Support Australia!

[NessaWyvern]

snip

You do realise that during the bad Californian wildfires 3 or 4 years ago, NZers and Aussies sent firefighters to help, right? Aussies do help out the US quite a lot.
(not to mention, NZ and Aus have troops in the middle East to help the states with the mess they made over there -.-).
When it comes to charities, Aus is 2nd in money given per capita, (Indonesia being 1st, NZ being 3rd) US is 5th, so technically the average Aussie donates more than the average person from the US.

[Mavrias]

The mount was just a idea for SE to get behind helping Australia by bringing in a mount that people could buy and the money went to a charity to help, there is nothing wrong with that at all someone suggestion a idea that SE could get behind, i'm surprised the amount off people that see it as a bad idea be it you donate to a charity or buy a mount and the money is still going to a charity you just end up with a mount. No matter which one someone picks the money still ends up going to a charity to help out.

You could pay Square $30 for a mount and have maybe $15 go to support relief efforts or just donate $30 to the charity and have all of it go to relief efforts. That's personally why I think the mount is a bad idea.

[Jojoya]

The mount was just a idea for SE to get behind helping Australia by bringing in a mount that people could buy and the money went to a charity to help, there is nothing wrong with that at all someone suggestion a idea that SE could get behind, i'm surprised the amount off people that see it as a bad idea be it you donate to a charity or buy a mount and the money is still going to a charity you just end up with a mount. No matter which one someone picks the money still ends up going to a charity to help out.

So why not cut out the middle man and just donate directly to the charity?

The real problem here is the people thinking they should get something in return for donating to a charity. At that point, you're no longer donating to help out a cause. You're making a purchase and using the charity as an excuse to try to make yourself feel better about it.

[LaylaTsarra]

So why not cut out the middle man and just donate directly to the charity?

People who want to donate will do that. There are though incentives that help people donate who wouldn't normally. A mount is a carrot yes and if SE were to make one lots of people would end up buying it and as a result the donations would be much larger than they would be otherwise.

It was a suggestion for SE to enable a revenue source that would most likely never happen without it as an incentive.

[Melichoir]

This is unfortunately a bit of misinformation here though there is a kernel of truth. Major environmental activist groups in Australia including the Greens political party support hazard reduction burns in order to prevent massive inferno's like this from happening because the inferno is several times more devastating to the environment than a little bit of carefully monitored burns. It's not like these environmental groups or political parties hold much influence over policy anyway. The Greens only hold a single seat in the federal government, far from anywhere close to a majority.

The truth part is that yeah, we have had less hazard reduction burns though, largely because it has been unsafe to do so. You can't do hazard reduction burns if the weather isn't right or they can spiral out of control and become a real bushfire that destroys homes as one did in the state of Victoria a few years back. Generally, hazard reduction burns are unsafe to do when conditions are too hot, dry or windy to ensure the fire can be controlled.

If there was a good opportunity to do hazard reduction burns then they would have been done as every state and territory in Australia allows controlled burns when conditions are safe to do so.

There are other ways to clear out brush other than controlled burns. Burns are efficient if done correctly, and yes you do have to account for weather conditions to do it, but burns are not the only means of clearing brush and shrubbery, nor is it something that is so fickle that the perfect weather must be in effect to do anything. Furthermore, are we debating that the weather conditions for controlled burns have never been possible for an extended period of time? While its a lot of land to cover, I am personally skeptical that every day for a year or years has not been ideal weather conditions. I am a bit of a cynic so it would not surprise me to some extent that some of the commentary from RFS is ass covering for some reason or another. But thats my own cynicism regarding that and Ive got nothing to go on than my view that most people in leadership positions tend not to take responsibility when things go south.

If we want to look at the political side of things as a discussion point - Green Political party makes up an extreme minority, so theyre not passing legislation. But that does not mean that there arent local politicians or other party members who are suggesting or siding with activists who dont want controlled burns 'cause its damaging to the environment.' What has to always be understood is that while a political organization and its leadership does not 100% control the actions of its members, there are those who would fall under the Green Parties banner but hold much more extreme or misinformed views. This gets more hazardous in this day and age of politics broadly because politicians are a lot more keen to score points on hot topics: Identity, Diversity, and Environmentalism. A local politician or political body might stall out or prevent areas from being burned so they can claim that theyre pro environmentalism while saving money to spend on other projects. While I will not say this is 100% the case in Australia, I have seen this play out consistently in a few spots - California again most notably. It doesnt take to many loud voices to sway some politicians to enact policy that is detrimental. Politics is a lot about which side is yelling the loudest at the blind decision maker.

This all being said, Brush Build up is reliant on growth (so necessary rainfall and ideal weather conditions for said growth) and lack of maintaining or controlling that growth. Simply saying "Its global warming" is at best over simplifying the issue, and at worse negating all the other factors that are important to the situation. This is why the whole "Global Warming is causing huge fire in Australia" is misleading. It ignores a lot of the other factors. Hell, it's a nice political scape goat to use too if youre a cunning enough statesmen.

"Dont clear brush because some vocal misinformed voices are demanding you dont, so you can now claim to be pro environmentalism while saving money and applying it to other projects. Fire kicks off, and the same misinformed people scream "It's Global Warming!", clearing you of any liability. You can then say "Yes Global Warming Bad" and just let fire fighters handle the fires. Things get damaged, it's not your fault, its Global Warming. Score browny points for being environmentalist and avoid blame.
"

While that is a very cynical view of politicians, I personally dont think it's that far off base.

Pretty much. The RFS chief even recently explained why there's been less hazard reductions (and even says that it's not a panacea. It reduces the risk, but doesn't outright stop it).

If I mispoke and said it would stop it, thats my bad. Yes, it doesnt stop fires, but it does reduce the frequency and scope of them. Fires are inevitable in climates or areas that have natural brush build up. And some will be larger than others. So it is a matter of how we can influence how often and how big those fires are. Controlled burns and clearing are not and were never meant to be panaceas, just means of controlling and reducing inevitabilities.

[NessaWyvern]

You could pay Square $30 for a mount and have maybe $15 go to support relief efforts or just donate $30 to the charity and have all of it go to relief efforts. That's personally why I think the mount is a bad idea.

Or have something like WoW does, and have ALL the money go to charity.

[NessaWyvern]

There are other ways to clear out brush other than controlled burns. Burns are efficient if done correctly, and yes you do have to account for weather conditions to do it, but burns are not the only means of clearing brush and shrubbery, nor is it something that is so fickle that the perfect weather must be in effect to do anything. Furthermore, are we debating that the weather conditions for controlled burns have never been possible for an extended period of time? While its a lot of land to cover, I am personally skeptical that every day for a year or years has not been ideal weather conditions. I am a bit of a cynic so it would not surprise me to some extent that some of the commentary from RFS is ass covering for some reason or another. But thats my own cynicism regarding that and Ive got nothing to go on than my view that most people in leadership positions tend not to take responsibility when things go south.

If we want to look at the political side of things as a discussion point - Green Political party makes up an extreme minority, so theyre not passing legislation. But that does not mean that there arent local politicians or other party members who are suggesting or siding with activists who dont want controlled burns 'cause its damaging to the environment.' What has to always be understood is that while a political organization and its leadership does not 100% control the actions of its members, there are those who would fall under the Green Parties banner but hold much more extreme or misinformed views. This gets more hazardous in this day and age of politics broadly because politicians are a lot more keen to score points on hot topics: Identity, Diversity, and Environmentalism. A local politician or political body might stall out or prevent areas from being burned so they can claim that theyre pro environmentalism while saving money to spend on other projects. While I will not say this is 100% the case in Australia, I have seen this play out consistently in a few spots - California again most notably. It doesnt take to many loud voices to sway some politicians to enact policy that is detrimental.

This all being said, Brush Build up is reliant on growth (so necessary rainfall and ideal weather conditions for said growth) and lack of maintaining or controlling that growth. Simply saying "Its global warming" is at best over simplifying the issue, and at worse negating all the other factors that are important to the situation. This is why the whole "Global Warming is causing huge fire in Australia" is misleading. It ignores a lot of the other factors.

I don't think you realise just how bad the droughts have been over there. There is honestly not enough moisture there for fires to be safely burnt and controlled.
There's been a series of droughts since 1994, and it's speculated by scientists that this is the driest Australia has been in at least 800 years.

[Zephera]

snip

I don't blame you for being cynical regarding politicians, there's a lot to be cynical about regarding them these days. But I can't see even local councils in areas effected by bushfires putting off controlled burns unnecessarily. I can't name a single party, right or left, in Aus that doesn't support controlled burns in some regard, it probably helps that the Aboriginal people have been doing controlled burns of their own here for centuries.

In regards to bush build up though, a lot of plantlife in Aus is used to getting very little water naturally and a good amount of the plants actually want to catch fire to promote new growth (looking at Eucalyptus trees in particular). They can grow very fast in very dry conditions especially after a fire. Kind of a bit funny when you consider the stereotype of all wildlife wanting to kill you in Aus, the plants also want us dead too apparently.

[ausanimal]

So why not cut out the middle man and just donate directly to the charity?

The real problem here is the people thinking they should get something in return for donating to a charity. At that point, you're no longer donating to help out a cause. You're making a purchase and using the charity as an excuse to try to make yourself feel better about it.

No one is saying that the only way to donate to a charity is if they bring out the mount plus no one knows how much SE would keep or if they would donate the whole amount, the problem is people have a closed mind when they are looking at things. Take donations here in Australia if you donate over a certain amount you can claim it on your tax return now by your thinking people are only donating so come tax time they have one more thing to claim not the fact that the ATO wants receipts for everything so if you donate $500 to a charity you need that receipt for when you claim so they know where your money was spent.

By your logic streamers that take part in rising money for St Jude are only doing it for the items that they may get if they reach high enough donations and the chance to go to St Jude the following year and look behind the scenes, where i see it as a one off the biggest community's coming together to rise money for a great cause and that's what happened. Streamers even put up incentives if they reach a goal or would do something for the right donation i.e bean boozled and it worked to rise the 8 mil for St Jude, So having something people can get be it a mount knowing that say all the money went to charity what is wrong with that more people might be inclined to buy the mount to donate to charity then if they were to just donate to the charity.

[Mavrias]

Or have something like WoW does, and have ALL the money go to charity.

There's a big asterisk that says Blizzard donates a maximum of USD $3 million from sales of their charity pet (the Dottie pet and plush of 2019).