Bushfires

[Walsingham]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8038363.stm

 

A fascinating article, at least for me. The summary would be that there is an argument that sensible fire-mitigation efforts were prevented by 'green' legislation and attitudes in government. My emotional reaction to this is oriented squarely on the assertion by an environmental group who are quoted as being against clearing roadsides because it will impact biodiversity, when it was burning roadsides which killed so many people. I always find it distinctly creepy, if not sinister, when people show more empathy with wildlife than for their fellow man.

[taks]

I always find it distinctly creepy, if not sinister, when people show more empathy with wildlife than for their fellow man.

that's sustainability at work.

 

taks

[Walsingham]

I always find it distinctly creepy, if not sinister, when people show more empathy with wildlife than for their fellow man.

that's sustainability at work.

 

taks

 

You mean we can't eat people?

[Gorgon]

So what do you call the Philippine ones where logging companies and land speculators destroyed thousands of acres of woodland to make sure it didn't receive protected status.

[Walsingham]

So what do you call the Philippine ones where logging companies and land speculators destroyed thousands of acres of woodland to make sure it didn't receive protected status.

 

I call that 'different'. You wouldn't say that sensible bush management is the same as wholesale deforestation?

[taks]

You mean we can't eat people?

not here, maybe in some south american or african tribal areas you can. i've, uh, "heard" people taste bad anyway.

 

ridiculous strawman, gorgon.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Just an example. Walsh interjected with one where the conservationists were the bad guys. I like to serve the balance.

[Aristes]

What's the balance? "Hey, these guys here suck for doing this." "Yeah, well these guys over here suck for doing this!"

 

I think the balance should be in the attitude towards the environment rather than towards political groups.

[Walsingham]

I just think it's interesting how cultures have a 'leading' group who can do no evil for their season in the sun. It seems Greens are the current favouries. I would suggest that this is not an issue for balance, because (hopefully) sensible Greens would themselves recognise the legislation is off base.

[taks]

so what's the point, gorgon? can't a problem simply be a problem on it's face without some unrelated problem to relate to? it's different enough that you might have simply said "yeah, but bush was worse." zero connection. why not just accept the fact that legislation such as this is not only wrong-headed, but outright dangerous.

 

in reality, "they" want a "sustainable planet" (whatever that is), which ultimately means significant reductions in population. so really, they don't care that man is part of nature, even if they understood that concept, because man is the problem, plain and simple. nor do they feel any remorse when their agenda gets in the way of anyone's life.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Of course if you live somewhere where shrubbery will spontaneously combust and potentially kill people it makes good sense to burn it off as a preventative measure, but what we are really engaged in here is farting in the general direction of the 'greens', I take it those are the people who buy all that expensive eco stuff they sell everywhere.

 

I dunno if 'they' have the stated goal of reducing the earth's population by x billion people. It's more about them feeling good about themselves, and better than everyone else.

 

They used to call this kind of thing Conservationism and it was a laudable cause, not subject to very much in the way of pracitcal know-it-all contempt.

[Walsingham]

Now I'm totally confused. Are we, in fact, agreeing, then?

[SteveThaiBinh]

I thought the failings of the emergency warning system was the major cause of death? That's what was being reported in the immediate aftermath - I remember some very angry people interviewed on TV about it. Admittedly I haven't really been following it since then.

 

It sounds like there's a serious debate to be had about resource management - I hope it doesn't turn into a city-versus-country shouting match. And be wary of anti-authoritarian folk heroes!

[LadyCrimson]

Walsh, I'm not sure what you're trying to discuss here. What kind of debate can there be over your original words? Do you expect people to say - "I disagree w/you, Walsh, save the forest, let people burn?" It's never as simple or as black and white as you're making it out to be.

 

--Aust. is in a very very bad drought.

--They've (apparently) been delaying/not doing the back-burns very much for 30-40 years, which imo would mean it began long before "Green" became uber-trendy and highly politically influential, so the impact of "Greens" vs...in terms of bringing about the tragedy...might not be as strong as that article is trying to paint.

--It's not unlikely before the Victoria fires that a lot of the residents themselves protested burns, because it would 1-ruin their pretty backyard views and 2-drive them out of their homes during the actual burning, ie be inconvenient.

--The Victoria fires seem to be an extreme case where everything that could make the fires bad and badder came together at once.

--There (apparently) isn't a very good warning system for the people who lived in that affected area and many had no clue of serious danger until the fire was practically on top of their homes. Perhaps if there had been, those roadside deaths would've also been prevented because people would've left sooner. Not saying that's absolutely true, but could be.

--There's nothing like tragedy to make groups turn in the opposite direction (don't burn, the smoke sucks...oh wait, I lost my home, why didn't you burn...).

 

As for myself - I think controlled fires now and then to lessen the ground debris can be a good thing. The desire of many to keep forests/wildlands exactly as it is right now forever (burned forestgrounds aren't exactly tourist-attracting) is ludicrous and always has been. But it could also, obviously, be overdone - some burning ("natural" wildfires included) is needed/healthy for nature, some not - and that is where the ecological danger may reside.

 

Some "Greens" are going to say all burning is bad (I'd heartily disagree) while some non-greens are going to say "burn it all down" - there should be a medium in there somewhere...the problem, as always, is getting groups of people to agree where it is.

[Hiro Protagonist]

I thought the failings of the emergency warning system was the major cause of death? That's what was being reported in the immediate aftermath - I remember some very angry people interviewed on TV about it. Admittedly I haven't really been following it since then.

 

It sounds like there's a serious debate to be had about resource management - I hope it doesn't turn into a city-versus-country shouting match. And be wary of anti-authoritarian folk heroes!

 

 

No, it's very much about the burning of forest fuel. The Greenies hate back burning, controlled burnings of the bushland and forests. Don't be fooled by Greenies saying, 'We're not against back burning, etc'. They're lying. The Greens want all bushland to be untouched - which is unnatural. It's quite natural in the history of the Earth for forest fires to happen. What the greens are trying to do is not let nature take it's course with forest fires, and the ground in this bushland continues to increase with forest fuel which makes bushfires even worse.

 

And the legislation has changed so much that even if the Fire Brigade, Local Council and Residents want an area burned to decrease the risk of bushfires, the legislation can hold up that controlled burning for that area for years.

[Walsingham]

You make good points, Crimson. However, it sounds to me like the specifics go against the general counterpoints which may have been likely. I certainly don't see why firebreaks aren't standard. Although obviously there would be room for abuse.

 

But I do think it's a useful debate to have. What are the issues when strategic and tactical collide?

[Hiro Protagonist]

--Aust. is in a very very bad drought.

--They've (apparently) been delaying/not doing the back-burns very much for 30-40 years, which imo would mean it began long before "Green" became uber-trendy and highly politically influential, so the impact of "Greens" vs...in terms of bringing about the tragedy...might not be as strong as that article is trying to paint.

 

Yes, Australia is in a very bad drought, but it's not true about delaying back-burns for 30-40 years.

 

 

--It's not unlikely before the Victoria fires that a lot of the residents themselves protested burns, because it would 1-ruin their pretty backyard views and 2-drive them out of their homes during the actual burning, ie be inconvenient.

 

That could be true but on the other hand, there are areas where residents, local council and the fire brigade are not being allowed to meet their targets of hectares being burned. Preliminary findings into the Victorian Parliamentary Enquiry into the 2003 and 2006/07 Gippsland Bushfires, they acknowledged that failures to burn were a contributor to the fires. A recommendation of 385,000 Ha burning per annum was recommended, but has not been adopted. Fuel reduction burns across the entire state have been, in total over the last 15 years, up to 50% below hectare targets.

 

--The Victoria fires seem to be an extreme case where everything that could make the fires bad and badder came together at once.

 

And I think a lot of that has to do with fuel reduction not being met and people not evacuating their homes early.

 

--There (apparently) isn't a very good warning system for the people who lived in that affected area and many had no clue of serious danger until the fire was practically on top of their homes. Perhaps if there had been, those roadside deaths would've also been prevented because people would've left sooner. Not saying that's absolutely true, but could be.

 

The warning system was held up by the Government. Also, there is a policy by the Fire Brigade of staying to defend your home is the best course of action.

 

--There's nothing like tragedy to make groups turn in the opposite direction (don't burn, the smoke sucks...oh wait, I lost my home, why didn't you burn...).

 

As for myself - I think controlled fires now and then to lessen the ground debris can be a good thing. The desire of many to keep forests/wildlands exactly as it is right now forever (burned forestgrounds aren't exactly tourist-attracting) is ludicrous and always has been. But it could also, obviously, be overdone - some burning ("natural" wildfires included) is needed/healthy for nature, some not - and that is where the ecological danger may reside.

 

Some "Greens" are going to say all burning is bad (I'd heartily disagree) while some non-greens are going to say "burn it all down" - there should be a medium in there somewhere...the problem, as always, is getting groups of people to agree where it is.

 

There's never been an 'overdone' back burning exercise in Australia. The Greenies have a lot of political power and the Labor Party who are the current State Governments do everything to get the Green vote and their preferences every election.

[Tigranes]

Having followed bushfire coverage for work, I can say:

 

- The failure to cut down trees and drive back bushes where sensible has played a role in just how unstoppable the fire became.

- The warning systems were also not quite up to speed for some of the more isolated and rural communities, but I think this has been slightly overstated in the media; it was only one of many factors.

- Australia has consistently argued for a 'flee early or stay and fight' (paraphrased) strategy; at the earliest signs of trouble you either get the hell out, or board up and stay put. Combine this with the former factor, which meant that even at temperatures of ~45c people in forested areas were content to sit by the telly with their cold drinks, and you have a potentially devastating situation where you are staying when you really shouldn't be staying, or can't properly do either. This appears to have driven up the death toll a little this time.

- Scientists and governments have either failed to predict the return of the bushfires with as much urgency as they should have had, or they have failed to communicate that urgency to the public for various reasons. Andrew Sullivan, of CSIRO (Australia's federal science research group) Sustainable Ecosystems, came out to express his 'surprise' at the fact that the bushfires came back and with such ferocity - not what you want to be hearing, really.

- The Royal Commission has now got its hands in the affair, but it will typically take 6-12 months for their report to be presented to the Rudd government, at which point some of the recommendations will be accepted 'in principle' before a few of those are enacted in some different form. It's to be expected that no matter what the government does, they will be hard pressed to give the impression to people that they have really changed a lot of things to effectively prevent future bushfire damage.

 

The public outcry in Australia itself wasn't quite as bad as you'd expect, though - partly helped by media coverage that turned it into a 'human story' with all the crying people consoling each other and people coming to help and drop off food and then dancing and singing we're all together happy happy.

 

edit: In addition to my general overview, yeah, Hiro is right about the comparative lack of 'preventative burning' in Australia in the last decade or two.

[Walsingham]

I think what bothers me more than anything is the almost puritan-religious approach towards global warming. There's no attempt to say 'you can do this and not feel bad' It's a massive guilt trip in which we can never be good enough, until we're gnawing bark off trees in the nude. What i want is some gorram numbers so I can view these things sensibly.

 

I mean, for example, burning the bush on purpose might sound bad, but if it is going to all burn anyway eventually, then surely it's irrelevant as a question?

[Hiro Protagonist]

^ We had a lot of environmental commentators blaming climate change for the bushfires - even though some of the bushfires were lit by arsonists.

 

Also, Victoria's bushfires have spewed millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere - more than a third of Australia's entire output for a year, according to Sydney University's Professor Mark Adams. The environmental toll ends up worse than the most vigorous prescribed burning regime ever could be

http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalr...spx?storypage=3

Edited May 12, 2009 by Hiro Protagonist

[LadyCrimson]

Yes, Australia is in a very bad drought, but it's not true about delaying back-burns for 30-40 years.

Hence the word "apparently." I'm admittedly not educated on Aust. politics etc. I read a few articles related to the fire (some from Walsh's link) and many had quotes like this : "The mismanagement of the south-eastern forests of Australia over the last 30 or 40 years by excluding prescribed burning and fuel management has led to the highest fuel concentrations we have ever had in human occupation," said [David Packham] from the Climatology Group at the School of Geography & Environmental Science, at Monash University.

 

So I thought it might not be a bad possibility to bring up. I probably should have said "done less" or something like that rather than "delayed", perhaps.

There's never been an 'overdone' back burning exercise in Australia.

Never been isn't the same as never will, but I understand your point.

The Greens want all bushland to be untouched - which is unnatural. It's quite natural in the history of the Earth for forest fires to happen. What the greens are trying to do is not let nature take it's course with forest fires, and the ground in this bushland continues to increase with forest fuel which makes bushfires even worse.

Not to be contrary, since I agree that preventive fires etc. are helpful, but man-made fires are not "letting nature take it's course," it's man trying to control/minimize damage to human lives/structures from nature's wrath, as we try to reshape land to our needs and/or live in areas that aren't "tamed" enough...and the reshaping causes problems (for man). Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't most "nature" fires due to lightning...or volcanoes...and then most other sources would be from man (arson, campfires, backfires etc)? Isn't the real issue less about what's "natural" and more about what is safer for humans?

 

It sounds to me what Greens want (in this case) is not to have zero fires...only that they want nature to dictate what burns...not man. I can't blame them for that attitude...but the problem with that of course is that we can't predict lightning strikes etc. and where they'll hit and plan our housing structures and safety measures around them, so it behooves human safety to take at least some precautions.

 

Hence why I prefer a middle ground, with fire breaks and the occasional clearing fire, even tho in many respects I'm also a Greenie. Heck if I lived in a major fire zone, my yard would be nothing but rocks, and if I want shade on my patio, I'd buy an umbrella. heh

[LadyCrimson]

I think what bothers me more than anything is the almost puritan-religious approach towards global warming. There's no attempt to say 'you can do this and not feel bad' It's a massive guilt trip in which we can never be good enough, until we're gnawing bark off trees in the nude. What i want is some gorram numbers so I can view these things sensibly.

It's oft irritating to be told the same guilt trips over and over but I don't see why you'd feel truly guilty over things you can't personally control outside of using the power to vote. Most of the time the articles I read and people I talk to aren't that puritain about stuff. Those that are...well, they're extremists. Or eco-scientists with years of built up frustrations and what they see as constant set-backs/losing long term battles.

 

I mean, for example, burning the bush on purpose might sound bad, but if it is going to all burn anyway eventually, then surely it's irrelevant as a question?

It won't all burn away as long as man leaves anything to be burnt in the first place.

 

edit: too long

Edited May 12, 2009 by LadyCrimson

[Hiro Protagonist]

Not to be contrary, since I agree that preventive fires etc. are helpful, but man-made fires are not "letting nature take it's course," it's man trying to control/minimize damage to human lives/structures from nature's wrath, as we try to reshape land to our needs and/or live in areas that aren't "tamed" enough...and the reshaping causes problems (for man). Maybe I'm wrong, but aren't most "nature" fires due to lightning...or volcanoes...and then most other sources would be from man (arson, campfires, backfires etc)? Isn't the real issue less about what's "natural" and more about what is safer for humans?

 

I would say that in Australia at least, man is a part of nature and man-made fires is the natural order of things, since the aboriginies have been doing it for 40,000 years. For man to suddenly stop man-made fires in Australia's bushland, is not the natural thing to do.

[Walsingham]

It sounds to me what Greens want (in this case) is not to have zero fires...only that they want nature to dictate what burns...not man.

 

This is the heart of the matter. Many Greens seem to have adopted the notion that the Planet is a benevolent Earth mother. Leaving aside specific examples like poison monkeys, the notion is ludicrous on first (system) principles. It's a non-ordered system, in a high energy state. Catastrophe is written into it's fundamental structure. The only reason we have brains at all is to try and mitigate the worst excesses of the system.

 

This doesn't mean I'm anti the environment. I'm pro us. I take global warming seriously because of that perspective. I think that's important to serve logical coherence, but more importantly from a practical perspective. Any attempt to enact political moves not based on human interests will simply fail. Appealing to the global masses because pandas are cute is a charming waste of time.

[LadyCrimson]

I would say that in Australia at least, man is a part of nature and man-made fires is the natural order of things, since the aboriginies have been doing it for 40,000 years. For man to suddenly stop man-made fires in Australia's bushland, is not the natural thing to do.

Ah, I get it now. Explained like that, I can understand that perspective. I'm not sure I'd agree with it absolutely 100% (maybe 80%, heh), but I can definitely see where you're coming from.

 

This doesn't mean I'm anti the environment. I'm pro us. I take global warming seriously because of that perspective. I think that's important to serve logical coherence, but more importantly from a practical perspective. Any attempt to enact political moves not based on human interests will simply fail. Appealing to the global masses because pandas are cute is a charming waste of time.

I also understand that type of perspective (I'm on a roll! haha). The only problem I have with it is that as humans we often don't know what human interests might be, in regards to nature. Those cute pandas might be more important to humans than we're aware - if not the pandas themselves so much, maybe something about the ecosystem that they're involved in etc. We're still barely learning how all of these things tie together and I'm the sort who'd rather not make assumptions, so it bothers me when people aren't even interested in doing more in-depth studies about such to find out. We can't do those studies if they don't exist, so I'm for trying to preserve such if we can.

 

We can't possibly try and save every microbe with a bunch of maybes and what ifs in mind, of course, but I think it's prudent to at least not always shrug a shoulder and give up and say why bother - that's too defeatist for me. Also, humans like hope, and in order to feel it they sometimes need to save those "cute little critters" that they can emotionally relate to. They don't generally "relate" on a mass scale to number-filled reports they may not even understand...er...or something. So if appealing to the mass pocketbook by parading pandas around gets a lot of donations to the WWF or any other nature/animal/science study/protection group works, fine with me.

Edited May 12, 2009 by LadyCrimson