Did Green Politicians Thwart Bush-Fire Prevention Measures In Australia?

[blessmycottonsocks]

Whilst vigorously denied by the Green lobby, speculation has sprung up that some Green politicians and activists have opposed bush-fire prevention measures (such as planned burning to destroy the potential fuel source before a wild fire occurs).
As conspiracies go, this strikes me as pretty unlikely, but could there be a grain of truth in some extreme environmentalists wallowing in Schadenfreude so they can proclaim "See! These bush-fires are the result of climate change so it's definitely real"?

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/c06b3e6f9bc7429128d03bdf18a40486

 

[ramonmercado]

Good to have a debate about this.

Conflicting narratives about how much power the Greens have in the senate and local councils.

 

[cycleboy2]

Whilst vigorously denied by the Green lobby, speculation has sprung up that some Green politicians and activists have opposed bush-fire prevention measures (such as planned burning to destroy the potential fuel source before a wild fire occurs).
As conspiracies go, this strikes me as pretty unlikely, but could there be a grain of truth in some extreme environmentalists wallowing in Schadenfreude so they can proclaim "See! These bush-fires are the result of climate change so it's definitely real"?

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/c06b3e6f9bc7429128d03bdf18a40486

Total bollocks!

Is my considered opinion.

 

[Krepostnoi]

"Did fossil fuel company executives lobby for decades to thwart carbon emission controls?" No, forgive me. That's obviously not the important question here

 

[GNC]

You know, there's a film from the early 1980s called Who Dares Wins where the premise is that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament are trying to set off nuclear weapons to teach the world a lesson. It was laughed off the screen by most people as utterly farcical. And yet here we are, forty years later, and the same kind of thing applied to green activists is being reported as "news".

 

[Yithian]

You know, there's a film from the early 1980s called Who Dares Wins where the premise is that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament are trying to set off nuclear weapons to teach the world a lesson. It was laughed off the screen by most people as utterly farcical. And yet here we are, forty years later, and the same kind of thing applied to green activists is being reported as "news".

I've said on the threads discussing the modern conception of so-called conspiracy theories that the evidential bar has not been so much lowered as completely removed.

All one needs to posit today is that the state of affairs one is suggesting is not actually impossible. Or, better still, ensure that it slots nicely into a wider pre-existing narrative.

If one's 'theory' strengthens an influential political agenda ("fills a gap in the market"), be it grassroots, nakedly corporate or astroturf, then it will be propagated by the loss-leading mouthpieces from which the self-publishing masses and their social-media followers take their cues.

It doesn't matter one jot if the 'theory' is subsequently knocked down by evidence; it will still have had its place in the virtual sun and contributed to the daily drip-drip-drip that entrenches belief A and undermines belief B.

It almost precisely matches the kind of programmes I've been reading about in the area of post-war counter-insurgency, but this is not the work of government agencies for the most part--they're now as much the victims as the perpetrators of such operations.

Insidious is the word.

 

[Cochise]

The Aborigines for thousands of years instigated forest burns - maybe they know rather more about the Australian ecostructure than we do, given we've only been there for 200 years and in that 200 years have wreaked untold damage. Rabbits, for a start.

Not conspiracy, stupidity, as strong now as when the first fleet arrived. The Australian forests have to be managed. Or the continent is likely to be rendered uninhabitable apart from the west and the far north-east.

 

[GNC]

I've said on the threads discussing the modern conception of so-called conspiracy theories that the evidential bar has not been so much lowered as completely removed.

All one needs to posit today is that the state of affairs one is suggesting is not actually impossible. Or, better still, ensure that it slots nicely into a wider pre-existing narrative.

If one's 'theory' strengthens an influential political agenda ("fills a gap in the market"), be it grassroots, nakedly corporate or astroturf, then it will be propagated by the loss-leading mouthpieces from which the self-publishing masses and their social-media followers take their cues.

It doesn't matter one jot if the 'theory' is subsequently knocked down by evidence; it will still have had its place in the virtual sun and contributed to the daily drip-drip-drip that entrenches belief A and undermines belief B.

It almost precisely matches the kind of programmes I've been reading about in the area of post-war counter-insurgency, but this is not the work of government agencies for the most part--they're now as much the victims as the perpetrators of such operations.

Insidious is the word.

I can't add to or put it any better than that. Excellent post.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

"Did fossil fuel company executives lobby for decades to thwart carbon emission controls?" No, forgive me. That's obviously not the important question here

Indeed, as that is whataboutery.
It's also not really suitable for a thread devoted to conspiracies, as it is a proven fact!

 

[maximus otter]

“The problems we have got have been created by the Greens,”Barnaby Joyce told The Australian.​

​

“We haven’t had the capacity to easily access (hazard) reduction burns because of all of the paperwork that is part of green policy.​

​

“We don’t have access to dams because they have been decommissioned on national parks because of green policy. We have trees that have fallen over vehicles and block roads, so people cannot either get access to fight a fire or to get away from fires. And we can’t knock over the trees because of Greens policy.​

​

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack has lashed the “disgraceful, disgusting” behaviour of “raving inner-city lunatics” for linking climate change to the ferocious bushfires burning across Queensland and NSW."​

​

Source:​

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/11/op...-megatons-of-fuel-or-not-enough-carbon-taxes/​

Plus:

"A[n earlier bushfire] survivor whose home was the only one standing after the bushfires raged because he illegally cleared his land, says property owners should be allowed to take matters into their own hands if authorities don't act.​

​

Liam Sheahan cleared trees and shrubs within 100 metres of his home in the hills at Strath Creek, central Victoria, in 2002 to create a firebreak in case bushfires ever hit.​

​

While Mr Sheahan thought that was a 'common sense' decision, the local council did not, taking him to court where fines and legal costs left him $100,000 out of pocket.​

​

However his decision to clear the land was vindicated on February 9, 2009, when his property was still standing after Black Saturday bushfires devastated the tiny town."​

​

Source:​

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-cutting-trees-supports-hazard-reduction.html​

The bush fires have nothing to do with "climate change":

​

"As we can see, rainfall in NSW over the last three months is well below average, but no worse than several previous years on record.​

The same applies to temperature. Yes, this has been a hot spring in New South Wales. But there have been times when it has been much hotter — making a nonsense of all stories in the Australian media about temperatures being the hottest evah:​

Neither is the monthly average of 38.0C a record high. The three years from 1899 to 1901 all saw average December mean maximum temperatures well above 38.0C."​

​

​

Source:​

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/02/greens-made-australia-bush-fires-worse/​

maximus otter

 

[Yithian]

“The problems we have got have been created by the Greens,”Barnaby Joyce told The Australian.

“We haven’t had the capacity to easily access (hazard) reduction burns because of all of the paperwork that is part of green policy.

“We don’t have access to dams because they have been decommissioned on national parks because of green policy. We have trees that have fallen over vehicles and block roads, so people cannot either get access to fight a fire or to get away from fires. And we can’t knock over the trees because of Greens policy.

Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack has lashed the “disgraceful, disgusting” behaviour of “raving inner-city lunatics” for linking climate change to the ferocious bushfires burning across Queensland and NSW."

http://joannenova.com.au/2019/11/op...-megatons-of-fuel-or-not-enough-carbon-taxes/

"A[n earlier bushfire] survivor whose home was the only one standing after the bushfires raged because he illegally cleared his land, says property owners should be allowed to take matters into their own hands if authorities don't act.

Liam Sheahan cleared trees and shrubs within 100 metres of his home in the hills at Strath Creek, central Victoria, in 2002 to create a firebreak in case bushfires ever hit.

While Mr Sheahan thought that was a 'common sense' decision, the local council did not, taking him to court where fines and legal costs left him $100,000 out of pocket.

However his decision to clear the land was vindicated on February 9, 2009, when his property was still standing after Black Saturday bushfires devastated the tiny town."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-cutting-trees-supports-hazard-reduction.html

The bush fires have nothing to do with "climate change".:

"As we can see, rainfall in NSW over the last three months is well below average, but no worse than several previous years on record.​

The same applies to temperature. Yes, this has been a hot spring in New South Wales. But there have been times when it has been much hotter — making a nonsense of all stories in the Australian media about temperatures being the hottest evah:

Neither is the monthly average of 38.0C a record high. The three years from 1899 to 1901 all saw average December mean maximum temperatures well above 38.0C."​

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/01/02/greens-made-australia-bush-fires-worse/

maximus otter

Handsome though Mr Sheahan and his son Rowan are, I've removed the photograph. Mainstream news sources are sometimes less than keen on our copying them.

 

[AlchoPwn]

Whilst vigorously denied by the Green lobby, speculation has sprung up that some Green politicians and activists have opposed bush-fire prevention measures (such as planned burning to destroy the potential fuel source before a wild fire occurs).
As conspiracies go, this strikes me as pretty unlikely, but could there be a grain of truth in some extreme environmentalists wallowing in Schadenfreude so they can proclaim "See! These bush-fires are the result of climate change so it's definitely real"?

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...s/news-story/c06b3e6f9bc7429128d03bdf18a40486

Frankly Barnaby Joyce is only using this to deflect from the fact that he is on record as being guilty of encouraging cotton producers to steal water from the Murray Darling authority, far in excess of their allotment, causing the enormous fish kill at the Menindee Lakes. The man's a dangerous clown and he has to wear a hat due to public decency laws that forbid exposing oneself in public. He is also symptomatic of the utter shameless contempt and hostility that Australian conservatives have towards the natural world, and Australia's environment in particular. Australia's coal industry has a lot to answer for.

 

[Yithian]

The man's a dangerous clown and he has to wear a hat due to public decency laws that forbid exposing oneself in public.

That's rather a good one.

 

[Krepostnoi]

Indeed, as that is whataboutery.
It's also not really suitable for a thread devoted to conspiracies, as it is a proven fact!

It's a dead cat, though, isn't it? Some craven shill vomits out "it's all the fault of the Greens" and lo and behold all the column inches go on that, rather than considering the bigger picture. If you want to find a conspiracy, that's where I'd start looking.

Mainstream news sources

Worth noting that Breitbart - see post 10 - should not be considered a mainstream news source. I wouldn't trust it to tell me the time.

 

[Yithian]

It's a dead cat, though, isn't it? Some craven shill vomits out "it's all the fault of the Greens" and lo and behold all the column inches go on that, rather than considering the bigger picture. Like, for instance, this thread.



Worth noting that Breitbart - see post 10 - should not be considered a mainstream news source. I wouldn't trust it to tell me the time.

I agree.

But they muddy the water by running occasional 'plain news' sans the ideological sauce.

 

[AlchoPwn]

TBH there has been a problem in Australia with some extremist Greens who don't understand the first thing about fire safety opposing controlled burns and cold burns. They were roundly discredited within the Green Party during the 1990s however when their stupidly naive policies did contribute to lethal bushfire conditions. Recently however the Greens have been out of office, but the conservatives are still trying to scapegoat them for actual conservative inactivity on the Bushfire issue. Notice how Joyce doesn't mention how the Morrison government cut Federal funding to firefighting prior to the present disaster for example.

Over time the Australian Greens have been forced to become one of the most tech and science savvy parties in Australia due to the climate change debate, which is by its nature extremely scientific, given that it involves so many diverse disciplines of science to obtain the best understanding of what is going on. Now do the Australian Greens have a number of vegan hipsters who don't know the first thing about science in their midst still? Yes, they do. Are the vegan hipsters idiots? Yes, they are. Are they influential though? No, because they don't know what they're talking about. It is worth pointing out that while the Green movement has been forced to become increasingly scientific worldwide, the reverse has been true of the conservatives, who are increasingly devolving into religion, superstition and white nationalism in the service of the fossil fuel industry.

I love Australia. It was a second home to me during my younger years, and I try to keep abreast of what is going on there. This is something of an info-dump from a few different people I keep in touch with "downunder" (strangely I have never heard a non-scripted Australian ever refer to Australia as "downunder"). Thankfully all my Australian friends are safe ( no I am not calling them "my Aussie mates", it is so counterfeit in an American's mouth), though one family in NSW and one fellow who lives on his own in rural Victoria had to evac. By far the worst thing I have heard is that wildlife deaths are estimated at 500 million. It is appalling and heartbreaking.

 

[GNC]

Worth noting that Breitbart - see post 10 - should not be considered a mainstream news source. I wouldn't trust it to tell me the time.

Here was me just about to say, I bet the Aussies are glad there's absolutely nothing to worry about (according to a bunch of US cranks).

 

[AlchoPwn]

There are 2 conspiracy theories doing the rounds in Australia atm. The first is that environmental extremists list the fires for eldritch reasons that contradict their very existence i.e. that they want to destroy the environment to save the environment, or make a political point about climate change at the cost of the environment that they seek allegedly to protect. The second is that this is a deliberate secret initiative by corporate interests to destroy Australia's national parks and drive small farmers off their land so they can scoop up the land and resources at a discount.

Apparently the Australian Federal Government implemented a series of changes. Firstly they changed the organizational structure of how fires are fought so that captains on the ground have to wait, sometimes hours, for the okay to respond to developments, and are only technically allowed to get out of harms way. Secondly, they refused a budgetary increase to firefighting, and offered only token top-ups. The Morrison government has unilaterally denied the existence of climate change. claiming it is an inner-city conspiracy theory. Naturally this also included the Morrison government dragging Australia backwards on its climate responsibilities and obligations on international forums, leaving them described as a regressive force. Out of date trucks and no money for firefighters

It is worth noting that the Morrison Government has yet to ask for international assistance in fighting the fires even as the major Eastern Seaboard cities are increasingly covered in smoke. One must ask, why the inertia? Why so little action? Why so late? It's fishy.

 

[maximus otter]

"The Volunteer Firefighters Association (VFFA), the body representing the Voice of Volunteer Rural Firefighters in NSW refutes the claim by green alarmists that climate change is the cause of the recent bushfires in New South Wales.

"It’s ridiculous to blame climate change when we know there has been far worse bushfires stretching back to the earliest days of European settlement in Australia including the Black Saturday Victoria 2009, NSW Bushfires 1994, Ash Wednesday Victoria 1983, Blue Mountains NSW 1968, Black Tuesday Hobart 1967 and Black Friday Victoria 1939", said Peter Cannon, President of the VFFA.

The VFFA is angered by comments from the green lobby groups that tackling climate change was more important than prescribed burning of forest fuels to reduce bushfire risk. The real blame rests with the greens and their ideology as they continue to oppose and undermine our efforts to conduct hazard reduction in the cooler months and to prevent private landowners from clearing their lands to reduce bushfire risk."

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.a...eer-rural-firefighters-reducing-bushfire-risk

maximus otter

 

[PeteByrdie]

"The Volunteer Firefighters Association (VFFA), the body representing the Voice of Volunteer Rural Firefighters in NSW refutes the claim by green alarmists that climate change is the cause of the recent bushfires in New South Wales.

"It’s ridiculous to blame climate change when we know there has been far worse bushfires stretching back to the earliest days of European settlement in Australia including the Black Saturday Victoria 2009, NSW Bushfires 1994, Ash Wednesday Victoria 1983, Blue Mountains NSW 1968, Black Tuesday Hobart 1967 and Black Friday Victoria 1939", said Peter Cannon, President of the VFFA.

The VFFA is angered by comments from the green lobby groups that tackling climate change was more important than prescribed burning of forest fuels to reduce bushfire risk. The real blame rests with the greens and their ideology as they continue to oppose and undermine our efforts to conduct hazard reduction in the cooler months and to prevent private landowners from clearing their lands to reduce bushfire risk."

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.a...eer-rural-firefighters-reducing-bushfire-risk

maximus otter

Isn't this article from September 2013?

 

[maximus otter]

As The Australian newspaper editorialised at the weekend, “It is time for a dose of icy water. Climate change did not cause the fires. Drought and even deadlier blazes have been part of Australian life for more than a century...”

No one is denying the gravity of what people and firefighters have been through now, but it is no use gilding the lily here.

You can’t have a fire without fuel.

Two factors above all else come into play here.

In NSW, when Bob Carr was the minister, and later premier, he ratified moves to have fire trails abandoned.

Carr’s moves prevented access to those fire trails by the Rural Fire Service, under the pretext he was keeping four 4WDs and campers out.

The government (and how many problems that we face today are created by government?) put locked gates on these national parks and planted big rocks at the entry to the fire trails.

Understandably, the fire trails are now overgrown with regrowth forest, impenetrable to everybody except native and feral animals.

Yet it was these fire trails that enabled the fire fighters to get to the heart of a fire.
They could then create back burning and land clearing.

Fire fighters could mobilise earth-moving equipment and successfully put the fire out.

In those days, water bombing wasn’t in vogue.

It wasn’t necessary and, anyway, it was too expensive. The fire trails were “fit for purpose”.

Today, the fire fighters know they are hopelessly limited by where they can gain access to the fires. They have to rely on very expensive water bombing strategies.
The greenies, of course, endorse this strategy.

Except that they, disturbingly, prefer the use of freshwater, which we don’t have, over salt water in putting out bushfires.

And that is allegedly to “protect” the environment.

...there are seven million hectares of national parks in NSW alone, 200 of them in Sydney, and yet hazard reduction burns have occurred on less than 1 per cent of fire-prone land, then we are staring at a potential inferno.

This has nothing to do with climate change.

Dr Paul Read, co-director of Australia’s National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson, puts the number of bushfires in Australia per year at, on average, “62,000 and increasing”.

Of those, 13 per cent are started deliberately and 37 per cent are suspicious. That means 31,000 Australian bushfires are either the product of arson or suspected arson, every year. That means that up to 85 bushfires begin every day because someone leaves their home and decides to start one.

The guts of the problem is again government.

Local governments are being blamed for all of this, but they have no power to even lift a fallen tree or remove a broken branch.

If they want to back-burn or reduce the fuel on the forest floor, they must get permission from state government and jump through endless hoops.”

18th November 2019

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.a...their-own-making-and-is-putting-lives-at-risk

maximus otter

 

[Yithian]

As The Australian newspaper editorialised at the weekend, “It is time for a dose of icy water. Climate change did not cause the fires. Drought and even deadlier blazes have been part of Australian life for more than a century...”

No one is denying the gravity of what people and firefighters have been through now, but it is no use gilding the lily here.

You can’t have a fire without fuel.

Two factors above all else come into play here.

In NSW, when Bob Carr was the minister, and later premier, he ratified moves to have fire trails abandoned.

Carr’s moves prevented access to those fire trails by the Rural Fire Service, under the pretext he was keeping four 4WDs and campers out.

The government (and how many problems that we face today are created by government?) put locked gates on these national parks and planted big rocks at the entry to the fire trails.

Understandably, the fire trails are now overgrown with regrowth forest, impenetrable to everybody except native and feral animals.

Yet it was these fire trails that enabled the fire fighters to get to the heart of a fire.
They could then create back burning and land clearing.

Fire fighters could mobilise earth-moving equipment and successfully put the fire out.

In those days, water bombing wasn’t in vogue.

It wasn’t necessary and, anyway, it was too expensive. The fire trails were “fit for purpose”.

Today, the fire fighters know they are hopelessly limited by where they can gain access to the fires. They have to rely on very expensive water bombing strategies.
The greenies, of course, endorse this strategy.

Except that they, disturbingly, prefer the use of freshwater, which we don’t have, over salt water in putting out bushfires.

And that is allegedly to “protect” the environment.

...there are seven million hectares of national parks in NSW alone, 200 of them in Sydney, and yet hazard reduction burns have occurred on less than 1 per cent of fire-prone land, then we are staring at a potential inferno.

This has nothing to do with climate change.

Dr Paul Read, co-director of Australia’s National Centre for Research in Bushfire and Arson, puts the number of bushfires in Australia per year at, on average, “62,000 and increasing”.

Of those, 13 per cent are started deliberately and 37 per cent are suspicious. That means 31,000 Australian bushfires are either the product of arson or suspected arson, every year. That means that up to 85 bushfires begin every day because someone leaves their home and decides to start one.

The guts of the problem is again government.

Local governments are being blamed for all of this, but they have no power to even lift a fallen tree or remove a broken branch.

If they want to back-burn or reduce the fuel on the forest floor, they must get permission from state government and jump through endless hoops.”

18th November 2019

https://volunteerfirefighters.org.a...their-own-making-and-is-putting-lives-at-risk

maximus otter

Maximus, some kind of comment and/or contextualisation would be welcome with the news quotes.

 

[maximus otter]

Maximus, some kind of comment and/or contextualisation would be welcome with the news quotes.

lt seems to me that environmental groups’ insistence on leaving the land untouched by Man has led to:

a) Big piles of dry fuel all over the place, and;

b) Fewer available ways of fighting the inevitable fires. (Oz is the driest continent on Earth, after Antarctica).

lt appears that the Greens (l use the term generally, rather than just the political party) are seeing the results of their influence, and are retreating behind clouds of ink blaming their go-to bogeyman for everything.

Unfortunately, the people at the sharp end - firemen, locals - aren’t playing along with the narrative.

maximus otter

 

[GNC]

On the other hand:
Disinformation news

Someone is conducting an extensive campaign in favour of the climate change deniers to discredit entirely valid environmental concerns. Don't do the bots' work for them, please.

 

[Mythopoeika]

On the other hand:
Disinformation news

Someone is conducting an extensive campaign in favour of the climate change deniers to discredit entirely valid environmental concerns. Don't do the bots' work for them, please.

Is it or isn't it true that people have been stopped from clearing away dry debris from their land? That's what I'd like to know - the truth.

 

[PeteByrdie]

lt appears that the Greens (l use the term generally, rather than just the political party) are seeing the results of their influence, and are retreating behind clouds of ink blaming their go-to bogeyman for everything.

Yeah, well, everyone's a biased politicised maniac these days. For example, as far as I can tell, the article you quoted is from the 2013 bushfire season. Who resurrected it at a time when it would appear to be saying the current season is not as bad as many previous years'?

Unfortunately, the people at the sharp end - firemen, locals - aren’t playing along with the narrative.

Unfortunately? For whom? Is it unfortunate for people who trust the consensus of the scientific community, because that's the best data available? Aren't playing along? You assume someone's playing games then. Which locals and firefighters? All off them? Some of them? The ones you choose to quote? This is an extremely loaded piece of condescending rhetoric.

 

[PeteByrdie]

Is it or isn't it true that people have been stopped from clearing away dry debris from their land? That's what I'd like to know - the truth.

Yes. Then we can blame them for such daft policies at a time when the predictions offered by science have long been that Australia would likely be getting hotter and drier.

 

[blessmycottonsocks]

An argument against Green culpability (and how an initially amusing football conspiracy was born):

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...hfires-lies-more-powerful-truth-adrian-chiles

 

[AlchoPwn]

So, the Morrison Government has announced a Royal Commission into the Bushfire Crisis. The sting in the tail is, however, that there is to be no discussion of Climate Change (which Morrison himself has repeatedly denied the existence of), and the aim is to discuss mitigation only. The whole thing smells of whitewash before the ink is even dry.

In terms of people clearing potential fuel from their property, the present policy is to encourage what is called a "cold burn". I found a link about fire reduction burning practices in Victoria:

When and how we burn