No.
Global wildfire trends are more complicated than simply counting the number of fires. Scientists are increasingly concerned about the growth of extreme, high-intensity fires, the amount of carbon released, the length of fire seasons, and the expansion of fires into ecosystems that historically burned less frequently.
Did you know that major Canadian wildfires can generate ozone and ozone precursors that are transported into the United States, degrading air quality and affecting public health hundreds or even thousands of miles away? The smoke doesn’t just contain particulate pollution—it also contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone, a pollutant linked to respiratory disease, climate warming, reduced plant productivity, and diminished CO₂ sequestration. Ozone damages vegetation by impairing photosynthesis and weakening plant health, and prolonged exposure can contribute to forest decline and increased tree mortality.
And then there are the so-called “zombie fires” in parts of Canada and Siberia. These fires can smolder underground in carbon-rich peat and permafrost through the winter, re-emerging when temperatures rise. They release carbon that has been locked away for centuries or even millennia, creating an additional climate feedback that many people are unaware of.
A meaningful discussion isn’t about whether someone can find a statistic showing fewer fires in one dataset or region. It’s about understanding what is actually happening in the Earth system: larger extreme fires, longer fire seasons, increased carbon emissions, long-range ozone pollution, and emerging feedbacks from thawing permafrost. Those are the trends scientists are paying attention to.