Philosopher Joëlle Zask argues that political action to combat megafires depends on the collective will of the citizen majority [1].
This perspective shifts the responsibility of environmental crisis management from purely legislative bodies to the public. By framing extreme wildfires as a security threat, Zask suggests that government priorities only change when the electorate demands a fundamental shift in how the state protects its land and people.
Writing for Le Monde, Zask said, "When it comes to megafires, political will at the highest level depends on the will of the citizen majority" [1]. The argument posits that current political structures are insufficient to handle the scale of modern wildfires without a broader societal mandate.
Zask advocates for the creation of a new social contract to address these crises [1]. This proposed framework would combine aggressive prevention strategies, environmentalism, and social solidarity to mitigate the impact of extreme fire events.
According to Zask, treating megafires as a security threat necessitates a move away from reactive firefighting toward a proactive system of prevention [1]. Such a transition requires a shared understanding among citizens that environmental stability is a core component of national and global security.
Under this proposed contract, solidarity would play a central role in how resources are allocated to prevent disasters [1]. Zask said that only a unified public demand can force the highest levels of government to implement the systemic changes needed to survive an era of increasing wildfire intensity.
“"When it comes to megafires, political will at the highest level depends on the will of the citizen majority"”
Zask's argument highlights a growing tension between the technical ability to prevent wildfires and the political willingness to fund and enforce such measures. By defining megafires as a security threat rather than a seasonal natural disaster, the proposal attempts to elevate environmental policy to the level of national defense, implying that without a public mandate, governments will continue to rely on inefficient, reactive responses.
