The BBQ meltdown: the right turn wildfire warning into a culture war

The Mail on Sunday produced another corker of a front-page last week.

“Burnham BBQ phone alert sparks chaos,” it declared, after millions of people across England and Wales received an emergency alert warning of a “very high risk of wildfires nationally”.

The PM subsequently confirmed that the emergency alert system had been activated at the request of fire and rescue officers. The message simply asked Britons not to undertake activities that could cause a fire, including using disposable barbecues, firepits, garden incinerators or fireworks.

According to the government, it was the most extensive use of the emergency alert system to date.

And yet, rather remarkably, the alert itself appeared to trigger a different kind of emergency: a collective meltdown among  much of the right-wing press and commentariat.

The Mail splashed on claims that Tories were accusing the prime minister of “cry wolf” by misusing a system intended for imminent threats. Other headlines warned that “999 [was] swamped with calls,” that drivers were allegedly “career[ing] across motorways as siren blares”, and that Andy Burnham was guilty of “prime ministerial posturing.”

GB News joined the chorus. “Andy Burnham’s emergency alert backfires as Britons ‘opt out’ of receiving new signals,” it declared, reporting claims that social media users were “furious with the alert,” including one person who accused the government of “abusing the system.”

The Sunday Telegraph was at it too, with a front-page story about Burnham’s emergency alert “backfiring” as thousands supposedly opted out.

And Conservative councillor Susan Hall couldn’t resist joining the pile-on. She retweeted a post from an Express journalist complaining that the government was “making use of the emergency alert system to tell people not to light disposable BBQs during a drought,” adding: “My thoughts exactly – what sort of country are we living in?”

Quite what sort of country she thinks Britain should be is an interesting question. Apparently, one in which emergency services should refrain from warning people about an elevated risk of wildfires.

Fortunately, the absurdity was not lost on everyone.

One social media user responding to the Mail’s front page pointed out the rather important fact that the emergency services themselves had requested the message. Another respondent to Hall’s post observed: “One that wants to protect its citizens from fire.”

But then such a reaction from sections of the right comes as little surprise, as it fits neatly into a wider pattern. The same political and media voices that routinely demand that governments “do something” when disaster strikes can become remarkably sceptical when preventative action is actually taken.

And then there’s another uncomfortable dimension to the outrage – climate scepticism.

Britain is not traditionally associated with catastrophic wildfires. Its temperate maritime climate and reputation for grey, wet summers have long made them seem like a problem belonging to southern Europe, California or Australia. But as the climate changes, periods of extreme heat and drought can create conditions in which vegetation becomes dangerously dry and fires spread more readily. Britain has already experienced devastating wildfires, including fires that have destroyed homes and threatened communities.

That changing risk is precisely why Burnham has argued that the UK needs to “face up” to climate change and accelerate the transition to clean energy. He has also said he would seek to commission firefighting aircraft, which are commonplace in countries where large-scale wildfires are a more established threat.

There is nothing remotely radical about recognising that a changing climate can create changing risks.

Surely, it would be irresponsible of the PM not to.