# Short and medium term impacts of Australian bushfires



## qldfrog (16 November 2019)

Following the recent bushfires, intensity, size and media coverage; I expect some significant side effects on some investments: obviously insurances but also construction materials, an overall increase again of Australian construction costs, and with more scrutiny and red green tape, a smaller release of new suburban lands.
It could also be affecting in the short term the GDP; increasing it as new rebuilds are happening so maybe lessening the RBA urge to reduce interest rates.
We need to put figures on that.
We can also expect a new orchestrated urge to "fight global warming", so reduce competitiveness of Australia and lower A$, maybe even reduced export of coal due to voters pressure while benefiting EV, solar,wind, or maybe even uranium here if the Uranium lobby plays well.
Also an increased radicalisation on both sides of politics here

*I do not want this thread to become another GW one, the facts is that whatever Australia does will not affect any climate change ever assuming it is human caused and/or CO2 emission linked so no, the fires will not stop next year nor in the next 2 decades if the Greens take power
SO let's watch this from an investor's view*


----------



## qldfrog (16 November 2019)

So feel free if you see short term effects on specific codes, sector and add a few lines of comments


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2019)

One effect I think we may see is some "seen to be doing something" spending by governments on fire fighting equipment and so on.

Could be a bit of benefit to whoever manufactures that sort of thing.


----------



## qldfrog (16 November 2019)

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/na...eensland-at-risk-of-fire-20191116-p53b8d.html
here it start the move to new standards


----------



## qldfrog (16 November 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> One effect I think we may see is some "seen to be doing something" spending by governments on fire fighting equipment and so on.
> 
> Could be a bit of benefit to whoever manufactures that sort of thing.



Davey pumps GUD code on asx


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2019)

Another thought is changes to land zoning with respect to fire.

In my case I'm just over 200m from a substantial area of natural bush but am outside the "high" or even "medium" fire risk zone according to council.

Suffice to say I wouldn't want to be in council's shoes if a place 200m from the bush did burn when they've clearly stated it's not at risk. If these "fire storms" really can't be controlled well then I can foresee some rezoning taking place at some point.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2019)

As far as insurance goes it seems to me that there should be a clamour of people who have no insurance now to buy insurance due to the increased risk.

Sure the payouts are going to be more but its my view that as long as the insurance companies don't get too greedy and make insurance unaffordable then they will benefit from extra revenue.


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

GDP always takes a hit with natural disasters.
Insurers do as well; insurance premiums will rise across the board.

On other fronts, homogenistaion of building codes/standards should become a national priority.
So too should the federal government instigate a FEMA style approach to disaster management so that resources for national emergency response can be immediately accessed from anywhere and the cost borne nationally rather than by the affected states.  This measure would mitigate the bunfights over resource allocation that, for example, we are seeing play out wrt to rural fire brigade resourcing.

More than anything, however, we seriously need to ensure water security for all parts of our nation and address this as a priority.


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I do not want this thread to become another GW one, the facts is that whatever Australia does will not affect any climate change ever assuming it is human caused and/or CO2 emission linked



Two points to expose your poor thinking.
First, the idea that nobody acting to change something is ok, is naive.  It's a bit like saying don't worry about fuel reduction because there's way too much forest and you can't/won't make any difference.
Secondly, and on topic and more importantly anyway, shareholders and investors will be seeking more-ethical investments from the companies they put money into, while listed companies will realise they cannot remain exposed to practices which are unfavourable to climate.
A possible third point would be to look for new company listings taking specific advantage of tapping into climate change.  I have no idea what they might look like, but it's a big market and just needs the right thinking and a product mix to make it work.


----------



## Sdajii (17 November 2019)

I think you're expecting more to happen than will. There will be some effect on insurance companies etc as you say, but significantly tangible things like coal exports will most likely not be effected. There will likely be the expected bleating of uni students standing in the way of traffic and people posting virtue-signaling memes on Facebook, but at the end of the day all this is just meaningless talk. Without coal exports etc the virtue signalers won't have their dole cheques coming, the uni students won't have generous government financial assistance, everyone wants nice roads and hospitals and schools and welfare and food safety which are paid for thanks to things like coal exports. The same people demanding 'action on climate change' will still bitch about petrol and electricity prices and demand government funding for community projects. And of course, the people who aren't bleating about it aren't even paying lip service to the ideas.

It's possible there may be some noise due to speculation about solar or wind subsidies, or some temporary or small scale action in that way, and long term there will be significant changes, but I dont think these fires are going to change anything worth worrying about in terms of the big picture.

I was right in the middle of the main area hit by fires on Black Saturday in 2009. There was talk about various changes from that one too, but other than local businesses being screwed by the local government who were taking advantage of the situation and despite speculation of big changes, about all we saw was a reclassification of the highest fire risk category of weather being relabelled from 'extreme' to 'catastrophic'.

Talk is cheap. When electric vehicles are cheap enough they'll become popular and numerous. Until then people will talk about it and nothing much will happen. When coal is uneconomical to export it'll stop being exported. Until then people will talk about stopping it but nothing will change. Even if people kick and scream and throw tantrums in the streets and sign online petitions, politicians know that people are still going to react worse to 'sorry, there's not enough money coming in, we're going to have to tax you more and give you less free stuff' than 'we're maintaining the same old coal export gig'. Of course, they'll virtue signal about how they'd be willing to make personal sacrifices in order to bring about change, but if faced with actually having to make personal sacrifices all but a negligible few will fall silent.


----------



## qldfrog (17 November 2019)

I fully agree with you @Sdajii but i think we will see token actions, a lot of talks but a few batt scheme like decisions which could boost some profits here and then
Building code rating which will replace wood by composite materials etc
But i could be wrong


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

Sdajii said:


> I think you're expecting more to happen than will. There will be some effect on insurance companies etc as you say, but significantly tangible things like coal exports will most likely not be effected. There will likely be the expected bleating of uni students standing in the way of traffic and people posting virtue-signaling memes on Facebook, but at the end of the day all this is just meaningless talk. Without coal exports etc the virtue signalers won't have their dole cheques coming, the uni students won't have generous government financial assistance, everyone wants nice roads and hospitals and schools and welfare and food safety which are paid for thanks to things like coal exports. The same people demanding 'action on climate change' will still bitch about petrol and electricity prices and demand government funding for community projects. And of course, the people who aren't bleating about it aren't even paying lip service to the ideas.
> 
> It's possible there may be some noise due to speculation about solar or wind subsidies, or some temporary or small scale action in that way, and long term there will be significant changes, but I dont think these fires are going to change anything worth worrying about in terms of the big picture.
> 
> ...



Ethical investing is now affecting trillion dollar businesses like the Government Pension Fund Global of Norway, so to think fossil fuel investments will see big money flows in future is pie in the sky, and your ideas about coal are as antiquated as coal power plants.
Although a bit off topic, major insurers and reinsurers are looking very closely at climate change impacts and it is probable they will be taking off the table, or pricing out of the market, future risks such as flooding in Venice.
There is now a palpable difference between those who do not understand climate change and those who are living and dying in the thick of it.  To pretend it's not real or deny it is a personal choice, but to those affected by or concerned about it, the momentum has shifted up a gear.  
Moreover, we have yet to get to the really hot time of summer and the next big disaster will be the electricity grid not coping with demand in southern States.  Maybe catastrophic grid failure (load shedding really, but my point is about the need for an HVDC spine along the eastern seaboard) will spur some action from our limp federal Energy Minister, but removing him would be smarter and replacing him with Barnaby Joyce (yes, another joke). Planned renewables investments could nip this in the bud more quickly than any conventional energy or pumped hydro scheme *when married with battery storage*.  So that's an area I will keep an eye on, although past experience suggests it's a forlorn hope.


----------



## qldfrog (17 November 2019)

How could i expect this thread to go away from the propaganda of the under informed and west centric brainwashed
I switched off the ignore button, always hopeful of a useful entry, i once read something sensible in the gold thread..but no
So if you have anything useful to add here please do
For the GW  and we're killing the world with cow farts and co2..but forget the 8 billions farting bipedes, there is a thread for that, not here.
Thanks


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> How could i expect this thread to go away from the propaganda of the under informed and west centric brainwashed
> I switched off the ignore button, always hopeful of a useful entry, i once read something sensible in the gold thread..but no
> So if you have anything useful to add here please do
> For the GW  and we're killing the world with cow farts and co2..but forget the 8 billions farting bipedes, there is a thread for that, not here.
> Thanks



Stick your head in the sand as much as you like, but the big end of town - the end that invests in the $billions - will be acting to mitigate the effects of climate change. 
Sadly, you think bushfires are not being affected by climate change but all you have actually done wrt to ASF is replicate a thread started by Rumpy.
As to saying things useful, apart from screwing up the economic impacts of bushfires, you have a strange view that "fighting global warming" is anticompetitive/unproductive.  Why don't you ask the Danes about their experience, or work out for yourself that renewables is actually creating more new jobs than traditional energy sectors.  We have been left out of the manufacturing boom in renewables and are like our car industry, semi-skilled assemblers instead.
When it comes to being "uninformed" there are areas at ASF where you excel.


----------



## Jack Aubrey (17 November 2019)

Well, my wife has spent the past two days spending all our Xmas money on gifts for fire and drought affected families, so I guess Canberra retail - particularly the high-end soap and perfumed candle sector - is getting a boost.  She has also promised to get me a T-shirt with "woke inner-city leftist" on it, so shares in Redbubble (ASX:RBL) could be a goer.

So far, I understand around 200 homes have been destroyed (but we haven't even started the official bushfire season yet).  This will boost local economies with work for tradies, etc.

The general state of the economy and our Federal Government's belief in the virtues of austerity (as well as their now baked-in denial that anything can or should be done in the name of climate) will limit how much additional money flows to either short-term projects (hardening infrastructure) or longer-term adaptation and mitigation projects.  They will be hoping like mad that all this blows over.

I do think there will be a retreat from oil and gas and coal investments, lead by super funds and the big investment houses.  They are becoming toxic for many investors.  For various reasons not suitable for this thread, I think that (mostly) aligns with the actual economics.

The biggest medium term threat IMO comes from Australia's declining reputation as a global "good citizen" on climate and environmental issues generally.  The bushfires and drought are international news and are often spoken of in association with our "poor" performance on international climate targets (featuring a pic of our now PM holding up a lump of coal in Parliament).  While I don't necessarily agree with all the commentary on this, we are genuinely a "sitting duck" if major players see advantage in bringing in trade and investment sanctions as part of their climate change arsenal.  Nobody is going to seriously sanction the Saudis or the US but we are up there in the top five "bad boys".  

On a positive note, if we could find a way to monetise blame, we could inject a ship load of money into regional economies, pay our volunteer firies a decent allowance and get a dozen aerial water bombers.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2019)

Jack Aubrey said:


> I do think there will be a retreat from oil and gas and coal investments, lead by super funds and the big investment houses. They are becoming toxic for many investors. For various reasons not suitable for this thread, I think that (mostly) aligns with the actual economics.




Thermal coal will be in decline certainly but I can't really see a replacement for coking(metallurgical) coal in the short or medium term.

Whether investors have the nouse to separate the two, or want to do what Adam Bandt suggested on Insiders this morning, ie destroy the coal industry in 10 years, remains to be seen.


----------



## qldfrog (17 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Stick your head in the sand as much as you like, but the big end of town - the end that invests in the $billions - will be acting to mitigate the effects of climate change.
> Sadly, you think bushfires are not being affected by climate change but all you have actually done wrt to ASF is replicate a thread started by Rumpy.
> As to saying things useful, apart from screwing up the economic impacts of bushfires, you have a strange view that "fighting global warming" is anticompetitive/unproductive.  Why don't you ask the Danes about their experience, or work out for yourself that renewables is actually creating more new jobs than traditional energy sectors.  We have been left out of the manufacturing boom in renewables and are like our car industry, semi-skilled assemblers instead.
> When it comes to being "uninformed" there are areas at ASF where you excel.



Can you please **** off
I start a thread about bushfire, not global warming, stick to the economics of it and you are back again with your rant
@Joe Blow , i try to go along following your need for greater economic focus, and here come the usual toxic pos pushing his/her dimwit agenda based on y5 sciences , probably sitting in a unit in one of our capital cities with AC on.
There with no winner here, it is much easier to just close


----------



## qldfrog (17 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Thermal coal will be in decline certainly but I can't really see a replacement for coking(metallurgical) coal in the short or medium term.
> 
> Whether investors have the nouse to separate the two, or want to do what Adam Bandt suggested on Insiders this morning, ie destroy the coal industry in 10 years, remains to be seen.



Never put reality or facts in front of fanatism


----------



## qldfrog (17 November 2019)

Jack Aubrey said:


> Well, my wife has spent the past two days spending all our Xmas money on gifts for fire and drought affected families, so I guess Canberra retail - particularly the high-end soap and perfumed candle sector - is getting a boost.  She has also promised to get me a T-shirt with "woke inner-city leftist" on it, so shares in Redbubble (ASX:RBL) could be a goer.
> 
> So far, I understand around 200 homes have been destroyed (but we haven't even started the official bushfire season yet).  This will boost local economies with work for tradies, etc.
> 
> ...



I have some RBL


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Can you please **** off
> I start a thread about bushfire, not global warming, stick to the economics of it and you are back again with your rant
> @Joe Blow , i try to go along following your need for greater economic focus, and here come the usual toxic pos pushing his/her dimwit agenda based on y5 sciences , probably sitting in a unit in one of our capital cities with AC on.
> There with no winner here, it is much easier to just close



You still don't get it do you.
If there are trading implications from the bushfires then they will be as a result of global warming.
It's just that simple.
And there is already a thread that addresses those matters. 
Leave your personal insults out of this and apply your nous to the issue.


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Never put reality or facts in front of fanatism



I own shares in 2 coking coal producers, so you are truly barking at the moon.
That said, coking coal and thermal coal are usually coming out of the same pit, so it's impossible to say you are only supporting the continuation of industry through steel fabrication without also being tarred with the coal brush.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 November 2019)

On the issue of what’s relevant to the thread, I’ll use the following analogy.

It is common knowledge that prolonged exposure to loud noise causes hearing loss. No argument there.

Now should I be involved in some discussion about hearing aids, be that a discussion about the technical aspects, relevant companies or whatever well then that’s what I want to focus on right now.

Someone up the back yelling that everyone should just wear ear muffs is correct as such but is missing the point about dealing with the effects of past damage and about those with hearing problems not due to noise exposure. Beyond a one off comment it’s just being a nuisance really. Right now the subject is hearing aids not noisy machinery or loud music.

Back to the subject well yes there’s an issue with climate change. For that matter I could mention that the power grid unintentionally split into two yesterday evening (loss of all transmission between Vic and SA - this time everyone’s lights stayed on though) but that’s not helping the fire victims or guiding anyone’s investments into fire-related companies etc.


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Right now the subject is hearing aids not noisy machinery or loud music.



Yes, you can talk about the *subject*, but the issue is dealing with the *predicate.*
The media are bringing up this very point, ie., that somehow bushfires are sacrosanct, despite all informed people understanding why they are now being regarded as "*catastrophic*."
So let's look at some practicalities for those farmers extremely affected:

How do you go about refinancing in order to recover?

Rebuilding - were they insured - what is the chance their premiums do not go through the roof (in real life I am dealing with companies whose premiums have doubled in just a few years to now be in multimillions as a result of their thermal insulation material risks)?

country locations have a large premium on rebuilds due to higher materials/labour/transport/accommodation cost add-ons

How do you go about restocking - no feed and little to no water?

If they sell up, it's a distressed sale of a possible unviable farm

If you were a buyer, how would you assess your risks?

You might have to change the land use
At a macro level bushfires destroy wealth and decrease productivity.

While the above is interesting, it is somewhat trivial (in the sense you do not have to be a genius to work it out).  The issues relate to the ramifications of the bushfires and these are going to keep coming back to climate change, like it or not.  And the reason, again - like it or not - is because there is nothing on the horizon suggesting Australia or the planet is likely to trend towards cooling.  There might be the odd summer ahead where things are not as bad.  But as a few in the know have recently said, this is our "*new normal*."


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2019)

rederob said:


> More than anything, however, we seriously need to ensure water security for all parts of our nation and address this as a priority.




How do you suggest we do this ?

Especially if the drought continues.

The only way I can see is build dams and fill them with desalinated water. Maybe someone can comment on the practicalities of this.

Making home water tanks compulsory ? I think they already are in a lot of areas.


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> How do you suggest we do this ?
> 
> Especially if the drought continues.
> 
> ...



I'm not that smart to know.
Some ideas though:

don't necessarily dam, but use water from our Great Artesian Basin smarter than presently
use solar power to purify brackish water where necessary
create a water grid - akin to the electricity grid - and use solar power to pump water *large distances* (remembering that C Y O'Connor first did this over 100 years ago)
put a price on water commensurate with its cost *and *scarcity
wind back all irrigation from the Murray Darling system and change land use to least water intensive (stop growing cotton and rice!)
maybe even harness a few icebergs
Doubtless someone has come up with other ideas, like the Bradfield plan, or piping purified waste water for agricultural use.


----------



## Jack Aubrey (17 November 2019)

Unfortunately, even if we priced water at many multiples of its current real agricultural value, pumping and piping solutions on the scale of The Bradfield Plan don't stack up (and never did).  I think the same would apply to desal as a source for dams or aquifer recharge.  If electricity costs ever approach zero (a possibility for renewables) that equation may change but there are a LOT of structural hurdles (vested interests) to get over before that could happen.  Certainly desal of saline aquifers would at least deliver the water where it is most needed by agriculture.

"New" sources of water are a remote possibility, but one showing some promise is harvesting atmospheric humidity.  Unfortunately, in Australia, that means coastal air and we end up back with the pumping and piping problem (and more of those terrible "eye sore" wind turbines that some people find so offensive).

In the cities, desal, recycling and demand-management would probably deliver enough water for trend growth.

Some regions and towns will run out of options in the next few years.  The demand for subsidies will be very high and absolutely irresistible to our agrarian socialists.  As one senior bureaucrat once said to me privately "The greatest challenge for Australia in terms of sustainability is how to let country towns die with dignity".


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

Jack Aubrey said:


> Unfortunately, even if we priced water at many multiples of its current real agricultural value, pumping and piping solutions on the scale of The Bradfield Plan don't stack up (and never did).  I think the same would apply to desal as a source for dams or aquifer recharge.  If electricity costs ever approach zero (a possibility for renewables) that equation may change but there are a LOT of structural hurdles (vested interests) to get over before that could happen.  Certainly desal of saline aquifers would at least deliver the water where it is most needed by agriculture.
> 
> "New" sources of water are a remote possibility, but one showing some promise is harvesting atmospheric humidity.  Unfortunately, in Australia, that means coastal air and we end up back with the pumping and piping problem (and more of those terrible "eye sore" wind turbines that some people find so offensive).
> 
> ...



We have hijacked the thread, but I was proposing piping over flat land and principally using the GAB as a source of supply, so no major dams contemplated.  
The GAB would naturally sustain itself, and I was contemplating getting rid of most irrigation programs that were not for vegetable cropping.
Remember we already have Cubby Station with as much water as Sydney harbour so piping some of this around with solar energy does not have the Bradfield costs.
Yes, water storage at townsites will be needed, but a lot of that is already in place.
We also have an extensive gas pipeline structure and maybe over time this can be tapped - excuse pun.
I think a major platform will be actual land use, and in that regard we should be looking at protein derived from Australia's natural animals - emus and kangaroos.  They have a minimal fodder requirement and thrive instead on certainty of water, albeit nowhere near the amount needed by sheep/cattle as their bodies rely more on getting it from nature.
So I see an urgent need to cease most land clearing and allow former cleared tracts to regenerate.
I believe we need to get a lot of the bush back to what it was so in a fashion it can save itself using the burning practices of aboriginals.
Ok, that's it from me here coz it's just a lot of old ideas scrambled together without much to back them, except a knowledge that the countryside used to be vibrant even when "farmed," but that was 60 years ago.


----------



## Logique (17 November 2019)

Looks like the red thread-killer wants to shut you down Qldfrog.

Believes in "climate change" but owns coal shares.  Complains about others, but the red's own posts are frequently abusive or insulting.

The Ignore button is your friend.


----------



## qldfrog (17 November 2019)

Logique said:


> Looks like the red thread-killer wants to shut you down qldfrog.
> 
> The Ignore button is your friend.



It is on already and has been for a while, but i was  trying to be open minded on a purely financial thread somedays i think @joe can be right, if braindead dimwits can not stick on their FB keyboard warfields and mass extinction rebellion and come here to contaminate anything they see, no point
I have a life, so do much more worthwhile posters here, so might be time to unplug and let the fanatics gorge on their self rights and religions


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

Logique said:


> Looks like the red thread-killer wants to shut you down Qldfrog.
> 
> Believes in "climate change" but owns coal shares.  Complains about others, but the red's own posts are frequently abusive or insulting.
> 
> The Ignore button is your friend.



Prove what you claim, as your comments are false and without logic.
If you believe this thread is not related to what everyone knows has caused catastrophic bushfires then you are living in an alternative universe.
Moreover, I have added more on-topic in this thread than any other poster, and  presented my comments on water security when asked.


----------



## basilio (17 November 2019)

In my view a major risk to inland Australia is the heightened risk of nonviable regions as increasing heat, repeated fire threats and reduced water supplies take their toll.

I'd be concerned about how insurance companies decide on where they will insure properties.

Big ideas on attempting to desalinate  sea and bore water to ensure sufficient water supplies for some agriculture and habitation are worth exploring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190107131242.htm 
https://www.elementalwatermakers.com/solution-gravity/
________________________________
I can't quite understand the attempt to separate global warming from financial issues. Clearly there will be major impacts as we are exploring with the dramatic expansion of bushfire risks.   It seems to be simply an exercise in denying there is any significant change in our climate- which perhaps might be an accurate summing up of some peoples belief.


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> ... *if braindead dimwits* can not stick on their FB keyboard warfields and mass extinction rebellion and come here to contaminate anything they see, no point
> I have a life, so do much more worthwhile posters here, so might be time to unplug and let the fanatics gorge on their self rights and religions



Is that the way you always respond?
Why not look at the many on-topic points I have made, and the corrections to your poor thinking on economic consequences?
Rather than complain ad nauseum, be constructive.


----------



## SirRumpole (17 November 2019)

I think the climate warming science says that we will be faced with more extreme events, so that when the rains come there will be floods and most of the water will run down the rivers and out to sea.

OK they will refresh the river systems but we might as well use some of the excess for aquifer recharge instead of letting it go to waste.


----------



## Sdajii (17 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I fully agree with you @Sdajii but i think we will see token actions, a lot of talks but a few batt scheme like decisions which could boost some profits here and then
> Building code rating which will replace wood by composite materials etc
> But i could be wrong




We might see some minor changes like you describe, I think I said that, but nothing big and significant. Lots of bleating and virtue signaling but I expect nothing substantial in terms of real change, at least in the big picture.


----------



## rederob (17 November 2019)

Sdajii said:


> We might see some minor changes like you describe, I think I said that, but nothing big and significant. Lots of bleating and virtue signaling but I expect nothing substantial in terms of real change, at least in the big picture.



What informs your opinion and expectations that we can consider it credible?


----------



## Sdajii (17 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Ethical investing is now affecting trillion dollar businesses like the Government Pension Fund Global of Norway, so to think fossil fuel investments will see big money flows in future is pie in the sky, and your ideas about coal are as antiquated as coal power plants.




My ideas are not antiquated, yours are just delusional. I have a completely realistic view of coal. It's dirty etc, it'll one day be abandoned, that may be only decades away and it may be less than one decade before coal use begins to decline, but *coal use is still increasing*. It's ridiculous to call something 'antiquated' when it is still expanding. I'm not saying I love it or want it to expand or anything, but I do have a realistic understanding of the reality of the situation.



> Although a bit off topic, major insurers and reinsurers are looking very closely at climate change impacts and it is probable they will be taking off the table, or pricing out of the market, future risks such as flooding in Venice.




It's off topic so I won't dwell on it, but obviously insurance companies will use any excuse they can to charge more money, even if it's not justified.



> There is now a palpable difference between those who do not understand climate change and those who are living and dying in the thick of it.




How do you figure this makes any sense? It's comical that you assert people fall into two categories: one category understands and believes in climate change and is dying from it. The other category doesn't believe in it and isn't suffering!

The rest of your post is similarly ridiculous but off topic.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 November 2019)

basilio said:


> I can't quite understand the attempt to separate global warming from financial issues.



Nobody here is saying that it isn’t important.

Climate change has however been discussed extremely extensively in the general community and elsewhere on this forum and whilst it is an important issue, it is not the only important issue.

I could likewise say that pretty much everything ultimately comes back to agriculture and sex. No food = we die. No sex = the species dies out.

I’ll take a good guess though that nobody came to ASF with the specific intent of improving their performance on the farm or in the bedroom. Far more likely they were seeking to improve their investing.

ASF is a privately owned forum, a business, and the owner has politely made the point about the need for on-topic subjects to be the dominant focus of it.

As such I’ve changed the focus of much of what I post and likewise it’s reasonable to have a discussion about the financial and investment implications of the fire situation.

That doesn’t preclude discussion of climate in a different thread on that subject but it does seem reasonable that we don’t have mentions of CO2, or for that matter ploughing the fields or having an orgasm, dominating every discussion.


----------



## rederob (18 November 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> As such I’ve changed the focus of much of what I post and likewise it’s reasonable to have a discussion about the financial and investment implications of the fire situation.



Which previously you mentioned as having governments provide more money and also change zoning laws - hardly earth shattering implications, and I am not having a go at you, but making the point about what most see as "easy fixes" or somewhat obvious.
Bushfires destroy property and kill people - they are the implications, and they translate into wealth destruction and lowering of GDP - points already covered.  Also already covered have been the direct implications to farmers.  Others could have added their comments on these points.
But apparently it's wrong to actually address why the thread even has importance.  It's only obvious because what has recently happened on the bushfire front is unprecedented and there is no prospect of that changing.  This is not just the new normal, it's set the worsen in future.
In that light the implications of bushfires relate to cause and mitigation because we do not want to increase the debt burden of our communities, decrease our agricultural output and lower our GDP do we?
Irrespective of knowing what causes bushfires to become more severe - increasingly catastrophic - there is going to be *a societal shift in thinking about the cause*, and greater action to address mitigation (at least we would hope).
If you do not believe that shift in thinking is going to occur, so be it, but there's some pretty graphic imagery that is conditioning it along with millions of people on the eastern seaboard waking up to a smoke haze each day, along with the smell of bushfires throughout the day.
Some of us might do an Izzy and blame gay marriage, but I suspect reason might prevail.
So the simple question is, if those who understand what is happening is indeed the case, what action can be taken to address the cause, as prevention is cheaper than dealing with the consequences.


Smurf1976 said:


> That doesn’t preclude discussion of climate in a different thread on that subject but it does seem reasonable that we don’t have mentions of CO2, ....



Only @qldfrog and you have used "*CO2*" anywhere in the threads as I am not and have not in this thread been discussing the science (which is what those other threads are mostly about) but, instead the "existential threat" and how it will affect investment decisions.


----------



## qldfrog (18 November 2019)

@Joe Blow , can you close that thread or move it to the usual GW rant, it was not supposed to be related in any way to GW and has been kidnapped by the usual culprit


----------



## Joe Blow (18 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> @Joe Blow , can you close that thread or move it to the usual GW rant, it was not supposed to be related in any way to GW and has been kidnapped by the usual culprit




Perhaps a better solution is to make this thread a climate change/GW-free zone from this point forward?

It's never to late to get a thread back on track.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 November 2019)

Actually I think this thread could be widened to include the impact of the drought over much of eastern Australia.

*Regardless of the cause*, the effects are greatly reduced agricultural production, and the possibility of agricultural areas drying up, not just hydrologically but demographically as people move out of agricultural industries.

Where will they go, and what will they do ? They will probably add to congestion stress in the big cities and put more pressure on infrastructure. The investment implications seem fairly obvious, agri businesses will decline, we will have to import more food and a generation of farmers will be ruined.


----------



## rederob (18 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> We can also expect a new orchestrated urge to "*fight global warming*", so reduce competitiveness of Australia and lower A$, maybe even reduced export of coal due to voters pressure while benefiting EV, solar,wind, or maybe even uranium here if the Uranium lobby plays well.
> Also an increased radicalisation on both sides of politics here



This was from your opening post.
You opened the door, and now want to close it.
The difference seems to be that it's the consequences which are detrimental, while there is no evidence that competitiveness is being reduced when acting on emissions reduction given the level of new job creation in renewables sectors.
And in terms of how Australia's situation affects global investment we see headlines like this.
Bushfires are seen as a symptom, and the investment community's diagnosis is to avoid the cause wherever possible.  
Deny reality as much as you like, but these are effects which flow through the economy and markets.


----------



## barney (18 November 2019)

I've read the bulk of this thread and have not made any comments …. but I have to say, honestly, ….. I have appreciated all the input.

Obviously the odd few folk here don't exactly see eye to eye (slash/ would like to kill and destroy the other party with a pitchfork  ... JK of course  ….. hopefully)

I suspect you guys would more than likely have a great old chin wag down at the local pub cursing and ridiculing each other till the 10th beer, then probably walk home discussing the weekly footy results 

Differences of opinion are what makes a Forum interesting … carry on as you were


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 November 2019)

rederob said:


> But apparently it's wrong to actually address why the thread even has importance.




Not wrong, just not the intended focus.

Someone could discuss the health impacts of being 5, 10, 20 or however many kg overweight without discussing healthy diet or exercise. That's not denial and it doesn't mean anyone's saying it's not a problem, it's just choosing to focus on the detail of what the impacts actually are rather than on how to avoid them. Same concept.


----------



## rederob (19 November 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Not wrong, just not the intended focus.



Well, here is what @qldfrog wanted the focus to be as made clear in his OP:


qldfrog said:


> SO let's watch this from an *investor's* view



@Smurf1976's analogy would hold true if the only thing that could be considered were discrete measurables such as actual costs to an affected farmer, or total cost to an affected community, etc..
But most *investors *are not part of the group directly affected by the discrete measurables of bushfires.
@Smurf1976 and I are investors, and I dare day everyone reading this is also likely to be "in the market."
While it would be enlightening to know the measurables, they will be far less important than me knowing that my investment in an insurance company will not just be taking a hit this year, but the likelihood is that this will be an ongoing and *worsening *theme.
We, as investors, will also take a broader view in that our investment decisions are based on a degree of (sometimes imperfect) knowledge.  If we see a theme sweeping through the market we can ride it for a profit, eg if there's a conflict in the Strait of Hormuz then get into some oilers.  Or if you are in the market for income rather than growth, you will divest your exposure in certain sectors because they are out of cycle, are being affected by changing sentiment or some other obvious reason, eg oversupply if it's into some form of commodity.
It is wholly disingenuous of @qldfrog to clearly state what he wanted from the outset, and then want his thread to be closed because he is unhappy that it is not saying the things he wanted it to say.


----------



## rederob (19 November 2019)

Sdajii said:


> My ideas are not antiquated, yours are just delusional. I have a completely realistic view of coal. It's dirty etc, it'll one day be abandoned, that may be only decades away and it may be less than one decade before coal use begins to decline, but *coal use is still increasing*. It's ridiculous to call something 'antiquated' when it is still expanding. I'm not saying I love it or want it to expand or anything, but I do have a realistic understanding of the reality of the situation.



Your view is antiquated because it reflects only "demand," and there are greater influences at play, including the likelihood of a price on carbon.


Sdajii said:


> It's off topic so I won't dwell on it, but obviously insurance companies will use any excuse they can to charge more money, even if it's not justified.



Venice's floods were incidental, but my point related to certain risks being either uninsurable in future (depending on location, etc.) or priced out of the market.  So in the event of future bushfires affected farmers would have no capital to continue their operations.


Sdajii said:


> How do you figure this makes any sense? It's comical that you assert people fall into two categories: one category understands and believes in climate change and is dying from it. The other category doesn't believe in it and isn't suffering!



This was your categorisation as my point was about the fact that if you have been affected by bushfires then you will *understand *the impact of climate change in a way which is real and personal.


----------



## Sdajii (19 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Your view is antiquated because it reflects only "demand," and there are greater influences at play, including the likelihood of a price on carbon.




So China is going to start paying a price on carbon in any significant way?

Carbon tax is for the most part just an excuse to raise revenue. We're still going to see coal being burned where it's economical, and a tax may be put on it which means the government gets some revenue. In some cases this will add to the push towards alternatives, sure, but it's not like that's going to cause sudden change in the near future. I'm entirely aware that coal will be phased out eventually, and that's a good thing, but it's not like we're going to see coal consumption reduce any time soon. 10 years ago many people were saying it was already dying out, many people have been saying for 10 years or so that coal is being phased out (consumption dropping). Many people I talk to insist that China is reducing its usage of coal and they outright disbelieve me when I say they are building new coal-fueled plants and increasing consumption. A carbon tax is about reducing carbon output and not about revenue in a similar way to speeding fines being about reducing speeding. In both cases it's a game of cat and mouse the cats don't want to win. It's similar to cigarette taxes and many other examples. There may be some tangible effect of the 'efforts', but in reality the government doesn't want to eliminate the 'problem' because the revenue stream will stop. In some ways a carbon tax will cause governments to become addicted to industry using things like coal and they will actually find sneaky ways to encourage industry to stay with it, because if they can tax coal while they need to subsidise solar/wind/etc, well, it doesn't take a genius so perhaps even you can see it.



> Venice's floods were incidental, but my point related to certain risks being either uninsurable in future (depending on location, etc.) or priced out of the market.  So in the event of future bushfires affected farmers would have no capital to continue their operations.




Do you even know what planet you're on?



> This was your categorisation as my point was about the fact that if you have been affected by bushfires then you will *understand *the impact of climate change in a way which is real and personal.




Apparently you don't. 

Incidentally, I was in the middle of the Black Saturday fires, the family business burned down. It isn't the only bushfire I've been in.


----------



## Logique (20 November 2019)

I thought this thread had disappeared. But no, it's just in the Trading and Investment threads .

As ever, Joe is the voice of cool reason. So in this context - I think an on-ground workforce of natural area hazard reduction planners and ground crews - would be a far more efficient fiscal/ecological investment in the protection of our native bushland areas.

That is, if the General Napoleons of the NSW Rural Fire Service could live without their $$ thousands per hour airforce of show pony water bombers - and the live TV crosses standing next to the Premier (hint: ..they couldn't).


----------



## Logique (21 November 2019)

When will we ever learn? So many decades of experience-based wisdom that has been unlearned. The real casualty is natural areas biodiversity, cooked in unnecessarily hot wildfires, plus the human lives of the people caught up in these conflagrations







> *When Will We Ever Learn?*
> by Jim Hoggett & Aled Hoggett
> IPA Backgrounder, Vol. 16/2, 2004
> Conclusion
> ....The broad credo of governments is to preserve all ecological values everywhere in a centrally planned ecology. This is patently unachievable...


----------



## qldfrog (23 November 2019)

Logique said:


> When will we ever learn? So many decades of experience-based wisdom that has been unlearned. The real casualty is natural areas biodiversity, cooked in unnecessarily hot wildfires, plus the human lives of the people caught up in these conflagrations



Indeed interesting but not pc article here with good figures
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/nwmobile/article.php?id=58792


----------



## rederob (23 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Indeed interesting but not pc article here with good figures
> http://www.newsweekly.com.au/nwmobile/article.php?id=58792



Or you could read what is found when the topic is expertly studied and the real culprit is exposed.
What is galling is that while everyone who has vast experience of recent bushfires and uses the term "unprecedented", a lickspittle to conservatism makes the claim it is not, and without any evidence.
These recent bushfires will be reviewed in depth and the truth will out, just as it did for Queensland last year when extreme bushfire events were reported on and found amongst other things, that "*... unprecedented is the catastrophic fire weather that was observed at Rockhampton....*"


----------



## kahuna1 (23 November 2019)

An excellent article ...

factual ... and blunt. Whilst not the 1973 total, which is double where we are now ... its not even summer.

Unprecedented is used ... abused and denied ... this time however read and possibly learn ?

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-factcheck-are-this-years-fires-unprecedented

At 1.7 million hectares, unlike most fire seasons, this one has mainly occurred in Spring and if you note the years following very bad ones not many fires thankfully break out. This year, sadly with little moisture in the soil and it being tinder dry, 2020 and the main Summer months likely to be not great.

Hope for rain, and not too much pain or loss of property or life.

Denial works if your that type of person, sadly, this clearly is not a typical fire season and reading this excellent article putting debate aside, I can only conclude this sadly is very much out of the ordinary. 

Throwing a tantrum if someone mentions climate change or having record temperatures in most places early 2019 and a drought ... is what it is. They occurred and yet again records are still tumbling, ones unseen prior to now.

Whilst not a peak, at my property up north the temp hit 42 degrees the other day, not a record as that was 43 degrees but humidity was 9% ... and yes we have droughts, this one has 23% of the average rain for the last 7 years having hit the ground.


----------



## Logique (24 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Indeed interesting but not pc article here with good figures  http://www.newsweekly.com.au/nwmobile/article.php?id=58792



Excellent piece, and a good summary of the issues.







> ...“burning 1-2 per cent [of forested areas in WA] is largely ineffective”. There is “a tipping point … We need to get up to the 8 per cent mark for it to have any significant effect for reducing the severity and scale of wildfires”...(above link)


----------



## Jack Aubrey (24 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Indeed interesting but not pc article here with good figures
> http://www.newsweekly.com.au/nwmobile/article.php?id=58792




Some good points but the "data" is cherry-picked.  Several of those Inquiries, going back to the 1939 fires, also pointed to fires starting as a result of ill-timed, privately organised hazard reduction burning.

I also wonder why it concentrates on the Victorian situation when most of the recent/current fires are in NSW and SE Queensland.  Most States have a 5% to 8% target for off-season hazard reduction but have 1) failed to resource the responsible agencies to achieve it, and 2) have been struggling to find a sufficient weather widows to do it safely.  Getting the volunteers trained and out in the field week after week is also becoming harder for a range of reasons.

Even achieving their targets would not help in many cases.  The NSW RFS Chief is on record as saying that some of the NSW fires actually started in areas that did have recent burns.  The exceptionally dry weather causes Eucalyptus to shed bark and leaves at an increased rate and many undergrowth shrubs to die back to a dry, twiggy mess, meaning a couple of years is all that is needed to accumulate sufficient fuel loads.  Once one of these fires starts in these conditions and reaches canopy height in strong winds and low humidity, no amount of prior hazard reduction will help stop its rapid spread.

Like others, I'd like to see the results of a proper inquiry before any blame gets laid (if, indeed, blame is required).  

This "blame the Greens" stuff is, IMO, just a politically motivated diversion.  They have no power (except here in the ACT, where hazard reduction burns are a standard feature of our winters) and have policies in support of hazard reduction.  Of the three "extreme" greenies I know, two live in the country and are volunteers with their local RFS and spend their winter weekends on standby for prescribed burns.  The other participates in regular hazard reduction through National Parks Volunteers.  I certainly don't deny that in some localities residents may raise "green" concerns about particular off-season burning plans but these are generally motivated by property or health concerns.

That article also seems to be based on a beef about Victorian forest policy which I don't really understand.  But contrasting some mythical nirvana of "selective logging" with a total "no-go - lock-it-up" policy totally ignores the fact that most State Forestry authorities have a) been on notice for at least 30 years that their practices must change on both environmental and economic grounds, and b) most of them have anyway moved to extraction by large-scale clear-felling of native and plantation forests in order to remain even slightly viable.  I haven't seen a traditional "selective-logging" commercial operation in the southern States for a long time.

Finally, on the issue of the term "unprecedented", I'd just note that the term was used by fire chiefs in relation to the number of major fires out of control at the same time so early in the fire season, and, possibly, to the coincidence of very dry conditions (drought) and the “sudden stratospheric warming” which generated the extreme heat and wind over Eastern Australia.  Sudden stratospheric warming is real and not related, as far as I know, to AGW.  They were not talking about the actual scale of the fires or damage to property and human life.

Like any complex event, there will be different interpretations of causes and "what we should have done" but making it ideological seems silly to me.  I always subscribe to two maxims:

1) If there is a choice between a stuff-up and a conspiracy, go with the stuff-up every time (P. J. Keating); and

2) For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (H. L. Mencken)


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2019)

The medium term impact of the fires is increased demand and increased economic activity as the affected areas are rebuilt.


----------



## qldfrog (24 November 2019)

Jack Aubrey said:


> Some good points but the "data" is cherry-picked.  Several of those Inquiries, going back to the 1939 fires, also pointed to fires starting as a result of ill-timed, privately organised hazard reduction burning.
> 
> I also wonder why it concentrates on the Victorian situation when most of the recent/current fires are in NSW and SE Queensland.  Most States have a 5% to 8% target for off-season hazard reduction but have 1) failed to resource the responsible agencies to achieve it, and 2) have been struggling to find a sufficient weather widows to do it safely.  Getting the volunteers trained and out in the field week after week is also becoming harder for a range of reasons.
> 
> ...



Jack i liked not that i agree with all points but neither should anyone expect that unless with fanatics, but  at last a sensible argumented answer.thanks
Wish there was more of this in the GW thread
Have a nice week end
I can definitively tell you that when my land will burn in Brisbane hinterland, it will be catastrophic and primarily due to burn off failure and vegetation laws as well as planning of development
As to victoria no local clue


----------



## Jack Aubrey (24 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Jack i liked not that i agree with all points but neither should anyone expect that unless with fanatics, but  at last a sensible argumented answer.thanks
> Wish there was more of this in the GW thread
> Have a nice week end
> I can definitively tell you that when my land will burn in Brisbane hinterland, it will be catastrophic and primarily due to burn off failure and vegetation laws as well as planning of development
> As to victoria no local clue



Thanks. Stay safe frog.


----------



## rederob (24 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> The medium term impact of the fires is increased demand and increased economic activity as the affected areas are rebuilt.



The short term impact is "rebuilding," with materials and labour being sourced beyond immediately affected communities.
The other impacts relate to increased debt and the consequent ability to service that debt in communities with lesser disposable incomes and livelihoods that are more borderline as each year passes.
You will need to explain how increasing levels of debt can lead to increasing economic activity as, for example, with livestock farming it takes years to get herd sizes to viable levels.


----------



## rederob (24 November 2019)

Logique said:


> Excellent piece, and a good summary of the issues.



@qldfrog's linked article said this, and it was false:
*"Contrary to claims by the Greens and environment ideologues that this season’s fires are the result of human-caused climate change, the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) warned in September that a severe drought was likely, due to a40-degree warming of the atmosphere 30 kilometres above Antarctica in just a few days."*​Dr *Hendon*, (not Heddon) actually said:
*"We looked at what happened over that period and we're pretty confident that we will see an increase in temperatures and a decrease in rainfall in central-eastern Australia in the following months."*​Ill informed ideologues like Pat Byrne fail to understand that *attribution and severity *are categorically separate to climate change. 
The issue of “*sudden stratospheric warming*” is a bit like that of hurricanes/cyclones.  They are natural phenomena, but are being amplified by the increased energy in the climate system.  That is a simple fact of physics.


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2019)

rederob said:


> The short term impact is "rebuilding," with materials and labour being sourced beyond immediately affected communities.
> The other impacts relate to increased debt and the consequent ability to service that debt in communities with lesser disposable incomes and livelihoods that are more borderline as each year passes.
> You will need to explain how increasing levels of debt can lead to increasing economic activity as, for example, with livestock farming it takes years to get herd sizes to viable levels.




a large proportion of the rebuilt will be funded by multinational insurance companies, so you will have a lot of funds that are currently stored in US bonds and equities flow into the hands of local tradesmen and women.


----------



## rederob (24 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> a large proportion of the rebuilt will be funded by multinational insurance companies, so you will have a lot of funds that are currently stored in US bonds and equities flow into the hands of local tradesmen and women.



In perspective, the recent loss of buildings in NSW is about 10% of the monthly dwelling approvals for that state, and given that the rebuilds will probably be over a year or so, the "new" builds will comprise maybe ONE percent of all dwelling approvals over the course of a year.
However, my point was about the amount of money that is going to be available in the affected communities overall, as farmers have already had the whammy of long term drought bite them and it is a bit presumptuous that everyone and everything "burnt" will be covered (for that matter "adequately") by insurances.


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2019)

rederob said:


> In perspective, the recent loss of buildings in NSW is about 10% of the monthly dwelling approvals for that state, and given that the rebuilds will probably be over a year or so, the "new" builds will comprise maybe ONE percent of all dwelling approvals over the course of a year.
> However, my point was about the amount of money that is going to be available in the affected communities overall, as farmers have already had the whammy of long term drought bite them and it is a bit presumptuous that everyone and everything "burnt" will be covered (for that matter "adequately") by insurances.




I never said everything will be covered by insurance, I said replacing everything will cause increased economic activity over the medium term, whether that replacement is funded by insurance, savings, debt or charity doesn’t matter.

the fact is stuff needs to be replaced and in the medium term that produces economic activity in the affected areas, it’s just the way it is.

you can argue that long term economic activity will be offset due to insurance premiums rising, people having less savings, and debt being incurred, but those only take effect in the long term, medium term there will be a boost of activity.


----------



## rederob (24 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> I never said everything will be covered by insurance, I said replacing everything will cause increased economic activity over the medium term, whether that replacement is funded by insurance, savings, debt or charity doesn’t matter.



That's just a guess.
There will be short term spending, and it will be mostly be based on increasing levels of debt for those who can afford to rebuild.
The medium term - 3-5 years - will be lean unless there are welcoming rains. Until then the debt cycle (even spiral) will circumvent economic recovery.  
Sadly, rural communities have high risk of suicides and one aspect is "*economic change due to natural disasters or climate change.*" 







Value Collector said:


> you can argue that long term economic activity will be offset due to insurance premiums rising, people having less savings, and debt being incurred, but those only take effect in the long term, medium term there will be a boost of activity.



I would argue a grim future in the longer term.  I say this with first hand knowledge from a friend who was lucky enough to own two small farms in the Kingaroy region, so he has no mortgage.  He's still on the land and just turned 80.  He and his wife have been hand feeding their animals for over a year, and that is those few breeders they now have left. Their "disposable" income only comes from selling down their stock now, and that's about to cease.


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2019)

rederob said:


> I would argue a grim future in the longer term.




People always do, and so far they have always been wrong.


----------



## rederob (24 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> People always do, and so far they have always been wrong.



Tell that to the dairy industry for starters.
Then to irrigators.
Or the rural orchardists pulling out their trees.


----------



## Value Collector (25 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Tell that to the dairy industry for starters.
> Then to irrigators.
> Or the rural orchardists pulling out their trees.




Sure certain industries will struggle occasionally, but you are making out the general economies future is grim.

I don’t think this is the first time orchardists have had to prune some trees because of drought.

As for dairy, it’s a bad business, and is going to get harder regardless of the weather.


----------



## rederob (25 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Sure certain industries will struggle occasionally, but you are making out the general economies future is grim.
> 
> I don’t think this is the first time orchardists have had to prune some trees because of drought.
> 
> As for dairy, it’s a bad business, and is going to get harder regardless of the weather.



Except for an exceptionally small component of activity in rebuilds the economic activities of affected areas is going to be driven by diminished money being spent as it goes into serving greater levels of debt.
Exactly how does that translate, in your world, into:


Value Collector said:


> ...increased economic activity over the medium term....


----------



## Value Collector (25 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Except for an exceptionally small component of activity in rebuilds the economic activities of affected areas is going to be driven by diminished money being spent as it goes into serving greater levels of debt.
> Exactly how does that translate, in your world, into:




there is going to be exactly the same 
Level of activity as there would have been + the additional rebuild.

hence economic activity will be increased.

but you do you.


----------



## rederob (25 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> there is going to be exactly the same
> Level of activity as there would have been + the additional rebuild.
> hence economic activity will be increased.



Really?
So with less expenditure available there will be greater economic activity.
Stop guessing.
In affected areas there are two prospects for recovery; increased annual rainfall and increased crop/livestock prices.


----------



## Value Collector (25 November 2019)

rederob said:


> Really?
> So with less expenditure available there will be greater economic activity.
> Stop guessing.
> In affected areas there are two prospects for recovery; increased annual rainfall and increased crop/livestock prices.




dude, I have already told you, there will be more expenditure due to insurance flows, forced draw downs on savings, debt and charity.

the heading of this thread is short to medium term, the above will increase spending in the medium term.

longterm, I do believe it will rain again, I think you are stupid if you don’t think it will.


----------



## rederob (25 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> dude, I have already told you, there will be more expenditure due to insurance flows, forced draw downs on savings, debt and charity.
> 
> the heading of this thread is short to medium term, the above will increase spending in the medium term.
> 
> longterm, I do believe it will rain again, I think you are stupid if you don’t think it will.



All you have done is guess, because in the medium term gross debt will increase for those who experienced both direct and indirect losses, so sustaining capital in affected areas is not there.
You have this warped idea that the rebuild can of itself lead to medium economic recovery, but unless there are substantial increases in livestock prices and the rains are back to historic averages, that's plain fanciful.
Yes it will rain again in the affected regions, but the prognosis this summer is very poor, so any attempts to recover stock levels will be curtailed, while cropping etc. recoveries for now are unlikely given the high probability of a 2020 *el nino* event.  
Rather than keep guessing, try responding rationally.


----------



## Value Collector (25 November 2019)

rederob said:


> All you have done is guess, because in the medium term gross debt will increase for those who experienced both direct and indirect losses, so sustaining capital in affected areas is not there.
> You have this warped idea that the rebuild can of itself lead to medium economic recovery, but unless there are substantial increases in livestock prices and the rains are back to historic averages, that's plain fanciful.
> Yes it will rain again in the affected regions, but the prognosis this summer is very poor, so any attempts to recover stock levels will be curtailed, while cropping etc. recoveries for now are unlikely given the high probability of a 2020 *el nino* event.
> Rather than keep guessing, try responding rationally.




You build 5 houses, 3 funded by insurance, 2 funded by debt, and 1 funded by savings,

You will see medium term economic expansion, the small monthly payments on the 2 out of 5 that needed to take on 30 year loans will not have interest payments in those first few years to offset the economic activity created.

As I said I agree with you if we are talking longterm, but not short or medium term.


----------



## ducati916 (26 November 2019)

rederob said:


> All you have done is guess, because in the medium term gross debt will increase for those who experienced both direct and indirect losses, so sustaining capital in affected areas is not there.
> You have this warped idea that the rebuild can of itself lead to medium economic recovery, but unless there are substantial increases in livestock prices and the rains are back to historic averages, that's plain fanciful.
> Yes it will rain again in the affected regions, but the prognosis this summer is very poor, so any attempts to recover stock levels will be curtailed, while cropping etc. recoveries for now are unlikely given the high probability of a 2020 *el nino* event.
> Rather than keep guessing, try responding rationally.




Seems VC is unaware of Bastiat and his broken window fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

jog on
duc


----------



## kahuna1 (26 November 2019)

I doubt the destruction of 100 plus years of infrastructure, .... fences and yards will be undone quickly.

Houses,  a mere fraction of the monthly build ... may be replaced.

In 2014 some of these areas were experiencing the worst drought in 100 years of records.

In 2019, 5 years on and massively below rainfall, its now a once in a 400 yer event.

For some regions just burnt, the question is viability longer term as farmland being used as it was for the last 100 years.

The idiotic view of forever growth of GDP or land that can sustain as it always did when clearly things have changed is an absurdity.

Whilst unwelcome to admit, these at the core are chemical reactions and as idiotic as it sounds, climate denial is a delusional myth despite 97% of all scientists in the field agreeing on the topic and threat is real.

If you add CO2 to an atmosphere it hangs around for hundreds of years and* traps heat*. CH4 or methane is 80 times worse and other gasses even more diabolical. Even base chemical reactions and their products are denied by some flat earth people called climate deniers. 

We as humans either ADJUST or perish. *What once was, is no longer viable in some cases.


*
Deny all you like.

Factually these numbers and chemical reactions and heat trapping are beyond stupid debate.

Old farts speaking about past events being worse are idiotic. NO old fart is 3 million years OLD !! When some of the gasses were at similar levels, NONE are 65 million years old where things will be in 2100 and every land animal over 30kg went extinct. That I might add took 35,000 years and a meteor hitting the planet. We humans, who came well after this will have done the same in 300 years.

I am sure some will survive, humans, either way. Pity about all the other plants and animals.

Vast areas of the planets food basket growing areas are undergoing radical change right now and with world population growing 50% by 2100 we face 25% of arable land becoming less viable for farming and in some cases unable to support even a crop.

Welcome to the new world.


----------



## rederob (26 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> You build 5 houses, 3 funded by insurance, 2 funded by debt, and 1 funded by savings,
> 
> You will see medium term economic expansion, the small monthly payments on the 2 out of 5 that needed to take on 30 year loans will not have interest payments in those first few years to offset the economic activity created.
> 
> As I said I agree with you if we are talking longterm, but not short or medium term.



Here's a take on the costs of Black Saturday 2009 suggesting a net loss of almost $1billion.  However, these were only the measurables, as the study noted problems assessing other costs: "*Due to time constraints and the difficulties in *_*valuing indirect economic and social impacts, some of these impacts were not valued.*_"
Here's a good article on what real people are experiencing right now as a result of the bushfires.
You have confused "activity" with "economic expansion."  
Yes, rebuilding involves a lot of activity, and all this is wealth destruction (see @ducati916's link) and increased debt.  You cannot create sustainable "expansion" from increasing debt.
Putting "economics" to one side, let's look at the short term for affected parties. They will need to devote time and resources to replace animal/plant stock and infrastructure (26000km of fencing is a big task).  In a perfect world that would have been time spent being "productive" in managing a viable property.  Now, however, that time and cost is diverted into rebuilding.  Broadland cropping might do ok in 2020 if much needed rains come in time, but that's about it as horticulture and livestock in affected areas will remain in subsistence mode until well after any rains.  
Currently the medium term looks bleak.


----------



## qldfrog (26 November 2019)

@Jack Aubrey : you said (and I agree: often true):



Jack Aubrey said:


> 2) For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (H. L. Mencken)



if you apply that to Global Warming for dummies , what is the conclusion you end up with?
Well done: you are on your road to enlightenment; now is the time to use your computer, and rent a few science books at the library to make your own mind! 
Have a great evening.


----------



## rederob (26 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> @Jack Aubrey if you apply that to Global Warming for dummies , what is the conclusion you end up with?



AGW is *simple *- a "blanket" effect warms the planet (but perhaps that's too complex for @qldfrog  ).


----------



## basilio (26 November 2019)

I think discussions about rebuilding after these fires is  very problematic in a number of cases.

I lived in Northern NSW years ago and had good friends in some of the areas that have been devastated.  My take on what will happen is informed by this experience.

1)  Hundreds of places that have been destroyed are in small bush communities.  Many were on  Multiple Ocupancy communities. Few if any of the houses would have been insured . They were mostly owner built and ranged from very basic and simple to adequate. 
But it is unlikely many were insured.

2)  If  some places have been insured it is highly unlikely the payout will cover rebuilding. There are now new regulations in place on the type of buildings allowable in high bushfire risk areas. These require far more substantial fire protection at significantly higher costs than would be afforded by current insurance payouts.

3) There is a real possibility that rebuilding will not even be allowed or practical in many remote, high bushfire risk areas. This is down the track but I suspect the challenges of points 1 and 2 plus concerns about ongoing fire risks will cause a reappraisal of allowable development in many of these areas.

The development of many of these homes and small communities was a slow long term process done by young people on a more generous social security system.  These factors no longer exist.

I honestly can't see what the future holds for the many people who lost everything they owned and, as far as I can see, will walk away in their 50's, 60's and 70's with just the shirts on their back.


----------



## Jack Aubrey (26 November 2019)

qldfrog said:


> @Jack Aubrey : you said (and I agree: often true):
> 
> 
> if you apply that to Global Warming for dummies , what is the conclusion you end up with?
> ...



If I bring one more science book into my unit I will exceed a) the rated floor loading, and b) my wife's patience.

I do spend quite a lot of time on skepticalscience.com (which has been actually debating these issues since 2007).

I would certainly classify climate change as a VERY complex problem and one that does not lend itself to simple solutions. As a "classical liberal" in economic terms, and as a former regulator, I do tend to favour market-based solutions (as opposed to regulation or central directives). As a geek, I am also attracted to technical solutions (properly and thoroughly tested) being deployed in an experimental framework. As a democrat (small 'D"), I think governments should act in the interests of all their citizens and work towards a more prosperous future.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 November 2019)

Jack Aubrey said:


> I would certainly classify climate change as a VERY complex problem and one that does not lend itself to simple solutions. As a "classical liberal" in economic terms, and as a former regulator, I do tend to favour market-based solutions (as opposed to regulation or central directives). As a geek, I am also attracted to technical solutions (properly and thoroughly tested) being deployed in an experimental framework. As a democrat (small 'D"), I think governments should act in the interests of all their citizens and work towards a more prosperous future.




I'll point out a couple of instances where "the market" has clearly failed, ie banks where our four pillars are pretty clearly in some sort of collusion to price interest rates on loans at the highest they can, and interest rates on deposits at the lowest they can, they all seem remarkably similar with the same idea of pricing to maximise profits. Not one of them seems to have the original thought "if we raise/lower our interest rates we might get more customers" . The same applies to private health insurance companies which are in the process of pricing themselves out of business mostly at the same time by offering a product with minimal difference to their competitors.

Which is why I think that maybe governments should go back into the banking and health insurance business, to provide a better deal for consumers and cattle-prod the complacent corporates into some real competition for their very existence.

Of course that will never happen under this government , and maybe not even under Labor which seems to prefer over regulation to actual competition.

PS, sorry this appears in the bushfires thread it's a bit off topic here.


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2019)

ducati916 said:


> Seems VC is unaware of Bastiat and his broken window fallacy.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
> 
> ...




Actually the parable is not relevant.

the parable you linked rightly mentions that if a shop keeper has to pay 6francs to repair a broken window, there is no net benefit because he now has 6francs less to spend on replacing shoes.

However, as I stated in my reasoning, I said there would be increased activity in the regions affected due to inflows of cash from insurance.

So using your parable, the shop keeper still keeps his 6francs, and an American insurance firm sends him 6francs to replace the window, So indeed an extra 6francs does enter the economy.

Also, lets say some one does have to draw on savings to pay the 6francs repair costs, that money is now circulating in the region, where it might have been otherwise spent in Disneyland.


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2019)

rederob said:


> You have confused "activity" with "economic expansion."
> .




No, if I meant expansion I would say expansion.

I chose the word activity for a reason, you have just been confused about what my point is, even though I have explained in many times and actually said long term the impact is a net negative.


----------



## ducati916 (27 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> Actually the parable is not relevant.
> 
> the parable you linked rightly mentions that if a shop keeper has to pay 6francs to repair a broken window, there is no net benefit because he now has 6francs less to spend on replacing shoes.
> 
> ...




Based on what you previously asserted:

_I never said everything will be covered by insurance, I said replacing everything will cause increased economic activity over the medium term, whether that replacement is funded by insurance, savings, debt or charity doesn’t matter._

That would not be correct. Savings, debt and charity all fulfill the criteria of the 'parable'.

jog on
duc


----------



## rederob (27 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> No, if I meant *expansion *I would say expansion.



But you did use that term:


Value Collector said:


> You build 5 houses, 3 funded by insurance, 2 funded by debt, and 1 funded by savings,
> You will see medium term economic *expansion*,....



Then this:


Value Collector said:


> I chose the word activity for a reason, you have just been confused about what my point is, even though I have explained in many times and actually said long term the impact is a net negative.



You are claiming a short and medium term economic benefit to affected communities, but it is based on debt.  There is no overall economic benefit in debt.
The only thing that will happen short term is a flurry of essential rebuilding at the expense of otherwise normal business operations that typically generate an income.  Products and services to achieve this have been consistently shown to realise net debt.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 November 2019)

rederob said:


> You are claiming a short and medium term economic benefit to affected communities, but it is based on debt. There is no overall economic benefit in debt.




Isn't is just a return on premiums paid that is put into short term economic activity ?

I agree it's not economic growth but I dispute that it's based on debt.


----------



## rederob (27 November 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Isn't is just a return on premiums paid that is put into short term economic activity ?
> I agree it's not economic growth but I dispute that it's based on debt.



As bas pointed out, not all are insured, not all insured are insured for everything lost, and this is especially true for farmers' loss of infrastructure.
Again, it's a distinction between activity =short term high; and expansion = nil prospect without rain or rising commodity prices.


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2019)

rederob said:


> You are claiming a short and medium term economic benefit to affected communities, but it is based on debt.




debt and insurance and savings and charity.

the insurance, debt and charity all represent funds flowing into the zone in the short to medium term.

if you don’t understand that there is no point talking to you, I have already said long term the net affect is negative.


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2019)

ducati916 said:


> That would not be correct. Savings, debt and charity all fulfill the criteria of the 'parable'.
> 
> jog on
> duc




savings might have been saved for a trip to Disneyland or some other item that was going to be spent outside the zone, but will now create activity in the zone.

debt is an inflow of capital into the zone that wouldn’t have came otherwise.

————
but all that being said, any insurance claims still represent extra, from outside the zone.

————


----------



## ducati916 (28 November 2019)

Value Collector said:


> savings might have been saved for a trip to Disneyland or some other item that was going to be spent outside the zone, but will now create activity in the zone.
> 
> debt is an inflow of capital into the zone that wouldn’t have came otherwise.
> 
> ...





_debt and insurance and savings and charity.

the insurance, debt and charity all represent funds flowing into the zone in the short to medium term.

if you don’t understand that there is no point talking to you, I have already said long term the net affect is negative._

A = debt
Z = charity
X = insurance
Y = savings

The net effect is negative: which means: X + Y + Z + A = -1

Plug in any values you like as long as they sum to [-1]

So: 1 + 0 + [-1] + [-1] = [-1]
The left hand side of the equation is the short-term. The right hand side is the long term.

Your error is that you have confused yourself by using words, rather than numbers. The words 'economic activity', to you connote only something positive, rather than what they truly mean, which is simply an observation of fact: economic activity can be positive or negative.

jog on
duc


----------



## Logique (6 December 2019)

The most heartbreaking thing about the 2019- NSW bushfires? How avoidable it all was.
Or at least the most damaging aspects of it.  Will anything change? It's unlikely. 

All credit to the courageous fire service volunteers, who are the heart and soul. But one day they will realize how badly they've been let down by their political masters.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 December 2019)

rederob said:


> it is a bit presumptuous that everyone and everything "burnt" will be covered (for that matter "adequately") by insurances.




An issue with building (and contents) insurance is that unlike most other things, suppliers assume that the customer is an expert.

Engage the services of a lawyer, real estate agent, plumber, engineer or doctor and they all work on the basis that they are the expert being paid by the customer to achieve, or at least try to achieve in the case of lawyers, what their customer wants.

Now call any insurance company and tell them you'd like to insure your house. After giving them the address they'll ask you that silly question "how much for?".

In any other industry you'd say "all of it" and leave them to work out how much that actually is in $ terms since they're in a far better position to do so than the customer.

The insurance industry needs some disruption and shaking up in my view so as to end the situation where a very large proportion, I'd expect the vast majority, of homes in particular are insured for a value which doesn't reflect reality.


----------



## ducati916 (7 December 2019)

The additional caveat is that when purchasing an insurance contract that you actually understand the legal jargon employed in the clauses. This jargon embodies legal principles peculiar to insurance contracts and is interpreted strictly by the courts.

The net result is that many claims can be declined as there has not been strict compliance with the stated requirements in the clause being utilised. Litigation will likely be very expensive and is not cost effective except for large claims.

jog on
duc


----------



## Logique (19 December 2019)

Turns out the retired Fire Chiefs group is sponsored by the Climate Council, and mentored by Tim Flannery..! Why am I not surprised.

About the only thing this anachronism is achieving - besides making prize gooses of themselves - is providing a historical snapshot of how we got to this pass - where a single lightning strike can proceed to burn out hundreds of thousands of hectares of bushland in a hot ecologically disastrous summer wildfire, because:
- all the fire trails are blocked off
- no winter cool burning for decades

It happened on your watch you dills.  It's climate change they say. Look over there!


----------



## qldfrog (19 December 2019)

Around Brisbane, there is one fire still burning on the west side of the range.near dundas.has been going on for a week small but in forest so no teal effort to stop it
Local rfb can not do much more than contain and wait.
What do you think will happen if the wind start blowing west ahain
Mt Glorious and Nebo will disappear, i could be incinerated and fire will destroy The Gap suburbs.
It is not a catastrophic scenario, just need s bit of wind
But nothing, then when **** happens you see the PM on the front line and they will send some helicopters.now is the time to act not when it is too late, and that means not local rfb who have to do charity runs to upgrade their trucks..yes..i did this once..these are the guys trying to save your bacon while we spent billions on ice submarines
So disgusted..lets blame our management incompetence on CC


----------



## Logique (19 December 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Around Brisbane, there is one fire still burning on the west side of the range.near dundas.has been going on for a week small but in forest so no teal effort to stop it
> Local rfb can not do much more than contain and wait.
> What do you think will happen if the wind start blowing west ahain
> Mt Glorious and Nebo will disappear, i could be incinerated and fire will destroy The Gap suburbs.
> ...



Submarines by Defence Australia - one of the few sectors that can outdo bushfire management for sheer managerial incompetence, and shameless frittering away of the national balance sheet. 

How many hospitals, nurses and teachers could these $millions have purchased.


----------



## qldfrog (20 December 2019)

And a follow up today from the fire i was commenting on, after 2 days with 1 or 2 hotspots, woke up in smoke: Brisbane will be affected so we might see some action today, there are now a half dozen hotspot this morning there
Dundas has a population of a few dozen max, i doubt the local rfb has much ability to control such a fire next to a wide area of forest and NP
Has been going on for a week now
BTW, so far nothing in the news about it


----------



## qldfrog (20 December 2019)

qldfrog said:


> And a follow up today from the fire i was commenting on, after 2 days with 1 or 2 hotspots, woke up in smoke: Brisbane will be affected so we might see some action today, there are now a half dozen hotspot this morning there
> Dundas has a population of a few dozen max, i doubt the local rfb has much ability to control such a fire next to a wide area of forest and NP
> Has been going on for a week now
> BTW, so far nothing in the news about it



And while the feds are buying diesel tin cans to go underwater, our own Labour chook leader is bidding for the Olympic games..
Priorities are right i can see..


----------



## Jack Aubrey (23 December 2019)

It appears that only ASF and the BBC are covering the economic impacts of the bushfires:

*Australia fires: The huge economic cost of Australia's bushfires*


----------



## qldfrog (23 December 2019)

Jack Aubrey said:


> It appears that only ASF and the BBC are covering the economic impacts of the bushfires:
> 
> *Australia fires: The huge economic cost of Australia's bushfires*



It could be because no economist wants to openly rejoice at the GDP boost it creates in face of the disaster so many are facing?
In the leftist .. mostly but not  only ...economic growth by consumption and debt with no regards to ROI
This is heaven:
New everything, infrastructure to building to clothes etc paid by a general tax (insurance levies) without touching the budget in any significant matter

Anecdotal but 2 potential foreign customers for our Airbnb did not proceed due to the fire and smoke news they saw in Singapore and thailand.after many questions and even though we were not affected, they got scared
2 weeks at 1k each lost,for accommodation only, if they went elsewhere in Australia, no general impact but i believe they cancelled their Australian holidays
How often was this repeated....


----------



## Logique (23 December 2019)

Jack Aubrey said:


> It appears that only ASF and the BBC are covering the economic impacts of the bushfires:
> 
> *Australia fires: The huge economic cost of Australia's bushfires*



Good find Jack, only ASF and BBC is about right. Standing in a sauna, tearing up $100 dollar bills.
A time of fiscal reckoning is coming, people will be aghast at the final cost. That's government money _not_ going to hospitals, schools and aged care.


----------



## Jack Aubrey (24 December 2019)

Who could have foreseen the intensity of the current bushfire season?  Apparently, quite a few people did but no one was listening:

*Home affairs warned Australian government of growing climate disaster risk after May election*

_"The government was warned by the Department of Home Affairs after the May election that Australia faced more frequent and severe heatwaves and bushfires, and that livelihoods would be affected without effective action on climate change.

The department’s incoming government brief to the home affairs minister, Peter Dutton, warned of “disasters” exacerbated by climate change.

“The physical effects of climate change, population growth, and urbanisation mean that without effective action more Australians’ livelihoods will be impacted by disasters into the future and the cost of those disasters will continue to grow,” the brief stated."_​


----------



## sptrawler (24 December 2019)

The debate becomes more and more bizarre.


----------



## rederob (24 December 2019)

Jack Aubrey said:


> Who could have foreseen the intensity of the current bushfire season?  Apparently, quite a few people did but no one was listening:
> 
> *Home affairs warned Australian government of growing climate disaster risk after May election*
> 
> ...



Jack, this is not news... but thanks for the enlightening article.
What has happened and will continue through this summer has been understood as inevitable for a very long time.
The PM is correct in saying that Australia is prone to bushfires and drought, but has displayed a willful ignorance to the root cause of its severity on very much partisan lines.
It is also true that Australia can only have a small impact on reducing global CO2 emissions, but the corollary continues to be that we are instead exacerbating the problem despite having the tools to make substantial changes.
I vote that Mr Morrison be allowed to take longer holidays henceforth... say of a few year's duration, and put someone with no less than half a brain in charge in the interim (I vote @Smurf1976's cat [despite being overqualified on the intellectual front], after all who else can better lick the problem).


----------



## rederob (26 December 2019)

Jack Aubrey said:


> Who could have foreseen the intensity of the current bushfire season?  Apparently, quite a few people did but no one was listening



In this link you can just change 2013 to 2019 and the rest is almost true word for word (except that more climate records were broken this year).
What this shows unequivocally is that the federal government remains asleep at the wheel despite the evidence being palpable for so many years now.
It's what happens when you get a lot of lip service from a PM "accepting that climate change is real" and then taking no action.
No doubt rural fire brigades will have a lot to say after the travesty of federal concern this summer, and their voices will get to be heard.  And while it was heartening to hear Morrison offer "whatever is needed" right now, it really is a problem without any decent policies to address how similar events in future can be better tackled.


----------



## Jack Aubrey (26 December 2019)

rederob said:


> In this link you can just change 2013 to 2019 and the rest is almost true word for word (except that more climate records were broken this year).
> What this shows unequivocally is that the federal government remains asleep at the wheel despite the evidence being palpable for so many years now.
> It's what happens when you get a lot of lip service from a PM "accepting that climate change is real" and then taking no action.
> No doubt rural fire brigades will have a lot to say after the travesty of federal concern this summer, and their voices will get to be heard.  And while it was heartening to hear Morrison offer "whatever is needed" right now, it really is a problem without any decent policies to address how similar events in future can be better tackled.



Great find redrob. I think the Government's (and Rupert Murdoch's) policy is to find the authors of that report and blame them for the fires.


----------



## Logique (8 January 2020)

This isn't ABC/BBC News Jack - radio Climate Change on high rotation. All kinds of diversity, except diversity of opinion







> https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2020/01/fire-experts-from-central-casting/    ..As I wrote in my book, Firestick Ecology:  *Climate hysteria conveniently absolves green academics* from culpability for the human, environmental and economic disasters that they have visited on Australia through their bad advice to governments on land and fire management.
> ..Vic Jurskis, a veteran forester and fire expert, is the author of Firestick Ecology: fair dinkum science in plain English..


----------



## Jack Aubrey (8 January 2020)

Logique said:


> This isn't ABC/BBC News Jack - radio Climate Change on high rotation. All kinds of diversity, except diversity of opinion



I have no problem with seeing evidence-based "alternative views", Logique, and input from a former forestry chief should be considered alongside that of former fire chiefs, economic advisers, ecologists and climate scientists - although that article is not entirely clear about whether he has a problem with what has actually been done or what a couple af academics once said should be done.  I hope the wash-up to this season's fires and drought includes a wide-ranging, independent inquiry where the apparent (but not necessarily real) contradictions between different expert views can be probed.  I think the views of politicians and media commentators of any political bent should be ignored along with any social media posts by self-appointed citizen experts.  I am actually stunned by the number of people on line who think they know what (and who) caused this fire season to be so catastrophic over such a wide area despite their not knowing the difference between "back burning" and "hazard reduction burning" or between working conservationists and somewhat mythical "inner city leftist greenies".


----------



## jbocker (8 January 2020)

I read an article on how do native animals survive bushfires. And post bushfire activity.
It left me wondering what we could learn, in materials and use / design and construction. Not only for human habitation but replicating longer term shelters for native animals also.
I also wonder post fires whether there are studies (I daresay there would be) on types of constructions that survive. I wonder how rammed earth performs, as with animals they seem to get low ground (water courses / burrows / burying) so cooler earth seems a 'shelter and insulator' which I imagine rammed earth and bricks would emulate.

Are these an opportunity for investment, not sure. Are there companies doing this, don't know.​


----------



## rederob (8 January 2020)

There is a lot of evidence that our continent's flora has been shaped in many regions by tens of thousands of years of "burning."  Some will have been from natural fires (lightning strikes - as remains true today) and a lot more from our indigenous folk.
Prior to white settlement fires were *controlled *by a small number of people carrying green-leafed branches, and the burns were not massive in scale.  Nevertheless they managed to *farm* large tracts of land in their unique way and not want for food, according to many reports dating back to the 1800s.
What never occurred in our country's historical past - at least not based on the best available weather and proxy climate records - were decades of ever increasing temperatures, more prolonged dry periods, and a rapid closing of the window for safe burning to occur so that fuel loads could be reduced.
Recent fires have torn through forest areas that have been subject to fuel load reduction, and yet the full force of modern fighting has been unable to quell them.
Blaming environmentalists or Greens is a very cheap shot and totally ignores the parlous state of our flora situation with regard to its ongoing vulnerability to fire as a result of climate change.


----------



## Jack Aubrey (8 January 2020)

jbocker said:


> I read an article on how do native animals survive bushfires. And post bushfire activity.
> It left me wondering what we could learn, in materials and use / design and construction. Not only for human habitation but replicating longer term shelters for native animals also.
> I also wonder post fires whether there are studies (I daresay there would be) on types of constructions that survive. I wonder how rammed earth performs, as with animals they seem to get low ground (water courses / burrows / burying) so cooler earth seems a 'shelter and insulator' which I imagine rammed earth and bricks would emulate.
> 
> Are these an opportunity for investment, not sure. Are there companies doing this, don't know.​



I know there has been a lot done to revise building codes in NSW and Victoria to account for increased fire risk (and new knowledge).  Victoria has a program to build underground fire shelters for all rural schools.  

There is also a lot of knowledge available on how best to protect infrastructure and buildings.

A friend of mine (who is a former forester) wrote this article recently based on his recent work in fire protection:
*These bushfires are a historic event. Here is what we should learn from them*


----------



## rederob (8 January 2020)

Where Logique goes up in smoke:
*"Despite this, agencies met or exceeded their hazard reduction targets this year, which highlights how overwhelming the fire weather extremes have been – in a lot of areas the fuel reduction simply didn’t work. As has been reported several times there have been significant losses during the current fires even in areas where hazard reduction burns had been carried out. The structure of these forests still allowed damaging crown fires to develop, even where the low-level fuels had been reduced."*


----------



## jbocker (8 January 2020)

Jack Aubrey said:


> I know there has been a lot done to revise building codes in NSW and Victoria to account for increased fire risk (and new knowledge).  Victoria has a program to build underground fire shelters for all rural schools.
> 
> There is also a lot of knowledge available on how best to protect infrastructure and buildings.
> 
> ...



Thank You Jack. Controlled burns are interesting, I understand that aboriginals set fire to areas when leaving them during their nomadic seasonal ventures. Its purpose was to rejuvenate the area so that there would be plentiful food sources upon their return. A lot can be learned from one of the most sustainable races on the planet.
An issue with controlled burns is timing and availability of resources at the opportune moment. I am ignorant of the process but I do wonder if we call on the army (all armed forces) and army reserve, police trainees to assist in this matter. I imagine it would be excellent training opportunity.
Why not have the politicians involved too? Seriously. A week a year. 
My apologies for my ignorant suggestions if some of these is already in place.


----------



## Logique (8 January 2020)

I fear that any Royal Commission, should it eventuate, will go the way of all previous. The NSW Rural Fire Service will boycott proceedings (they'll find some pretext), and the government of the day will go to water.  Outcome: nothing changes.

But people have died this time, and others have lost their homes and livelihoods. The long suffering public deserves better than some confected sham with pre-determined outcomes


----------



## qldfrog (9 January 2020)

1


Logique said:


> I fear that any Royal Commission, should it eventuate, will go the way of all previous. The NSW Rural Fire Service will boycott proceedings (they'll find some pretext), and the government of the day will go to water.  Outcome: nothing changes.
> 
> But people have died this time, and others have lost their homes and livelihoods. The long suffering public deserves better than some confected sham with pre-determined outcomes



1949 fires made so much damage that a royal commission was established.did not help much, but i would welcome a fact and evidence based review acted on.i doubt it is even possible to have some objective outcome wo the rubbish we see daily in the news


----------



## Logique (14 January 2020)

ScoMo wasn't meant to win the "Climate Election", any more than the Donald and the Deplorables were meant to beat "Crooked Hillary". So they're after him:

_Delingpole: Australian ‘Climate’ Fires Are Pure Fake News Propaganda
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-climate-fires-are-pure-fake-news-propaganda/    .._By James Delingopole 12 Jan 2020
_
Australia’s ‘climate’ fires are fast becoming the biggest fake news scare story of 2020. All the world’s stupidest, most annoying, hand-wringing, virtue-signalling leftists, luvvies, eco-loons, shyster politicians, second-rate activist scientists and other bottom feeders are jumping on the bandwagon..

..Australia’s leftists have never forgiven Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s Liberal Party (ie Australia’s conservatives) for winning the general election in May 2019. That’s because it was billed as the ‘climate election’, which the left was supposed to win..._


----------



## rederob (14 January 2020)

Logique said:


> ScoMo wasn't meant to win the "Climate Election", any more than the Donald and the Deplorables were meant to beat "Crooked Hillary". So they're after him:
> 
> _Delingpole: Australian ‘Climate’ Fires Are Pure Fake News Propaganda
> https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-climate-fires-are-pure-fake-news-propaganda/    .._By James Delingopole 12 Jan 2020
> ...



Some people read science and some people read from the gutter.
You merely cement your ignorance in these areas of the forum.


----------



## basilio (14 January 2020)

Logique did you ever read the analysis the changing risks around bushfires in Australia ? Check out teh link below.
I suggest it has more  research, more facts and meat than the Breitbart story. 


rederob said:


> In this link you can just change 2013 to 2019 and the rest is almost true word for word (except that more climate records were broken this year).


----------



## rederob (14 January 2020)

Researchers have been well aware of what was likely to occur:
"*Bushfires 
Recent projections of fire weather (Lucas et al. 2007) suggest that fire seasons will start earlier, end slightly later, and generally be more intense. This effect increases over time, but should be directly observable by 2020.*"


----------



## jbocker (14 January 2020)

basilio said:


> Logique did you ever read the analysis the changing risks around bushfires in Australia ? Check out teh link below.
> I suggest it has more  research, more facts and meat than the Breitbart story.




Something I hadn't heard before is the reference to cement production wrt to carbon emissions. I assume that, as it is included in this estimate, cement product is significant.

_"For example, from 2003 to 2012, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production rose by 2.7% per year (Global Carbon Project, 2013), and the trend over the past decade is consistent with the IPCC’s highest emission scenario." extracted from the Climate Council 2013 report, BE PREPARED: CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AUSTRALIAN BUSHFIRE THREAT._

 I will google it.​


----------



## jbocker (14 January 2020)

jbocker said:


> Something I hadn't heard before is the reference to cement production wrt to carbon emissions. I assume that, as it is included in this estimate, cement product is significant.
> 
> _"For example, from 2003 to 2012, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production rose by 2.7% per year (Global Carbon Project, 2013), and the trend over the past decade is consistent with the IPCC’s highest emission scenario." extracted from the Climate Council 2013 report, BE PREPARED: CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE AUSTRALIAN BUSHFIRE THREAT._
> 
> I will google it.​



http://cement.org.au/SustainabilityNew/ClimateChange/CementEmissions.aspx
_"Cement Emissions 
According to the International Energy Agency, the cement sector is the third-largest industrial energy consumer and the second-largest industrial CO2 emitter. Carbon dioxide emitted during the cement production process represents the most important source of non-energy industrial process of global carbon dioxide emissions. 
Cement production accounts for around 7% of total global industrial energyuse and about 7% of global emissions. _
Elsewhere 5% of Global emissions is mentioned.


----------



## Logique (21 January 2020)

C/- Steve Hunter and the Saltbush Club.
It's a good thing they weren't in there in winter with cool mosaic pattern reduction burns - as this would have destroyed the ecology and caused irritating smoke.. unlike now


----------



## rederob (21 January 2020)

Logique said:


> C/- Steve Hunter and the Saltbush Club.
> It's a good thing they weren't in there in winter with cool mosaic pattern reduction burns - as this would have destroyed the ecology and caused irritating smoke.. unlike now



Many people died in those bushfires and you somehow think it is funny?
Thousands have lost homes and valuable belongings and property and are deeply traumatised.
Livestock losses and burnt pastures will mean that many farmers will go broke if the drought had not already got them there.
Native wildlife has been decimated.
Rainforests habitats that have never seen fire for eons have burned.
By sitting on the climate change fence for many decades we have allowed nature to respond in a way we have no answer to.  Moreover, this is the first of many years that will see cataclysmic fires across numerous States and they are only going to get more severe.
The better cartoon would be the one with firefighters in front of your burnt shell of a home with the caption "you're seriously trying to tell us that you never saw it coming?"


----------



## Jack Aubrey (21 January 2020)

Logique said:


> C/- Steve Hunter and the Saltbush Club.
> It's a good thing they weren't in there in winter with cool mosaic pattern reduction burns - as this would have destroyed the ecology and caused irritating smoke.. unlike now
> View attachment 99832



The reality is that they WERE there - along with the few remaining National Parks fire management staff - to do just that. Regrettably, in the last three years, the unseasonably dry, windy conditions did not permit any type of control over the extent of burning that was planned - AND WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY EVERY PARKS MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY IN AUSTRALIA.

Blaming the people who have been on front-line of trying to prevent this disaster - or deflecting blame onto conservationists - is the very last thing we need.

These conditions were predicted and the measures needed to deal with them, including controlled hazard reduction and better fire-fighting resources, were advised to ALL levels of government.  One particular side of politics has tried to minimise the perception of threat by belittling and ignoring experts, alleging conspiracy and diverting resources away from the agencies that could respond.


----------



## Logique (21 January 2020)

_"..One particular side of politics has tried to minimise the perception of threat by belittling and ignoring experts.."  _Just list them Jack.

Hint: ABC TV, ABC radio (except the regional stations, who know better), Channel 10 incl. _The Project_, The Guardian, The Age, the SMH..

Apparently it's all down to Climate Change. ..look over there!


----------



## Jack Aubrey (21 January 2020)

Logique said:


> _"..One particular side of politics has tried to minimise the perception of threat by belittling and ignoring experts.."  _Just list them Jack.
> 
> Hint: ABC TV, ABC radio (except the regional stations, who know better), Channel 10 incl. _The Project_, The Guardian, The Age, the SMH..
> 
> Apparently it's all down to Climate Change. ..look over there!



Classic shoot the messenger response, Logique.

I'll stick with CSIRO, BOM, Australian Academy of Science, AIMS, the US Academy of Science, NASA, NOAA and the UNIPCC - in fact EVERY national and international scientific body on the planet.

A view that relies on every scientific (and economic) institution being part of a global conspiracy is not skepticism, it is either outright wilful ignorance or denial.  The Murdoch media and politicians owned by fossil fuel interests need to be brought account.


----------



## Jack Aubrey (21 January 2020)

The panic about "stranded assets" seems to be reaching the central banks:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01...e-green-swan-risks-of-climate-change/11885176

This is NOT a good scenario at all although at least it offers a path to an orderly exit.


----------



## sptrawler (21 January 2020)

Jack Aubrey said:


> The panic about "stranded assets" seems to be reaching the central banks:
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01...e-green-swan-risks-of-climate-change/11885176
> 
> This is NOT a good scenario at all although at least it offers a path to an orderly exit.



Yes we discussed this years ago in the power generation thread, it is a big issue and i would think the private generators are hoping a buy out plan comes to fruition. Currently the Government is making it the owner of the assets problem, with legislation, but the companies aren't liking it.
But I can see it could very quickly become another NBN, and the taxpayer has to pay the private operator's, to replace their equipment for them.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 January 2020)

jbocker said:


> _Cement production accounts for around 7% of total global industrial energyuse and about 7% of global emissions. _Elsewhere 5% of Global emissions is mentioned.



It depends how it's calculated.

Emissions from making cement only?

Or include the emissions from the rather large amount of energy which goes into making cement as well as the emissions from the cement itself?

As an example for which I have the figures, cement production is the second largest energy user in Tasmania, it's the largest single user of non-electrical energy in that state, and accounts for about 5.5% of all energy used in Tas. 

I don't have figures for anywhere else but point is that cement production uses a lot of energy, which is almost always supplied by fossil fuels, in addition to the emissions from the cement itself.


----------

