Federico Rampini continues his battle against the “ideologies” of ecological transition. This time, in an editorial in Corriere della Sera (An "Ideological" Wildfire, January 11, 2025) and in a video for the online edition, Rampini focused on the wildfires in California, which have so far resulted in 11 deaths and over 100,000 evacuations. Let’s examine what is true, false, or ambiguous in what he wrote and said.

To start with, the entire content is framed within the diminishing rhetoric of “ideologues” versus “pragmatists,” where the usual drama unfolds: the former are wrong to impose absurd environmental laws, and the latter, the rational ones, try to bring the debate back to reality.

Rampini states that environmentalist California "has decided that combustion cars will be outlawed from 2035.” In reality, the American state has banned the sale of internal combustion vehicles starting in 2035, but those who already own such cars will still be able to use them legally, as reported by the Guardian. The same measure has also been adopted in Europe – we had already discussed this here.

Rampini also writes that left-wing policies are “erecting a wall of local laws, particularly to combat climate change.” It makes little sense to polarize the debate this way. Without new laws, and therefore new restrictions, ecological transition cannot happen. Environmental laws, however, should be seen for what they are: great opportunities to modernize the labor market.

Ideological Nature

Then comes the highlight. Wildfires are described as "a catastrophe partly natural, partly man-made.” This is another insinuation to downplay the human role in causing these fires. This requires further explanation.

The potential causes of the ignition and spread of a wildfire can be multiple, as explained, among others, by the website of our Civil Protection. While natural causes such as lightning or volcanic eruptions exist, human causes are often predominant, especially in areas with significant human presence. Tragically, Rampini acknowledges this, contradicting his previous statement. Specifically, it has often been noted that some California wildfires were likely ignited by faults in electrical grid infrastructure. This, too, is a human cause, not a natural one.

However, ignition alone does not explain the vast area burned. NBC News reports:

From December to February, California typically experiences its rainy season, but unlike the northern part of the state, which received its share of precipitation, Southern California has been abnormally dry over the past eight months. The last time Los Angeles recorded more than a tenth of an inch of rain was in early May.

Combining a very dry winter with strong winds dramatically increases the risk of a massive wildfire. Santa Ana wind gusts exceeded 160 kilometers per hour, an exceptionally high value even for this already intense wind.

Southern California is about to be blasted by one of its most powerful Santa Ana windstorm in recorded history.

It may not be #1, but the combination of high population, drought conditions, abundant fuel, and mountain wave strength may create world-record high fire danger. pic.twitter.com/iePMforh77

— Edgar McGregor (@edgarrmcgregor) January 6, 2025

Drought can be attributed to the possible impacts of climate change caused by the rise in global average temperature. Notably, 2024 has been confirmed as the hottest year on record, with an average temperature exceeding 1.5°C for the first time since measurements began.

Ideological Climate

The role of climate change in wildfire ignition and spread is well-established for many regions worldwide, where attribution studies have identified a clear link and, in any case, an increased probability of damages. This is particularly evident in fire weather, which refers to weather conditions that favor the spread of wildfires. The guide Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change: A Guide for Journalists by World Weather Attribution, which we at Climate Media Center Italia translated into Italian, explains this well.

Although improved firefighting systems and land use changes have reduced burned areas between 1998 and 2015, “the actual wildfire risk is still increasing in many parts of the world.” This is due to rising temperatures.

The 2019-20 Australian Black Summer wildfires in Queensland and New South Wales (NSW) were amplified by climate change – the conditions that led to the fires in NSW were made at least 30% more likely. Along the west coast of North America, from Alaska to California, recent wildfires have become more likely, and their burned areas have increased. Between 1984 and 2015, over 4 million hectares of burned area in the western United States are directly attributable to climate change.

The data is overwhelming for Europe, northern Eurasia, the United States, and Australia, and emerging evidence is beginning to surface for southern China as well.

Therefore, Rampini is wrong when he says in the video for Corriere online: “The automatic reflex, especially in an environmentalist state like California, is to blame climate change,” adding that scientists “urge us to be more precise.” He even claims that blaming the climate serves as an excuse to conceal other causes.

He is correct, however, in stating that “serious scientists urge us to distinguish between extreme [perhaps he meant ‘weather’] events and long-term climate change.” One thing is a single event, another is long-term trends; one thing is weather, another is climate. Long-term statistics reveal what we have already stated: wildfires – like heatwaves, droughts, and other phenomena – are amplified and/or made more likely by the climate crisis. Thus, ultimately, Rampini is wrong again. Furthermore, attribution studies on specific events, which differ from trends, are also starting to confirm this, as we have seen.

Finally, Rampini makes a couple of other errors, such as his odd call for “selective deforestation policies” and his claim that “wildfires are part of the natural cycle of forests.”

Giorgio Vacchiano, president of Climate Media Center Italia and professor of forestry, planning, and forest ecology at the University of Milan, explained that “fire prevention programs do exist and are absolutely necessary.” He added, “California has implemented ‘prescribed burning’ on 300,000 hectares annually to reduce ground fuels. But the area at risk is still vast, and it will take several years to treat even a portion of it.” He also confirmed that “grass and shrubs grow rapidly after rainy years like 2023 and dry out quickly after dry years like 2024.”

So we can forgive Rampini’s clumsy use of the term “deforestation.”
As for “natural” wildfires, Vacchiano points out that this is an inappropriate concept: “First, because every forest has its own natural fire cycle, ranging from one year in savannas to many hundreds of years in tropical or central European forests. Second, because in anthropized areas, human-caused ignitions have almost entirely replaced natural ones. Third, the priority is not ecosystem resilience or fire frequency for its health, but protecting vulnerable interface areas.”

In short, Rampini’s muddled narrative has once again contributed to polarizing society (hopefully a small part, even if it comes from the pages of Corriere), which most needs scientific evidence, not opinions, to build public debate. In fact, we take this opportunity to invite Rampini – along with “pragmatic” and “ideological” colleagues alike – to download the guide translated into Italian. It’s about 30 pages and a quick read.

One last thing: a fundamental rule of journalism – as stated in the new Code of Ethics of the CNOG, effective June 1, 2025 – is to “cite sources” and verify their “reliability and authority.” We haven’t seen much of that here.