Support Australia!

[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.