This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Victorian Fires

Jump to new
macca said:
Over the past 20 years in particular, the green influence in the local councils has all but stopped any hazard reduction, now we reap what we sow.
Click to expand...
There are so many claims and counterclaims on this "greenies and hazard reduction" issue that getting to the bottom of it would of itself justify the cost of a royal commission.

I don't really know the truth and I suspect most don't either. The local council has some silly rules, protecting only those trees which are a hazard but not protecting pretty much anything else, but then it turns out that's a state government policy and the council is just the administrator and enforcer. Blaming them is akin to blaming some junior Police Officer for pulling you over for speeding - they don't make the law, they're just doing their job of enforcing it.

The issue needs to be properly sorted out.
 
There are 1,480 Councillors in NSW.

58 are Greens (4%).

There are 42 members of the NSW Legislative Council.

3 are Greens (7%).

There are 93 members of the NSW Legislative Assembly.

3 are Greens (3%).

The issue with reduction burns is budgets and Liberal / Nats reducing them

The issue with policy is clearly not Greens as the have always supported reduction burning.
 
I prefer to my obtain information from my contacts involved in climate research, ecology, biology and a multitude of disciplines (including surprisingly economics - check out Blackrock and sustainability) rather than hearsay, the media or individual biases.
 
An RC is required to look at the big picture and offer solutions to the current situation which is unprecedented both in scale, size, conditions and intensity I don't think there is a silver bullet, in fact I am not even sure there is a solution.
 
IFocus said:
Read what the government was told in 2009.

https://www.environment.gov.au/clim...cNZ1WRU8ZsjvAbiaaeaeB401PPmMmoMkUXPmUnwx5M2F4
Click to expand...

If interested check out:

"The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change" by Gilbert Plass published by John Hopkins University in 1955 or

the 1896 publication "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" by Prof Svante Arrhenius in the Journal of Science.

The developing knowledge has been around for quite a while.
 

Thanks Belli will do.
 
Belli said:
1896 publication "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" by Prof Svante Arrhenius in the Journal of Science.

The developing knowledge has been around for quite a while.
Click to expand...

The effect .... CO2 and Humidity .... was from a woman in 1856 .... until recently claimed by some man in 1859.

Meanwhile the USA EPA is run by a lawyer for a coal baron who then became a lobbyist. HE denies any and all science surrounding climate issues.

Worse is Australia and our treasurer in 2017 ... took a lump of coal into parliament .... he sadly is our PM.

Denial sites here have gone nuts in recent days Michael West wrote a great article about it.

My favorite was Michael Kroger Liberal party ex president ... on Murdoch Sky news and quoted in numerous papers, they sadly forgot Kroger was a director at Australia leading climate denial site for many years. He was their expert ? Impartial one ? Far out.

Science is not a debate or able to be denied. I think maybe an industrial microwave set up at his house and seeing if any effects are caused would be appropriate. Or microwaves in the lift at his office which give 60 seconds of healthy non scientific well-being are installed. More dangerous is Greiner who mouth's concern but now leader of the Liberal Party in Australia whilst fully supporting inaction.

Turnball form his faults, was trying to change things, Rupert visits and 60 days latter a fathead was installed.

Maybe a free personal air purifier which actually is a microwave unit would be apt. Sadly it was those new Apple ear pods as Christmas 2019 gifts for all liberal climate deniers which seem to be working overtime into 2020. Notice the steam coming out of their orifices as time goes on ......
 
I know it is almost a duty to correct misinformation - of which there is plenty - but I don't attempt to now. It doesn't matter what some may think. It won't change the data or what that data indicates. I am a bit surprised (saddened?) that a number consider researchers of all disciplines are effectively dumb. I forget now who said it but many years ago the process was stated in very simple principles on what is involved:

An intelligent guess;
Compute the consequences of that guess
Test against nature by way of experiment
And if the computed consequences fails the test the guess is wrong. Period.

And further grist to the mill have a search for the then PM of England's speech to the UN in I think in the late 1980's. And then look at her academic qualifications. If it doesn't get some thinking, it should.
 
I can't speak for every council but in my local council the staff are very green orientated, not sure where I posted it before but the owners of the 20 acres next to me have been refused permission to hazard reduce repeatedly over the past 10 years.

It is a known fact that it has not been burned for 35 years, can't burn off in winter, can't cut fire paths for access, can't clear scrub under trees.................. gee I wonder why it burnt so well.

Listening on the country talk back radio there are many many people in the same situation.

The NSW laws, lack of serious intent to winter burn and the actions of councils are 100% the cause of the fuel build up, drought just dried it out ready to burn.
 
IFocus said:
Compromised: Genie Energy and the Murdoch media’s climate denial
Click to expand...

I'd take more notice of the barber I go to than M. At least he has an honours degree in biology.

Complete side track. I posted the quote below from another thread.

Belli said:
Goodness me did in have an adverse impact as it would on any PV system. On a "normal" Summer's day one PV system would produce about 40 kWh. On that day the production was 7kWh.
Click to expand...

It reminded me of a chat I was having with a friend about the present fire situation and issues surrounding them. Conversations go in strange ways and he bought up events of 1780's eruption of Laki which Benjamin Franklin wrote about and the Tamboora eruption of the 1800's. Said with the effect of these in mind he was mulling over possibilities if the high levels of smoke and highly filtered sunlight could have interesting impacts on plant growth even in the short term. Some people never cease thinking.

Edit: On a practical note if these fires don't encourage people to back up everything they have - share transactions, scan of drivers license, medicare cards, insurance policies, photos, Wills, the entire lot - on to a portable hard drive and cloud storage, then I don't know what will.
 
Last edited:
IFocus said:
There are 1,480 Councillors in NSW.

58 are Greens (4%).
Click to expand...

Are local council members in NSW not mostly independents unaligned to any party?

Regardless of that though, I think there’s an interchangeable use of the term “Greens” occurring to mean anyone with a somewhat “green” view not necessarily associated with the party.

It’s comparable to calling anyone concerned with workers “Labor” or calling all farmers including those who are simply employees “Nationals”.

Most of those labelled as “Greens” aren’t in the party indeed they’re not even in politics.
 

To be honest I would think there would be a lot of conservationists on councils not aligned with any political party at all but most of them would be OK with fuel reduction as long as it did not greatly impact species.

Barnaby Joyce got called out not that long ago blaming greenies for all the issues which was total BS.
 
IFocus said:
To be honest I would think there would be a lot of conservationists on councils not aligned with any political party at all but most of them would be OK with fuel reduction as long as it did not greatly impact species.
Click to expand...

Hazard reduction in the form of burning doesn't seem to be a major problem so far as I can tell. Agreed there.

What I do see an issue with though is the detail of removing trees close to housing. I live not next to but reasonably near the bush and suffice to say the council's rules are that I can remove any tree within 10 meters of the house except any Willow Myrtle or Eucalyptus.

Well that's a bit like saying I can drive anything on the road except a car or ute or that I can buy anything from McDonald's so long as it's not a burger or fries. Of all trees that are likely to be a problem if they're within 10m of a house and are more than 2m trunk circumference as per the rules, Eucalyptus would top the list easily.

I don't have an issue with councils protecting trees as such or even protecting gum trees. What I'm not at all convinced about is the council's idea that fire can't jump a ~10m wide road between natural bush and houses with great big trees out the front. If that's true then why on earth hasn't someone just built a road through the bush to stop the fires in NSW and Vic? Probably because it doesn't work.....

So my point basically is yes it's not unreasonable to protect trees, and to be clear I don't wish to go and cut them all down, but that the detail of rules needs to be revised and that distances etc should be based on proper science not just randomly picked numbers. To the extent that I'd criticise any "greenies" that would be it - that there are rules in place, perhaps well intentioned, but they're having the effect of imposing unnecessary cost (council fees) and hurdles (time taken to get approval) in the way of removing obvious hazards right next to houses. The process ought to be based on science and realistically that's going to mean pushing the distances further away from buildings.
 
This has always been on the table.

Bushfire-destroyed homes should not be rebuilt in riskiest areas, experts say
Planning experts call for state governments to buy back land from people in most bushfire-prone areas

Experts say any buyback scheme should be voluntary, but bushfire rebuilding ‘requirements should be very stringent’. Photograph: James Gourley/AAP

State governments have been warned against promising to recreate some communities destroyed by the bushfire crisis and urged to consider preventing homeowners from rebuilding their homes in the riskiest areas.

Three planning experts, including two who appeared on a planning panel convened for the Victorian Black Saturday royal commission, told Guardian Australia to avoid repeating what they considered the mistakes of past bushfire recoveries.

They called for state governments to buy back land from people in the most bushfire-prone areas, as occurred after Black Saturday and raised particular concerns about rebuilding in isolated homes and towns, particularly those where there was “one road in and one road out” and those in heavily timbered environments.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...-not-be-rebuilt-in-riskiest-areas-experts-say
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr. Trump (The Donald) To Win in 2024
66 67 68
Replies
1K
Views
45K
finicky
January 2025 Stock Competition Entries!
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
6K
Joe Blow
How to totally xuck the worlds largest economy with a chainsaw
Replies
14
Views
479
basilio
The future of... The future?
Replies
3
Views
858
qldfrog
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...