This isn't looking good for the greens

The news that the Australian wildfires were made hugely worse by environmentalists is spreading. This from the Sydney Morning Herald.

So many people need not have died so horribly. The warnings have been there for a decade. If politicians are intent on whipping up a lynch mob to divert attention from their own culpability, it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.

Governments appeasing the green beast have ignored numerous state and federal bushfire inquiries over the past decade, almost all of which have recommended increasing the practice of "prescribed burning". Also known as "hazard reduction", it is a methodical regime of burning off flammable ground cover in cooler months, in a controlled fashion, so it does not fuel the inevitable summer bushfires.

The article also touches upon evidence that big government was responsible for the fires in a different way too:

The poor management of national parks and state forests in Victoria is highlighted by the interactive fire map on the website of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. Yesterday it showed that, of 148 fires started since mid-January, 120 started in state forests, national parks, or other public land, and just 21 on private property.

The implications are clear: big government kills.

Comments

[Steve2]

There does seem a de-facto case to made against the existing Green policies on vegative cover in these areas. I wondered if this David Packham fellow with many years of experience in CSIRO dealing with bushfires, would start getting some flack from environmentalists. And I noticed this article, quoting a Professor Brendan Mackey, from the Australian National University's Fenner School of Environment and Society, whilst not attacking Packham directly, this fellow seems to dismiss a lot of the thrust of Packhams stance. Although what he has to say doesn't convince me even from the most basic common sense principles.

Aside from some handwaving about better infrastructure I was struck by this strawman argument:

"At some point we have to accept there are natural processes we can't control, and extreme weather conditions are one of those."

and then he says:

"Some people have an expectation that prescribed burning is actually going to stop these fires, but when you get weather conditions like we have had there is more energy in the weather than there is in the fuel"

This just seems quite astonishing, surely if you didnt encourage growing gum trees around residences and rather had a policy of reducing fuel availability, that must still mitigated the risk?

He seems happy with a complete submission to the environment that I think the Aborigines would find strange. I wonder if his voice will take over as the prescribed view?

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/infernos-controlled-by-better-planning-not-fuel-reduction-academic-says/1431675.aspx?storypage=0

[TDK]

A chart here showing homes lost to fire over several decades

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/trends-in-homes-lost-to-autralian-bushfires-4950

[Ayrdale]

The Prometheus posting is quite important I think.
He dishes out a severe backhand serve to the Green MP Bob Brown and others for attempting to exploit the tragedy...

"...We often hear scientists warning that it is a mistake to attribute a single extreme event to human-caused climate change, but that hasn’t stopped such claims being made quite frequently by advocates for action on climate change in this tragic case. Further, those making such unsupportable claims take another highly misleading step when they recommended changes to carbon emissions policy as a way to address future bushfire risks. Work by McAneney et al. (among others) indicates that if you really want to reduce risks, such policies are far down on the list of what might be done.

Are these advocates who misrepresent the scientific and policy arguments in favor of action on climate policy ignorant, Machiavellian, or both? I don’t think that the issue can be soft-pedaled any longer..."

see http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/