Australian Fire/Severe Drought Thread

[Australian rePublic]

Imagine the gall one must have to be the Prime Minister of Australia and fuck off to Hawaii for vacation while your country is on fire.

IKR. Out of him and his whole PR department, nobody thought to tell him that trip was a bad idea? Smh

[Costa Fierro]

This is fake news.

Prove it

Greens have absolutely no control over what happens with what regional firefighting organisations do. As I said, the Facebook post by the Queanbeyan Fire Station said that they would take into account a number of factors including the potential for the burn to go out of control and the impact on surrounding communities. Furthermore the claims that they prevented the backburning from happening is, again, not supported by evidence.

We get that you're cut from the same tunic as ScoMo but you don't have to be a damn sycophant about it.

[Rojava Free State]

Reading through the thread, seems it was largely caused by arsonists and the local residents refusal to allow controlled burns.

they can't do controlled burns when it's historically dry outside, mkay?

[Totally Not OEP]

Reading through the thread, seems it was largely caused by arsonists and the local residents refusal to allow controlled burns.

they can't do controlled burns when it's historically dry outside, mkay?

Funny, because they were already doing that before that and do that here in the States; you can't due controlled burns when its exceptionally wet.

[The New California Republic]

Everyone in that area of the world (including the RFS volunteer we spoke to) hate The Greens for refusing to allow hazard reduction burning, even the Aboriginals of the area, have stated that they've been burning the land for millenia, and now the Greens' won't let them. And now the Greens have the hight to claim that they've supported hazard reduction burning all along **spits on ground** how stupid do they think we are? The sooner we have a royal comission into the Greens' mishandling of the situation, the better.

Bloody Greens. If the areas they lived were subject to bush fires, you'd watch their attitude toward common sense land management change quick-smart. If the people who made decisions actually had to suffer the consequences of those decisions...

This is fake news.

Prove it

The onus is on you to prove the claim. Costa is just Russell's Teapotting what you said.

[Heloin]

they can't do controlled burns when it's historically dry outside, mkay?

Funny, because they were already doing that before that and do that here in the States; you can't due controlled burns when its exceptionally wet.

If it’s to dry you can’t do a burn, it’s not that hard to work out.

[Costa Fierro]

they can't do controlled burns when it's historically dry outside, mkay?

Funny, because they were already doing that before that and do that here in the States; you can't due controlled burns when its exceptionally wet.

Controlled burns are not something that can just be lit and away they go, those doing the burn have to take into consideration the weather conditions, such as wind direction, dryness, how far away predicted rain is, as well as fuel loads both before and after the fire. Burn an area too frequently, you kill the fungi that help break down leaves and plant matter. Burn an area too infrequently and fuel loads increase to dangerous levels.

If controlled burns exceed calculations for both safety for those conducting and controlling the burn, and civilians living close by, it doesn't occur. And with the increase in volatility of Australia's climate patterns, the window of opportunity to conduct controlled burns is reduced significantly.

The Rural Fire Service of New South Wales is well aware of what happens when controlled burns/backburns go out of control. In 2003 they lit two of them in unsuitable conditions, whereby they immediately jumped containment lines and proceeded to roar into the western suburbs of Canberra, alongside other major fires.

[Totally Not OEP]

Funny, because they were already doing that before that and do that here in the States; you can't due controlled burns when its exceptionally wet.

Controlled burns are not something that can just be lit and away they go, those doing the burn have to take into consideration the weather conditions, such as wind direction, dryness, how far away predicted rain is, as well as fuel loads both before and after the fire. Burn an area too frequently, you kill the fungi that help break down leaves and plant matter. Burn an area too infrequently and fuel loads increase to dangerous levels.

If controlled burns exceed calculations for both safety for those conducting and controlling the burn, and civilians living close by, it doesn't occur. And with the increase in volatility of Australia's climate patterns, the window of opportunity to conduct controlled burns is reduced significantly.

The Rural Fire Service of New South Wales is well aware of what happens when controlled burns/backburns go out of control. In 2003 they lit two of them in unsuitable conditions, whereby they immediately jumped containment lines and proceeded to roar into the western suburbs of Canberra, alongside other major fires.

Explaining how controlled burns work does not explain away the political opposition that lead to their cancellation, not the logistics of such.

[Costa Fierro]

Controlled burns are not something that can just be lit and away they go, those doing the burn have to take into consideration the weather conditions, such as wind direction, dryness, how far away predicted rain is, as well as fuel loads both before and after the fire. Burn an area too frequently, you kill the fungi that help break down leaves and plant matter. Burn an area too infrequently and fuel loads increase to dangerous levels.

If controlled burns exceed calculations for both safety for those conducting and controlling the burn, and civilians living close by, it doesn't occur. And with the increase in volatility of Australia's climate patterns, the window of opportunity to conduct controlled burns is reduced significantly.

The Rural Fire Service of New South Wales is well aware of what happens when controlled burns/backburns go out of control. In 2003 they lit two of them in unsuitable conditions, whereby they immediately jumped containment lines and proceeded to roar into the western suburbs of Canberra, alongside other major fires.

Explaining how controlled burns work does not explain away the political opposition that lead to their cancellation, not the logistics of such.

There was no, and is no, political opposition to controlled burns. They were likely cancelled because conditions were likely too dangerous to burn safely.

[Albrenia]

There being political opposition to controlled burns and that being to blame for these fires is news to me.

[Costa Fierro]

There being political opposition to controlled burns and that being to blame for these fires is news to me.

There isn't. Claims of this being the case are untrue.

[Totally Not OEP]

Explaining how controlled burns work does not explain away the political opposition that lead to their cancellation, not the logistics of such.

There was no, and is no, political opposition to controlled burns. They were likely cancelled because conditions were likely too dangerous to burn safely.

Prove it, the evidence posted earlier is contrary to what you are presenting.

[Costa Fierro]

There was no, and is no, political opposition to controlled burns. They were likely cancelled because conditions were likely too dangerous to burn safely.

Prove it, the evidence posted earlier is contrary to what you are presenting.

What evidence? The claims that the Greens successfully prevented controlled burns from going ahead are untrue, as the fire service post shows.

[Totally Not OEP]

Prove it, the evidence posted earlier is contrary to what you are presenting.

What evidence? The claims that the Greens successfully prevented controlled burns from going ahead are untrue, as the fire service post shows.

Provide them, let's see 'em.

[Albrenia]

Also wondering how the Greens have the power to somehow stop controlled burns despite not having much power over those in charge of it. Seems more like people looking for a way to ignore the part climate change is playing.

[Totally Not OEP]

Also wondering how the Greens have the power to somehow stop controlled burns despite not having much power over those in charge of it. Seems more like people looking for a way to ignore the part climate change is playing.

Community opposition and protests, it's not that hard chief. And no, I also brought up the matter of the widespread arrests for arson that have been taking place.

[Rojava Free State]

Do you come from a land down under?
Where cities burn and cyclones thunder

[Mvaprion]

The world is in trouble. Nobody cares that global warming is going to kill us all

[Rojava Free State]

Controlled burns are not something that can just be lit and away they go, those doing the burn have to take into consideration the weather conditions, such as wind direction, dryness, how far away predicted rain is, as well as fuel loads both before and after the fire. Burn an area too frequently, you kill the fungi that help break down leaves and plant matter. Burn an area too infrequently and fuel loads increase to dangerous levels.

If controlled burns exceed calculations for both safety for those conducting and controlling the burn, and civilians living close by, it doesn't occur. And with the increase in volatility of Australia's climate patterns, the window of opportunity to conduct controlled burns is reduced significantly.

The Rural Fire Service of New South Wales is well aware of what happens when controlled burns/backburns go out of control. In 2003 they lit two of them in unsuitable conditions, whereby they immediately jumped containment lines and proceeded to roar into the western suburbs of Canberra, alongside other major fires.

Explaining how controlled burns work does not explain away the political opposition that lead to their cancellation, not the logistics of such.

Because it's not political at all! They didn't do a controlled burn because when it's that dry, one spark is all it takes to start a disaster. There's nothing political about it. It's just called common sense and not being a dumbass

[Heloin]

What evidence? The claims that the Greens successfully prevented controlled burns from going ahead are untrue, as the fire service post shows.

Provide them, let's see 'em.

For someone who’s first post in this thread was claiming that you read through it you clearly haven’t.

In regards to the Greens, it's more nuanced than simply black and white. Prescribed burns do often work in a variety of areas that are prone to massive wildfires/bushfires, though not in the middle of fire season itself. Especially when a fire season is absolutely catastrophic. Former NSW Fire Rescue Commissioner Mullins writes here that you can't put all the blame on the Greens, ditto for a Guardian article that goes in depth about prescribed burns.

Hazard reduction works only when the conditions are right, otherwise it is quite literally adding more fuel to the fire. If the Greens were to oppose such methods of hazard reductions such as prescribed burning during a cool, wet period, then perhaps the argument that they're not helping in that facet would be legitimate.

[Costa Fierro]

Also wondering how the Greens have the power to somehow stop controlled burns despite not having much power over those in charge of it. Seems more like people looking for a way to ignore the part climate change is playing.

They don't. That's the point.

Provide them, let's see 'em.

Consult what others have posted.

[Albrenia]

Not to mention the 22 retired fire chiefs who said that the 'unprecedented' conditions were to blame, without (as far as I'm aware) mentioning this evil Green's conspiracy.

[Totally Not OEP]

For someone who’s first post in this thread was claiming that you read through it you clearly haven’t.

In regards to the Greens, it's more nuanced than simply black and white. Prescribed burns do often work in a variety of areas that are prone to massive wildfires/bushfires, though not in the middle of fire season itself. Especially when a fire season is absolutely catastrophic. Former NSW Fire Rescue Commissioner Mullins writes here that you can't put all the blame on the Greens, ditto for a Guardian article that goes in depth about prescribed burns.

Hazard reduction works only when the conditions are right, otherwise it is quite literally adding more fuel to the fire. If the Greens were to oppose such methods of hazard reductions such as prescribed burning during a cool, wet period, then perhaps the argument that they're not helping in that facet would be legitimate.

And in there, at best it proscribes nuance, not amnesty. Likewise, I'm not sure how the former Commissioner is relevant, given he wasn't the man on the ground of aware of any material impacts.

[Totally Not OEP]

Consult what others have posted.

So then can you claim to be able to refute that if you have no evidence? That is the definition of talking out of your ass.

[Costa Fierro]

Consult what others have posted.

So then can you claim to be able to refute that if you have no evidence? That is the definition of talking out of your ass.

It's not that I don't evidence, it's that others have posted what I was going to post already. There's also this which was also posted in this thread. Take note of the last paragraph.

And in there, at best it proscribes nuance, not amnesty. Likewise, I'm not sure how the former Commissioner is relevant, given he wasn't the man on the ground of aware of any material impacts.

While commissioners are at the highest levels of administration, they would have been in positions and have experience in the decision making processes leading to controlled burns.