Why does Elizabeth May get a media beating for stating we have another terrible example of our need to be very, very serious about climate change? Just like other catastrophic events, a given tragedy is proportional to the tough questions that necessarily follow. "But not now"? May was immediately berated by Justin Trudeau, other politicians, some of the media and social media. The charge? She was "trying to make a political argument out of one particular disaster." How's that? Stating that climate change is political, instead about science, is exactly the problem.

The world needs the leaders to agree to a shared vision, matched by commitments, so that all of us -- the industry, governments, civil society and consumers -- can work together to halt and reverse the demise of the world's precious forests. We cannot stand by idly hoping to reverse recent devastation.

Every summer heavily forested areas leave animals and humans alike susceptible to wildfires. By July of this year, British Columbia saw over 189 active fires burning -- a number that Professional Organizers in Canada says is too high to not be prepared.

The premiers' Canadian Energy Strategy focuses on energy conservation and efficiency, clean energy and reducing greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. But details are vague and there's no sense of urgency. Although the language about climate change and clean energy is important, the strategy remains stuck in the fossil fuel era.

Those studying the issue say the human toll of wildfire needs to be balanced against the reality that vulnerable forests are going to burn either way -- especially given the mounting pressures presented by climate change.