, that most of the places that are smaller settlements up north are maintained by the government.
People are still there for the government. You've got social programs propping them up, unemployment insurance and all kinds of crazy spending from the government to prop up these communities.
Otherwise, they would go as, you know, you get these ghost towns all over the place as some mine closes or some local resource dries up or whatever it is, young people move away.
And so the fact that there are people up north being affected by mismanagement lands and fires is also a government program as well, to a large degree.
These towns would not exist without government money, or at least very few of them would.
And so the impact on people is also part of a government program as well.
U.S. assistance. Elected officials in America are calling for Canada to do more to manage its wildfires.
Mark Carney turns that around on the U.S., blaming America for being a primary contributor to climate change.
See, climate change is when there's too much CO2 in the air.
Badly managed forest lands contribute massive, massive, massive amounts of CO2 to the air.
So if you really do care about climate change or CO2 in the air, forest fire management would be one of the most important things you could possibly be doing.
Trillions of dollars have been taken in in carbon taxes, how much of those trillions of dollars have been focused on managing forests? Because the forest fires out of control, because of mismanagement, produce massive amounts of CO2, that's driving climate change.
So we'll get to climate change in a bit. Oh, yes, we will. But I just wanted to touch on it here. But it's worth noting that Canada has sent billions of dollars overseas and has had plenty of warning about the dangers in their forests.
I'd say our forests, but they're not mine.
In response to U.S.
Elected officials, Doug Ford in Toronto said, rather than complain, send support.
OK, let's take that as a possibility.
There is a lack of reciprocity on the part of the Canadian government when it comes to American assistance.
When Canadian firefighters come to the U.S., the base daily rate is $400 to $800 per day plus overtime and hazard pay, right?
So you go on to help America with its fires, $400 and $800 per day.
Canadian firefighters earn 30% to 70% more in the U.S. when compared to home rates.
For example, Alberta and BC crews have reported effective daily compensation of $900 to $1,200 US, which is at least an eighth of a cart of groceries in Canada these days.
So, your children can eat somewhat on that rate.
Now, that's when they drop... so, they drop water on fires and money on firefighters when Canadians go down to the States. Ah, but when U.S. firefighters come to Canada, they are sometimes not reimbursed or only receive a minimal stipend.
Most U.S. crews are paid their home pay rates. Pay is typically a per diem of $50 to $100 Canadian for meals plus travel reimbursement.
The net: 70% to 100% less compensation compared to U.S. rates.
U.S. firefighters essentially volunteer their time or are covered by home pay while away.
If you really cared about the firefighters, you wouldn't ask people to risk their lives for free.
So, the mainstream attributes to the hot and dry conditions that exacerbate the danger of fire to climate change.
Now, of course, as I mentioned, if politicians actually believed climate change was real and were desperate to, like, catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, they would take steps to mitigate the effects such as performing prescribed burns.
But they fund projects like airports in low-lying areas. They oppose nuclear power. They block domestic energy production, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And of course, you know, at a personal level, politicians and many others are happy to do things like buy seaside mansions, own large energy-intensive homes, fly private jets all around the world.
Of course, as usual, it's rules for thee, not for me. You've seen these giant planes carrying limos that land in remote places for climate change conferences that could easily be done remotely. Well, all right.
The truth is that hot days and drought have not increased in Canada since 1910.
Wildfires are driven primarily by aggressive fire suppression and the accumulation of fuel. The United States has a similar problem.
Now, globally, wildfire rates have decreased by 24% over the past two decades, and even Canada's 2026 wildfire season is below the five-year average.
There were more fires in Canada and in the USA in the Little Ice Age, 1300 to 1850, than today.
Every continent is below average in terms of wildfires. And of course, it's great to have the weather gods called climate change that you can blame for your own mismanagement.
Carbon dioxide. Of course, my thought was, well, fire needs oxygen. So do I.
Carbon dioxide is a fire suppressant.
So if CO2 is increasing, shouldn't that decrease forest fires?
While it is true that carbon dioxide is a fire suppressant, atmospheric concentration doesn't have much effect on wildfires. So my brilliant theory was denied.
If anything, increased carbon dioxide may have an increased effect on wildfires due to the more abundant presence of plant food, right? So CO2, human beings produce CO2 because there are more human beings producing CO2.
It increases vegetation, which increases crop production, which feeds the more people.
It's kind of nice little, but sister, it's not a vicious cycle, it's a virtuous cycle.
Even so, the mainstream complaints about climate change are a smokescreen, get it, to distract people from what's really going on.
Fires release CO2, carbon monoxide, fine particulates, volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, formaldehyde, benzene, and so on. still safer for me than Indian food, but not ideal.
Health effects include irritation, respiratory, and cardiovascular strain.
Total emissions of fires in 2023 was about 2.4 gigatons of CO2, also me after Indian food, several times Canada's annual emissions from fossil fuels.
So that's quite interesting.
So the forest fires dwarf Canada's annual emissions from fossil fuels.
So shouldn't you, if you care about climate change, really focus on forestry management.
The 2026 fires are serious regionally, but haven't reached the scale of 2023.
And the claim that the 2026 fires exceed all emissions of the 300 years of US emissions is off by more than 200 times.
This kind of stuff, misinformation. It seemed kind of shocking to me.
Like, oh, the 2026 fires just in Canada have exceeded all the emissions of 300 years of US, blah, blah, blah. No, not true.
If stuff doesn't feel right, again, on X, you got the little gripe thing is this true worth checking out.
So, were the fires started by humans?
I don't want to say conspiracy theories because, I mean, conspiracy is a real thing. There are real conspiracies.
A criminal conspiracy is literally written into law, so we know there are conspiracies.
Were the fires started by humans?
So have there been discussions on X around how the fires seemingly start in a straight line all at the same time?
And we're going to show you some satellite imagery.
At the time of this writing, the imagery goes back to July 9th.
Many fires are already smoldering, but not as much as Zendaya's glare.
And you can see relatively thin smoke plumes coming from them.
On July 13th, around 1:30 p.m. Eastern, the smoke plumes start to intensify.
This is a common occurrence within wildfires. The heat of the sun will cause fires to intensify.
The forecast around Thunder Bay on July 13th was around 100 degrees Fahrenheit, with low humidity, with mild to moderate wind.
The result was heavy plumes through to sunset.
So, the next two slides show the time-lapse satellite imagery on July 13th and July 14th.
The images are taken 10 minutes apart. So, pay attention to the time of day and notice on the 14th that the plumes have significantly abated overnight.
These animations also include markers for the fires as well as heat maps.
The heat maps are updated periodically, so you can see an update to the heat maps on July 14th.
So you see this, um see what what's actually going on, right? All right. So here we are, uh going along and these are the fires. This is the inconvenient clouds of obscuring.
And as you can see, the time is going along there.
This is eastern time. We start at 7 a.m. You can see the smoke plumes most clearly in the south. As the sun rises and heats the earth, you can see that the plumes start to grow in intensity between 1 to 2 p.m. right here.
This is not fire starting. This is wildfire reacting to the conditions at the time, which were highs around 102 degrees Fahrenheit or 39 degrees Celsius, low humidity, and sustained westerly or southwesterly winds.
So, it's not a bunch of people out there with Bic lighters.
All right. The time of the video, Eastern, of course, 7 a.m.
On July 14th. You can see the plumes have diminished overnight.
They again increase in intensity around, this is 9:40, 9:50, 10 a.m.
When we get to around 12 p.m., the high for the day is still quite hot, around 95 degrees Fahrenheit or 35 degrees Celsius, low humidity, and sustained westerly or north westerly winds.
So, again, you can see that it's a function of temperatures, and heat and all of that kind of stuff. Heat dries out, sunlight dries out, the vegetation, which makes it more susceptible to fire, etc., etc. Now, is it glyphosate, glyphosate? I'm just going to go with glyphosate.
Seems to be the standard pronunciation. So glyphosate was developed by Monsanto in the 1970s and was approved by the Canadian government in 1984.
Just a coincidence, Mr. Orwell.
It is used in forestry to suppress broadleaf and deciduous vegetation, allowing conifers like spruce pine and fir to grow uncontested.
It is sprayed one to two times per 25 to 50-year rotation a few years after harvest. Now, that's a big thing, to go and spray an entire forest to change its nature.
Critics say that spraying reduces fire-resistant species such as aspen and promotes flammable conifer monocultures. It also leaves dry, dead biomass, which serves as kindling for fires.
Quebec, though, did ban glyphosate in 2001, and yet Quebec sees just as much fire despite the ban. So... What are the health concerns? It smells bad. It irritates your throat.
Well, on X, there is skepticism about the smell of smoke from the wildfires, with one user saying, Legacy Media trying to justify why the air in Canada smells and tastes of chemicals. No mention of the five years plus of daily geoengineering spraying.
Wildfire smoke does contain low concentrations of benzene, toluene, formaldehyde, and acrolein, which contributes to the sharp chemical or plastic smell.
It's not enough to cause long-term harm, but they certainly cause irritation, headaches, and dizziness. And there's more notes. If you want more details about the health concerns, they're in the show notes below.
Nitrogen oxides and burnt plant resins contribute to the bitter and acrid taste.
Authorities have given us little to trust in, but these are normal for wildfires.
And of course, the people out there fighting the fires have it much worse.
PM 2.5 air quality questions. What is PM 2.5? A fine question.
The answer is fine particulate matter 2.5 micrometers or smaller in diameter, which can be harmful to health when inhaled.
It is a significant component of air pollution and can lead to serious respiratory and cardiovascular issues.
In reference to an air quality map in Michigan, Steve Milley on X writes, these are not unhealthy levels of PM 2.5. If you inhaled the highest level on this map, 262 micrograms per cubic meter all day, 24 hours. No, don't sleep.
It would be equivalent to the PM 2.5 from about two drags on cigarette. Not harmful. Not.
Panic warranted. No panic warranted. It's fair to say you shouldn't panic, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't take caution in my humble, non-medical, amateur, foolish opinion.
Normal, healthy people experience respiratory irritation due to wildfire smoke, which is an indication you should avoid breathing it in if you can, especially vulnerable individuals.
Chronic exposure to elevated PM 2.5 is linked to respiratory issues, but temporary exposure to PM 2.5 from a wildfire is also not the same as smoking, or living in a polluted city.
Boy, when I was in Beijing, man, my nose was black at the end of a day around.
So what is the solution? Well, whatever the problem is, the solution is always, always, always more freedom.
So wildfires are going to happen. they're a complex problem requiring a lot of coordination and intelligent, focused, efficient allocation of resources, which you can't get from the public sector.
You need prices, you need incentives, you need people with their savings on the line, you need people passionate about it, and people who are going to gain the benefit of doing it well and suffer the consequences of doing it badly.
This does not happen in the public sector.
The vast majority of wildfires occur on government-owned land.
A tiny bit of a straw man, I acknowledge, because the vast majority of land is government-owned land.
But the government does erect all kinds of barriers to sensible management.
They very much discourage controlled burns. There is a lack of water bombers and so on.
And governments, of course, adapt slowly, if at all.
They're frozen in time with regards to aggressive fire suppression and all the stuff we talked about as having been known for over 100 years is not put into practice. And nobody suffers negative consequences for failing to manage things properly.
So, I really do appreciate your time.
I hope this is helpful. If you'd like the work we're doing here, please consider donating at freedomain.com/donate. No ads, never has been ads on this show.
And the sources for this presentation are available at fdrurl.com/canadafire.
And don't forget! Livestreams, Wednesday night, 7 p.m., Friday night, 7 p.m., Sundays, 10 a.m., drop by chat. Let me know your thoughts.
Love to hear how you're doing. And I really do appreciate your time.
This is Stefan Molyneux signing off. All the best. Bye-bye.
Related Videos

Ez a tökéletes kör alakú sziget magától forog!
a_vilag_mesei
748 views•2026-04-17

Global observing needs in the deep ocean
usclivar
101 views•2019-11-13

Community-Based Restoration Project Aims to Protect Forked River Beach
americanlittoralsociety6774
1K views•2022-12-16

FORTO VN: LAUNCHING REFORESTATION PROJECT OF RHIZOPHORA APICULATA
manglubsocialenterprisevie1137
197 views•2022-08-04

Fifth anniversary of Deepwater Horizon explosion; BP oil spill
tampabay28
2K views•2015-04-20

Howard A Hanson Dam "Fish Passage Facility Project" on the Green River, King County, Washington
marcmarcantonio
961 views•2022-02-25

Advancing global ecosystem-based management
NOAALibrary
290 views•2025-01-09

The Future of Biodegradable Plastics
OneminuteSci
264 views•2025-05-04
Trending

Playstation NO DISC/NO BUY Fight Is Over...
DavidJaffeGames
4K views•2026-07-23

Americans Confused in Australia for 17 Minutes Straight
IWrocker
17K views•2026-07-23

Bitcoin Social Interest: Dozens of us Left
benjaminjcowen
12K views•2026-07-23

Tesla Profits Plunge & SpaceX Stock Continues Fall
TheJohnJohnstonLounge
6K views•2026-07-23