Piers Akerman on the bushfires

Turn on the ABC or open the Nine newspapers and the pet-shop galahs (as former PM Paul Keating once said) are blaming the current fire season on climate change. It may be a factor, but if so it’s very small and in fact immeasurable, according to the scientific literature.

Those on the frontline are talking about the amount of fuel in the areas locked up by Green politics — and they’re not theorising.

We’ve had at least 57 inquiries into bushfires since 1939 and each one has highlighted the need to reduce the amount of fuel that naturally accumulates in the bush.

RTWT.

This entry was posted in Australian Story. Bookmark the permalink.

29 Responses to Piers Akerman on the bushfires

  1. It’s not just the amount of fuel, it’s all the other failed policies that have added to the problem, especially in Victoria. These are such things as removing the cattle from the High Country, restricting logging, closing off tracks in national parks and state forests, increasing the number of national parks, restricting recreational activities in national parks and state forests.

    It’s something that I’ve noted long ago and repeated numerous times. When you restrict access to places, people stop going there; soon they forget about them, less is then spent on maintaining those areas and before you know it, they have gone beyond the point of neglect. The Victorian state government and the Greens don’t care about the bush and this is what happens.

    Once again the unintended consequences of these policies are revealed.

  2. Siltstone

    +1 Bemused
    Response time is very important, preventing small fires becoming big fires. Impossible to do that if there is poor access.

  3. Mark M

    Who remembers the fires in Hobart in 1967, besides the BoM …
    http://www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/fire-weather-centre/bushfire-weather/index.shtml

    … back when there had been decades of cooling, back when carbon (sic) was at ‘safe’ levels …

    ” … in the 1970s, when Earth had been cooling for a few decades,” he (study co-author Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York) said.”
    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/

  4. Mark M

    missing link: Tasmania’s 1967 Black Tuesday bushfires explained: What have we learned?

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-06/tasmanias-1967-black-tuesday-bushfires-explained/8241698

  5. DD

    We are too forgiving of these people when we talk of “unintended consequence”. The careful contrivance of their actions hides the intent for many years. The result can be and is predictable; by us and by them. To take control of Australia takes time, after all. There are no co-incidents.

  6. Bronson

    It’s actually 58 enquires since 39 and the all say basically the same things – control the fuel, manage the landscape as a whole! It’s not rocket science, according to all the enquires.

  7. Confused Old Misfit

    We are too forgiving of these people when we talk of “unintended consequence”.

    Our elected representatives, from the local council to the federal government have failed to fulfill their responsibilities. They have succumbed to pressure from fringe groups to the detriment of the wider community.

  8. Jo Smyth

    The ABC and the mainstream media push the Green agenda. They tell us that the vast majority of the population blame climate change. The ABC and the media represent about 11% of the population yet they are still allowed to control the narrative. If Scott Morrison and his Government had the guts to speak for the 89% and not the 11%, then things might change for the better.

  9. It is so easy to blame “climate change” which becomes an excuse to do nothing. How does climate change account for the repetitive bushfires of mammoth proportions even back in the 1800’s when our population was tiny? Just excuses, lies and laziness on the part of State Governments and even local councils. Here on the Gold Coast we are surrounded by thick bush and since about 2011, there has been TWO cool burns in our area. One ended up not so cool because of the huge build up of debris and undergrowth. There is a feral wattle here now that dies quickly and greatly increases ground rubbish.

  10. John A

    Mark M #3303725, posted on January 27, 2020 at 12:06 pm

    Who remembers the fires in Hobart in 1967, besides the BoM …

    I do, as a youngster growing up on the Mornington Peninsula. It was Tasmania in 1967 and the Dandenong Ranges in 1968. We had embers coming down on our roof and around our place both times, carried by amazing wind power.

    I joined as a CFA volunteer in the 70s and learned from seasoned firemen (sic!) of the terror of fireballs roaring through the eucalypt treetops at 60mph, independently of wind direction and force.

  11. What gets me is that these doomsayers are suggesting that we only have 12 years (now 11 years) left before the end of the world unless we do something.

    Given that climate catastrophe started around 1980 and every year since has been a tipping point, what miracle do they expect to happen within the next decade that’s going to save the planet?

    Australia ending all coal production will save the planet? Seriously?

  12. Tom

    I love reading Piers Akerman. He’s as good a writer as Tim Blair, though not as funny. But don’t bother posting his work if it orders me to “RTWT” when it is behind a freaking paywall.

    I can afford only one News Corp subscription at a time (Paywallian). As it turns out, there is only one ethical newspaper that tells me stuff I don’t know, the Melbourne Herald Sun, which I pay pennies for from the shop each day so I don’t have to volunteer for a monthly bill.

  13. Gyro Cadiz

    Alas, tis paywalled. I enjoy Ackerman’s articles so I’ll have a look in the library tomorrow.

  14. Doghouse Riley

    Piers looks like he’s lost a bit of weight too. Good onya Piers. A local hero.

  15. Sinclair Davidson

    Gentlepeople – a digital subscription to News is a dollar a day. Less if you get the 12 month subscription. Okay – that doesn’t include the Australian, but still good value.

  16. Clam Chowdah

    I already maintain other subscriptions. Can’t subscribe to everything old chap.

  17. Lee

    Even if most of the articles on Andrew Bolt’s site weren’t paywalled (like all the other News Corp sites), I don’t know that I would bother with it now.

    It has been infested by leftard morons for quite some time now.

    The biggest wanker there claims to be a LNP (Turnbull, of course) voter, but agrees with the leftists on nearly every issue, and suffers from a severe case of TDS.

  18. Gowest

    Its simple really; Managing forests and crown land to prevent bushfires is bloody hard work and our current public service is big, fat and lazy. Setting up rules where they escape responsibility by engaging hordes of enviro friends to produce justifications to basically do nothing is par for the course for our modern forest managers. They no longer manage, they promote bio-diversity in other words they promote more ways for the forest to catch fire and burn for longer.
    We need to think laterally – they have never responded to royal commissions and their lettuce leaf enquiries.
    I reckon the mines department could sort them out – A suspension of work without income until all recommendations are completed and signed off is the way they sort out mining companies.
    That will force them to bring out the bulldozers and loggers until the job is done.

  19. Professor Fred Lenin

    There are no “unintende consequences ” the facts and results are known so how can the result of neglect be unintended ? Everyone knows you need kindling to start a fire ,and what is rubbish lying on the forest floor ?

  20. There are no “unintende consequences ”

    When it comes to the Greens and inevitably every Green initiative failure, I do suspect that the Greens are that stupid that they can’t see further than their feelings.

    When it comes to Labor, I do believe that there is considered intent to much of what they do, but I don’t think they fully anticipate the consequences, thinking that things are safe enough.

  21. Rayvic

    Professor Fred Lenin: “There are no “unintende consequences ” the facts and results are known so how can the result of neglect be unintended ? Everyone knows you need kindling to start a fire ,and what is rubbish lying on the forest floor ?”

    It is clearly failure of risk management by the bureaucrats. It is criminal negligence that should be subjected to class action for compensation of damages suffered by the afflicted.

  22. Boambee John

    It is clearly failure of risk management by the bureaucrats. It is criminal negligence that should be subjected to class action for compensation of damages suffered by the afflicted.

    Should not the infamous “precautionary principle” be applied in relation to fuel loads?

  23. Squirrel

    “Turn on the ABC or open the Nine newspapers and the pet-shop galahs (as former PM Paul Keating once said) are blaming the current fire season on climate change.”

    ….and they’re using climate change as an excuse to restrict, to an absolute minimum, fuel load reduction by burning – which is why every option for reduction by other means also needs to be pursued by any government which actually cares about the lives and the homes of the people they are paid to represent and protect.

  24. Leo G

    We’ve had at least 57 inquiries into bushfires since 1939 and each one has highlighted the need to reduce the amount of fuel that naturally accumulates in the bush.

    Clearly you failed to read the authoritative article in last Thursday’s Sydney Morning Herald by professor in plant ecology at Curtin University Byron Lamont, and senior fellow Tianhua He (“Why prescribed burns don’t stop wildfires”)
    The pair informed us that fuel reduction can’t stop a wildfire. The only thing that stops a wildfire is an old growth forest. Old growth forests never burn- they are fireproof.

    In the long term, prescribed burns do not achieve the goal of protecting life and property… In the meantime, Australians should expect the worst and plan for more devastating wildfires.

  25. Leo G

    Q: Why do tenured ecology professors like old growth forests?

  26. Leo G

    A: Because they can’t be fired.

  27. Boambee John

    Borrowed from the open thread.

    Shy Ted
    #3304470, posted on January 28, 2020 at 8:12 am
    Guardian article – Scientists from Charles Darwin University and the Tiwi Land Rangers are researching how to help protect the rare brush-tailed rabbit rat and other small mammals using land burning. Burning in cooler months is not only preventing bushfires, but maintaining sanctuaries for the small mammals from predators like feral cats.
    If only we’d thought of burning in cooler months.

    They need some advice from a “tenured ecology professor”??

  28. Bemused:
    The forests are going to burn, no matter what. They can burn with light loads and regenerate to do the same thing all over again.
    Or the forests will burn with heavy fuel loads and sterilise the ground – including the seeds the eucalypts need to regenerate the fire/fuel/fire cycle.
    Or we could take the opportunity to replant the devastated areas with oak/birch/cedar/maple/beech whatever, and break the cycle.
    Choices.

Comments are closed.