Support Australia!

[Nestama]

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).

[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]

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.

[Melichoir]

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.

Yeah but that new growth happens after burns, not before. Before theres a 'long term' growth period to maximize trees. Theres a few species of tree that are like that so Im not surprised, though this would suggest to me that natural fires are part of the ecosystem, which means burns and brush clearing are definitely a necessity. As a post thought though, if the attribution is to global warming, its not in the sense of "Heating things up", and more in the sense of extended and enhanced wet/dry cycles. Meaning, a lot more rain means a lot more growth, followed by somewhat harsher drying out cycles, with it happening at a faster rate than lets say 100 years ago. Under this, I would think you would see more fires with greater intensity and frequency.

We're talking about Bush (the Australasian term for forest) rather than brush burning here, and I don't thing 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.

Build up of debris (Brush, Bushes, Trees, Dead organic matter that burns, etc) is reliant on growth. You dont get massive fires in the Sahara because, well, theres very little to burn due to very little growth. What Im suggesting is a few things. First, I think the drought is somewhat overstated in the context of global warming, as records seem to show that there has been more rainfall in australia averagely comparing the 1900s to the 2000s. Or at the least rainfall has been hitting deeper inland more frequently than before. This would make sense for the fires because this rainfall promotes growth which then means when it does get dry over a few year period, you have more growth become potential fuel for a fire. If it goes on to long, however, that fuel eventually breaks down, (but at that point youre looking more at a desert in the sense of dust and sand....). This would suggest that the drought was preceded by decent conditions and rainfall to push growth and has not been going on for a great period of time (10+ years). It would also suggest that if this has been a long term problem, the likely hood that there was no period of time for controlled burning or brush clearing (Im using brush clearing very broadly here, but to be accurate, its removal of debris that burns. This includes fall of from bushes and trees or any other local flora,) is not likely and that ideal times for that to happen were skipped over.

Point is, theres a lot of factors, and I think the overstating of "It's Global Warming" is missing or purposefully downplaying all the other factors involved in favor or a "This is the root of all evil, therefore this is all we should focus on" rather than "Theres a bunch of small things that added up to a big thing.".

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).

This is even if theyre not being sneaky as hell about that. Wasnt it only like 6 months ago they made that competition and vowed to put in so much but didnt at first cause the player base donated more than what they said theyw ould and they just took the money and tried to run? Unless this is the same event and Im just crazy.

[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.