The Notre-Dame Fire and Our Environmental Priorities

The Notre-Dame fire on April 15, 2019, left me thinking about the environment as much as architecture. Watching a landmark burn was horrible. Watching the reaction raised an uncomfortable question: why does the destruction of one familiar building unite us so quickly, while damage to forests and oceans so often becomes background noise? I understood the grief. The imbalance in our attention still makes me angry.

On social media, some of that grief arrived underneath carefully posed vacation portraits. The captions mourned the cathedral while the pictures kept their owners firmly in the foreground. I am a photographer; I know the temptation to make every place part of our own story. Even so, watching a tragedy become another reason to post a flattering portrait was a strange experience. Apparently, even grief needs a good angle.

Architecture matters to me. I am a photographer, an artist, and a Catholic, so Notre-Dame touches several parts of my life. My affection for Paris and its architecture is quite real. I understand why people wanted to save the cathedral. Traveling has also put other kinds of loss in front of my camera, including the landscapes near Da Lat in Vietnam and in Cambodia’s Bokor National Park pictured here.

Money Well Spent, and a Question About Priorities

The response to Notre-Dame showed how quickly people and businesses can mobilize money for something they value. Donations helped fund the restoration of a cathedral owned by the French state and used by the Catholic Church. Its reopening ceremonies took place on December 7 and 8, 2024. That achievement deserves respect, along with the work of the people who saved and restored the building.

What I want is more of that determination directed toward the places we are still damaging. I would like forest protection and cleaner rivers to inspire the same willingness to commit money, skills, and years of work. Donating to a cathedral does not prevent anyone from supporting conservation. The restoration made it harder for me to accept the familiar shrug that protecting something valuable is simply too expensive or too complicated.

The Notre-Dame Fire and the Environment

Restoring a cathedral and restoring an ecosystem are different tasks. Notre-Dame could draw on architectural records, skilled craftspeople, and a defined reconstruction project. Ecological restoration involves recovering biodiversity and the processes that keep a place alive. UNEP’s restoration principles make an essential point: restoration cannot replace conservation. Preventing damage matters alongside repairing it.

The cathedral’s reconstruction also connects these two kinds of heritage quite literally. French forests supplied oak for the spire and roof structures, as France’s forestry agency documents. A building like Notre-Dame depends on materials that begin as part of a landscape. Protecting architectural heritage should keep us interested in where those materials come from.

Beyond the Hazmat Suit

The image of needing a hazmat suit to visit Notre-Dame is an exaggeration of where environmental neglect could lead us. For an actual visit, use the cathedral’s official admission information: entry is free, with an optional free reservation. My concern reaches beyond the cathedral doors. I want future travelers to inherit living landscapes alongside restored monuments. Notre-Dame’s recovery gives me a reason to expect more from us: we have seen what sustained care can achieve.

Sources