Onya Christine.You dont think they deserve it ?
They don't even try to hide their dangerous radical nature now, they're nuts and proud of it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-09/greens-back-anti-coal-activist-after-media-hoax/4458272
Back burning or burning off?I don't think they deserved to be accused of being responsible for people's houses burning down because they opposed back burning when their website very plainly states that they support it.
Back burning or burning off?
Back burning = a technique used to prevent the spread of an existing fire into new areas.
Burning off = starting a fire, at a time when it is unlikely to get out of control, for the specific purpose of getting rid of undergrowth and thus reducing the fuel load of an area.
The Greens complain strongly about burning off when done by the forestry industry and have done so for quite some years. I am not sure whether they support it in general or not, but the general perception seems to be that they don't (due to their opposing it when done by forestry).
Back burning or burning off?
Back burning = a technique used to prevent the spread of an existing fire into new areas.
Burning off = starting a fire, at a time when it is unlikely to get out of control, for the specific purpose of getting rid of undergrowth and thus reducing the fuel load of an area.
The Greens complain strongly about burning off when done by the forestry industry and have done so for quite some years. I am not sure whether they support it in general or not, but the general perception seems to be that they don't (due to their opposing it when done by forestry).
7. Climate change will increase the intensity and frequency of bushfires; scientifically-based, ecologically appropriate use of fire is an important means to protect biodiversity and manage habitat effectively.
...
13. Rigorous evidence based bushfire research that considers the use of fire, and best environmental and fire risk minimization in building practices.
14. An effective and sustainable strategy for fuel-reduction management that will protect biodiversity and moderate the effects of wildfire for the protection of people and assets, developed in consultation with experts, custodians and land managers.
The Greens recently received quite some media attention, at least on ABC Radio, for their statement that comments on their website did not necessarily indicate policy but were rather generalised aims.How strange. According to their website they state their environmental principles which includes:
Awaiting your explanation as to how exactly their website plainly states they support back burning, bearing in mind my comment above which goes to the Greens explaining that anything on their website represents a generalised aspiration rather than a firm policy.I don't think they deserved to be accused of being responsible for people's houses burning down because they opposed back burning when their website very plainly states that they support it.
Awaiting your explanation as to how exactly their website plainly states they support back burning, bearing in mind my comment above which goes to the Greens explaining that anything on their website represents a generalised aspiration rather than a firm policy.
Yeah, Smurf noted that the term back burning was different and that was my error utilising the phrase from the original poster.
That said, as Smurf noted, burning off is the more pertinent topic and my reading of "fuel-reduction" is burning off?
Noted that what the say on their website may not necessarily be what happens but that was my starting point for asking other for where they are getting their information.
The Greens recently received quite some media attention, at least on ABC Radio, for their statement that comments on their website did not necessarily indicate policy but were rather generalised aims.
(I am paraphrasing here.)
I cannot see anything in what you have quoted from their website which specifically indicates they support back burning or whatever other terms might reasonably be understood by people in the fire fighting environment as appropriate to reduce fuel for potential bushfires.
Over some years, Smurf, who is on the spot with having observed the Greens' policies in Tasmania, has had a bit to say about how the Greens have disadvantaged Tasmanians in so many respects. If they were ever to have even more power than they have (via their friends the Labor Party) now, I shudder to think of the future for Australia.
Awaiting your explanation as to how exactly their website plainly states they support back burning, bearing in mind my comment above which goes to the Greens explaining that anything on their website represents a generalised aspiration rather than a firm policy.
I had problems with green council their fire reduction seems to involve not being in the house during a bush fire so you don't add fuel. Prior the greens were against backburning but they caught a lot of flack after the Vic fires so more than likely mask their policy on their website
Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.
There is a tremendous article in the Australian today by Janet Albrechtsen, on the dangers of voting Green. I have written to thank her and asked whether we can have copies placed on the tables of inner city cafe's, universities and TAFE's!
Amd Labor has sunk to sharing their bed with them for little more than the spoils of office.There is a tremendous article in the Australian today by Janet Albrechtsen, on the dangers of voting Green. I have written to thank her and asked whether we can have copies placed on the tables of inner city cafe's, universities and TAFE's!
She simply sees it as another opportunity to push their radical and pointless agenda.Is it just me ? or does Milne come across as " I told you so and now you must pay for your sins ". Nice comfort for those that have homes and properties gone. And just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water... "dangerous climate change and climate emergency ".
Article below
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-...n-of-climate-change-milne/4464402?section=tas
There is a tremendous article in the Australian today by Janet Albrechtsen, on the dangers of voting Green. I have written to thank her and asked whether we can have copies placed on the tables of inner city cafe's, universities and TAFE's!
Thanks Urgalzmine. Nick M's claim is laughable. We Greens support fuel reduction, they say, but here's 100 pages of green tape you must wade through first, and by the way, here's a map of all the vulnerable plants and animals you must not harm in the process.HI Guys and Girls,
Re: Fuel Reuction burn, ie Burning off
I do not usually read this type of chat nor am I a Greens voter, but according to the Tasmanian Greens leader Mr Nick McnKim "The Greens, in all the history of our political party, have never opposed a fuel-reduction burn, ever," http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...-and-stereotypes/story-fngw0i02-1226552340463
HI Guys and Girls,
Re: Fuel Reuction burn, ie Burning off
I do not usually read this type of chat nor am I a Greens voter, but according to the Tasmanian Greens leader Mr Nick McnKim "The Greens, in all the history of our political party, have never opposed a fuel-reduction burn, ever,"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...-and-stereotypes/story-fngw0i02-1226552340463
Burn-off ban to protect habitats fires up farmers
ANGRY farmers have accused the Tasmanian Labor-Greens government and its Environment Department of stopping them burning bush undergrowth during cool months, a move that might have slowed or stopped the ferocious fires that roared through the state's southeast last weekend.
The Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association said yesterday the inability of many farmers to obtain fire permits allowing winter and spring burn-offs on their properties must be considered a contributory factor in the ferocity of the fires.
The association's chief executive, Jan Davis, stopped short of blaming the Greens party, which has been in a power-sharing deal with the Tasmanian Labor government since 2010, for increased restrictions preventing landowners conducting safe and regular fuel reduction burns.
But farmer Leigh Arnold kicking through the smouldering ruins of his house and woolshed on the historic Carlton House farm just north of Dunalley while his farmhand shot 30 badly burnt sheep in the valley below had no doubts about who to blame for the fires.
"It's those Greens in government," Mr Arnold said. "They care more about birds and wildlife than they do about people and farms.
Ms Davis said she had been inundated with calls from farmers complaining that after the past two wet winters, they had not been granted burn-off permits by local councils or the government and had now lost stock, homes, woolsheds, machinery and pastures to the fires.
She said that, in other cases, permits had been issued by the government, but in such a slow or delayed time frame that the "window of opportunity" for safe burning-off on farms had passed by the time they were granted. Ms Davis said there was a "lack of understanding in the community, and that includes our bureaucracy, about the way the Australian environment functions".
"They think burning-off is destructive and unnecessary and farmers are repeatedly being told they can't do it, when in practice cool burns and fuel reduction must be part of any robust fire management system."
HI Guys and Girls,
Re: Fuel Reuction burn, ie Burning off
I do not usually read this type of chat nor am I a Greens voter, but according to the Tasmanian Greens leader Mr Nick McnKim "The Greens, in all the history of our political party, have never opposed a fuel-reduction burn, ever,"
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...-and-stereotypes/story-fngw0i02-1226552340463
In the comments below, on twitter and on Facebook, various readers have been attempting to run the line that Greens are not opposed to hazard reduction.
Really?
No matter what legalistic and linguistic ploys they now use to rewrite history, the record is clear.
Green hostility to hazard reduction is on the record, from the light green nimbies who object to smoke, to the green lobbyists who infiltrate government decision-making, to the green activists who embed themselves in government departments and agencies, to the obstructive bureaucratic green tape which makes the job of volunteer firefighters trying to perform cool fuel reduction burns impossible, to the green NGOs who pressure politicians and private companies and greenmail institutional investors, right up to the political arm of green ideology, The Greens Party.
There is plenty more. All recorded. All remembered.
“Research by Prof Bowman and Menzies Research Institute Tasmania research fellow Fay Johnston found that pollution from landscape fires contributed to 339,000 deaths worldwide between 1997 and 2006. That includes Tasmania, and the Greens strongly believe Tasmania must free itself from this smoke taint and end commercial forestry burn offs.”
“We’re all better off when this Neanderthal practice stops and disposing of forest by-products is done far more responsibly. The future’s bright without forestry’s smoke pollution,” said Mr Morris.
]If it's not the greens, then who is hindering the fuel-reduction burns?
An excerpt from Miranda Devine issued as part of an update to address the very claim you mention. If you go to the link and scroll down to the first update, she has embedded many links into this same paragraph to substantiate her claim:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...raph/comments/green_arrogance_burns_fiercely/
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?