Green ideas must take blame for deaths
Miranda Devine
It wasn't climate change which killed as many as 300 people in Victoria last weekend. It wasn't arsonists. It was the unstoppable intensity of a bushfire, turbo-charged by huge quantities of ground fuel which had been allowed to accumulate over years of drought. It was the power of green ideology over government to oppose attempts to reduce fuel hazards before a megafire erupts, and which prevents landholders from clearing vegetation to protect themselves.
So many people need not have died so horribly. The warnings have been there for a decade. If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability, it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.
Governments appeasing the green beast have ignored numerous state and federal bushfire inquiries over the past decade, almost all of which have recommended increasing the practice of "prescribed burning". Also known as "hazard reduction", it is a methodical regime of burning off flammable ground cover in cooler months, in a controlled fashion, so it does not fuel the inevitable summer bushfires.
Read the rest of the article here
They do a lot of controlled burning here which I'm sure helps when we get into our dry season too.
ReplyDeleteThe Australian landscape has been moulded by fire over thousands of years. We have seeds which can only germinate when the heat of a fire splits their shell. We also have cycles of long periods of wet weather (meaning lots of growth) followed by years of drought. Many of our trees contain large amounts of flammable oils (e.g. "gum" trees) so that in some conditions they literally explode carrying flaming material into the air.In our environment, the only way you can make the country safe for people to live in is to keep the fuel levels down to a relatively safe level by letting it burn every few years in the cooler, damper months when it can be controlled.We have to allow controlled burning and we have to allow clearing of trees around houses in bushfire risk areas. If we don't then these tragedies will happen every 20 years or so.Greenies usually say that you have to build your houses to match the environment not alter the environment to suit housing. But the Institute of Architects said yesterday that there is no known method of building and no materials which could have withstood the temperatures, the wind and the impact of flying debris which were part of the environment last Saturday.
ReplyDeleteWhen they do controlled burning here it seems to just take away the undergrowth. The trees (usually pine) survive and within a couple of weeks, new green growth can be seen in the palmetto bushes. It removes the obstacles to light penetration to the forest floor and creates a better environment for the other plants. At least when it's controlled burning, they have fire stops, wide areas where there is nothing growing so that if the wind picks up the fire doesn't get out of control.
ReplyDeleteOne of the few houses to survive in one section of the fire area is owned by a man who was fined $50,000 for clearing a fire break around his house. He said out of about 7,000 trees on his property he cut down 200. It saved his life. He, and lots of others, will be campaigning to have the ridiculous laws changed which put the life of trees above the safety of people.
ReplyDeleteYou know, people usually mean well. Maybe the Greenies are just a little over enthusiastic about their cause. If people like this man can be set up as an example, maybe they will see that they have been a little bit wrong in their thinking.
ReplyDeleteI don't know about that! The vocal fringe who gain all the government funding are very hard line on this. They say the bush has to be allowed to grow in a pristine state but that is impractical and dangerous. People have been managing the bush using fire for thousands of years which means that the phrase "pristine state" is meaningless.I'm sure there will be a lot of changes over the next year as politicians come to terms with the causes of what happened.Another problem is that the Dept. of Environment in Victoria was supposed to conduct hazard reduction burns, but for the last 5 years at least has not had sufficient funds to do this.
ReplyDeleteWe have a lot of undergrowth in the woods here and if they do controlled burning it has the added advantage of taking that undergrowth out and allowing the trees to mature and let them get the moisture and nutrients they need. It also provides a little easier envirnoment for larger forest animals like the deer and bear. I think the thinking here is that it's going to burn anyway, if people don't do it under good conditions, lightning strikes will set them off and it may be at a time when the wind is high and conditions are very dry making what would have been a small fire into a very large and dangerous one.There is a place for industrialists and a place for environmentalists, but the key is to hit a happy and healthy balance between the two. We need to pursue our own interests but also to be there to make life better for others, both today and in the future. It all comes back to the same thing, "Love God, Love your neighbor". If we did that - we would be diligent in our work and still have compassion for others.Ok - off my soapbox!! :lol:What I find funny here is that the big environmental trend is to ony have "native plants" so big efforts are underway to eradicate the non-native vegetation. But what is native today was a foreign species 500 or 1000 years ago, so "native" can't really be defined. Wierd people everywhere I guess.
ReplyDeleteThe extreme of "native vegetation" is to have only plants that are native to your particular area. It's a good idea in some ways as those plants should do well in your area, but it can become a bit of an ideology. After all there are other regions in the world that have similar climates and soils. We were commended to tend a garden not maintain a museum of natural history.On the other hand we have terrible problems in some parts with non-naitve aniumals such as rabbits and introduced plants such as lantana and prickly pear destroying the natural landscape.As always, as you said, Lois, there needs to be a balance.
ReplyDelete