Fires spark a new front in the culture wars
|
The fierce debate over the role of fuel-reduction burning in preventing bushfires has exposed a deep divide in Australia over attitudes to the natural environment. Over the last three or four decades the dominant attitude to the environment has shifted away from seeing the bush as hostile and in need of taming towards an understanding of it as unique and deserving protection. Instead of transforming the bush for human benefit, the new attitude privileges the natural over the modified and values biodiversity and natural areas for their own sakes. Human impacts should therefore be minimised and reflect an ethic of care rather than of domination. Forty years ago if you passed a snake on the road it was almost a duty to run over it because it posed a danger to humans; today that is seen as wanton killing of wildlife. Forty years ago we killed sharks that came anywhere near a beach for the same reason. Today, the father of a man taken by a shark will typically declare that he does not want the shark hunted down and nor would his son, who loved and respected the sea and its creatures. This huge shift has been due largely to the work of the environment movement. Landmark campaigns over the Franklin Dam, old-growth forests, the Barrier Reef and Kakadu have been victorious because they captured the public imagination and governments were compelled to act. So environmentalism has brought a sweeping and irreversible cultural change; wherever they live, most Australians now look on the landscape with new eyes. However, at every stage the revolution in values has met staunch resistance from those wedded to the old view. Led by an older generation of foresters, “bushies” and their political spokespersons, the old attitudes have seen a resurgence in response to the Victorian bushfires, especially over the vexed question of fuel-reduction burning. Those who hold to the old view believe that it reflects the true nature of the Australian bush, the one that the pioneers learned the hard way. To give their argument more authenticity they even claim that the use of prescribed burning is a continuation of the practice of Aboriginal fire-stick farming. The old school believes that, despite its apparent foundation in the new science of ecology, the new view is based on ignorance and softness and could be held only by latte-sipping urbanites. But increasingly marginalised, the old school’s resentment and anger has simmered, especially among those affected by restrictions on forestry and land-clearing. The cultural split has now boiled over under the pressures and stresses of the Victorian bushfires. The conflagration spurred those of the old school to declare that they had been right all along and that if the authorities had listened to them and taken control of the bush then the devastation could have been avoided. On the Tuesday after the worst of the fires former CSIRO bushfire expert David Packham launched a ferocious attack on environmentalists, blaming them for the deaths because, he said, they opposed widespread fuel-reduction burning. He wrote that the “folk of the bush have lost their battle to live a safe life in a cared-for rural and forest environment, all because of the environmental fantasies of outraged extremists and latte conservationists”. Packham’s attacks were carried in The Australian newspaper whose editors could immediately see the opportunity presented by the fires to extend their long-running culture war. Environmentalists had replaced communists as the principal enemy in neo-conservative demonology after fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Venting the rage felt by the old school, Packham followed up two days later with the claim that environmentalists “are behaving like eco-terrorists waging jihad against prescribed burning and fuel management”. (Packham was one of the instigators of the much-criticised “leave early or stay and fight” policy.) On the same day, right-wing columnist and greenhouse sceptic Miranda Devine wrote that it wasn’t climate change that killed up to 300 people in Victoria but “the power of green ideology over government”. “It is not the arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts”, she fumed, “but greenies.” Roger Underwood, a former regional manager with the Forests Department in WA, also high-lighted the folly of environmentalist resistance to widespread fuel-reduction burning. Criticising “climate doomsdayers”, he argued that governments can be held to ransom by pressure groups such as those who oppose effective fire management in national parks. In 2007 Underwood had written of the wholesale destruction of remaining jarrah forests by Alcoa’s bauxite mining. Bizarrely, he did not blame this destruction on the company carrying it out. Alcoa is “an efficient and clever organisation”, he wrote, “and it is a pleasure to see the professional way in which they have approached their operational and research obligations.” Instead, he insisted that environmentalists are to blame for the vandalising of the jarrah forests because they failed to campaign against it. He speculated that their passivity may be because “they have been bought off”, presumably by the company whose professionalism he so admires. The immediacy and vehemence of the attacks on “greenies” over fuel-reduction burning exposes the deep vein of hatred of environmentalism that runs through segments of the community. In fact, no-one has argued for a blanket ban on prescribed burning. But the experts are divided on the timing and extent of it. Some fuel-reduction burns get out of control, scarring the landscape and causing unnecessary damage. This was cruelly illustrated by the case of Sam the koala, who last week became an emblem of the devastation in Victoria. A photograph picked up around the world showed a yellow-jacketed fire-fighter in a burnt-out forest giving a singed and shell-shocked koala a drink from his water bottle. It was a touching image of human-animal unity in the face of the terrible power of nature. The problem was that the picture had in fact been taken a few days before the inferno in the course of a fuel-reduction burn. It may be that the Victorian fires lead to some sort of accommodation between the old and new understandings of the Australian landscape, a merging of respect for the bush’s natural integrity with a greater respect for its dangers. Certainly, some tree-changers planning to leave the cities for the romance of bush-living will have pause for thought, and greens on local councils will be on the back-foot for a time. But it is hard to see any significant unwinding of four decades of environmental awakening. |
|
|
|
28 Comments
Damn and blast.
Mea culpa.
Not only was Sam the koala rescued from a backburn after the Boolara fire.
I couldn’t even get the byline right.
Apologies Clive.
Fuel reduction VS no reduction and so the word pictures and assertive knowledge fascinate us.
There’s no comparison to what we’ve just seen, so well and hugely overdue fuel reduction by nature in efficient double quick catch-up time.
Not sure whether I saw it on TV or in the paper, but there was an image of a house sitting in the middle of a bare paddock which was itself surrounded by bush. The comment or headline was that illegal land clearing had saved the house.
Which immediately made me wonder, if the owner doesn’t like ‘the bush’ why does he choose to live there? Of, is it just that he doesn’t like it on his land? But then, if all his neighbours behaved the same way, none of them would be living in the bush, just bare paddocks. Unfortunately, bare paddocks burn too.
I’ve often wondered what, if anything, Clive Hamiltion knows, and finding that he is now on our payroll, presumably, as “Professor of Public Ethics” I still don’t know though I see that he reads a lot of newspapers. Perhaps inadvertently he has given comfort to those who disagree with some green positions and brand them as religious, finding something to serve the various psychological and sociological purposes that incredible old religions can’t now satisfy. Perhaps he could gain some general respect and persuasive power beyond a like-minded coterie if he acknowledged Australian realities. He could start with climate change which seems, for whatever reason, to be a function of steady global warming over quite a long period (since the last Ice Age but there have been major interruptions to that long term warming) and will undoubtedly - as a Gaussian rather than Black Swan or Mandelbrotian phenomenon - mean more very hot, and hotter, days which Australia can do absolutely nothing to prevent by word or deed given that we have the population of a city like Shanghai and the importance to China of being an efficient quarry. And India isn’t even polite about our, and EU, preaching. Instead of wasting money on windpower why don’t we (private “religious” devotee’s excepted) keep our money for cost effective measures, such as making sure elderly people have air-conditioning if one is determined to be a self-sacrificing active taxpayer. Anyway, for rationally targeted research and maybe being rich enough to help mitigate tidal floods in Bangladesh or amongst our island neighbours.
I thought the point was that fire in these conditions can be sparked from natural phenomena, such as lightening or not so natural such as even a ray of sun glinting through a bottle. The aborigines weren’t lacking in nouse; they knew, from thousands of years of experience no doubt, they could roast alive if they didn’t control the bush and get rid of excess fuel. This obviously didn’t get done. The irony as a result, was rather than instead of most animals being able to outrun and escape a cool fire, most were destroyed in this ruthless inferno, thereby cancelling out any good intentions by those anti cool burning attitude. We should get the fire rangers from Arnhem Land down to manage our bush. What a top unit of guys (aborginal) they are. That’s not to say anything against our fanatastic local fire rangers and firefighters, but we could learn a thing or to from our bush tribesmen.
Roger Underwood’s underbelly attack on environmentalists for Alcoa’s destruction of Western Australia’s ecosystems places him in the same camp as the eco-vandals who, with impunity, are on rampage in WA.
“an efficient and clever organisation” is Alcoa, says Roger. Well ignorance is as ignorance does!
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24594868-5017007,00.html
http://www.sprol.com/?p=323
http://savingiceland.puscii.nl/?p=3185&language=en#more-3185
Rest assured, environmentalists have had no influence on successive departments of environment in WA .This department now operates under the title: Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC.) This is an amalgamation with CALM. What say you, Roger? The DEC regard the big polluters as their “clients.” The environment and environmentalists are a poor last in the DEC’s disgraceful management of the environment.
Perhaps Roger should be reminded also of the DEC’s decision in December 2007 to send a convoy of trucks into a raging bushfire in the Borabbin National Park in WA where those truckies who could turn their trucks around, fled. Those who could not, perished. Then, in WA. we saw the largest chemical fire in Australia from DEC’s decision to grant a loan to a shabby, hazardous waste operator to clean up his operations. The whole place went up in smoke and taxpayers did not see the $100,000 loan, returned to state coffers. The underground hazardous plume is heading for the Helena river. Well that’s one way to get rid of a rogue operator.
The blunders are endless and as a result, I would be reluctant to take advice from the Underwood and Packham camps. Alcoa’s pillaging of the jarrah forests in WA are not a result of any influence from environmentalists, despite the protests. Packham and Underwood will need to find another scapegoat for their impotent management of Australia’s forests.
Well said Bob Ross, and agree Clive about the ideology/climate sceptic angle. This was the take out from the Party Liners segment on abc sydney radio this morning with Neal Blewett, former federal health minister, his liberal counterpart ex NSW minister Stephen O’Doherty not disagreeing.
As written earlier today what really get’s me upset is the rewriting of the fire history of the mechanised logging industry from especially the 1970ies. They knew they were on a hiding with rainforest. But they logged as much of that until it was stopped. Then they moved onto the wet old growth forest types totally different to dry schlerophyll you mainly see today.
What a shock I got when my lecturer Andrew Cockburn now Prof at ANU in the eighties mentioned that all forest in the burbs of Canberra was “stuffed”. What did he mean I wondered. Then by 1992-3 I had Dr now Prof Tony Norton’s forest science paper showing barely 10% of the remaining forest estate in SE Australia was of the inevitably wet old growth type. And being logged daily. This was the ramp up along with RAC’s key govt reports to the wimpish National Forest Policy Statement.
But the logging industry kept at it. Taking out the wet forest types. Semi rainforest at Goolengook with forest types never burnt in 150 years, not by Aborigines either. Illegal logging of rainforest at Dingo Ck. That’s East Gippsland but it’s indicative of any high volume wet old growth forest across the logging regions. All targeted to close down any conservation claims and annexe the public land. But there was one big big big problem - it all converted to dry schlerophyll regrowth.
These logging hypocrites have left skinny dry regrowth across the land and its exactly these state forest that have been monstering up into firestorms. The parks service are absolutely neurotic about preventing fire leaving their tenures because they know the politics. 1994 in NSW only 70 fires of 830 were on national parks. Same in Vic, I would put odds on it.
I agree with Clive Hamilton that the Right are trying to reinvigorate the tired old culture war with green as the bogey. I’m no forest ecologist and agree with John Newton that there jury is out on proscribed burn regimes, but does need to be debated again after this tragedy.
But I suggest that Miranda Devine’s lynch comment is a separate issue altogether. She has incited violence. This is uncivilised and does not require or deserve any media ‘balance’.
I think it is simply unacceptable and the SMH need to respond appropriately. What do you think Clive?
shame SHM shame
Miranda Devine , seriously , how do you manage to survive in journalism … your ignorance is matched only by your spiritual ugliness and stupidity. Science and the green movement have been warning of these very outcomes due to the threat of a warming planet. A fact that you still refuse to accept The assertions that they are to blame for the deaths in these fires is akin to blaming the jews for the holocaust. If only your paper would do some real hazard reduction and back burn your column .
The instigators of the stop or go theory should stop and go.
There is no comfort in trying to pass the situation off as a black swan event and therefore unable to be reconciled, the death tally says it all.
As an aside this disaster should sheet home to all australians what a folly the iraq adventure has been
where this bushfire and its casualties have been an horrific almost daily occurence
Harold….Feb 16th 2009….9.10.38.pm…… Most of us know who Clive Hamilton is…. But who the f**ck is Harold ?
It’s nice to be able to get an anti-green opinion out in public.
I know that in Sth Hobart (the home of the Greens) if you so much as look funny at the dread-ed dudes littering the pavements you’ll get dog (I hope) poo shoved through your letterbox.
Actually Bernard, I think Sam the koala was rescued during the Boolara/Mirboo Nth fires.
While it was one week before the firestorm and there were no deaths, over thirty houses were lost.
As far as I’m aware, it was *not* a fuel reduction burn.
jboy’s asserion:
“As an aside this disaster should sheet home to all australians what a folly the iraq adventure has been where this bushfire and its casualties have been an horrific almost daily occurence”
Is there no end to the imbecilic Left’s non sequitur egregious debasement of the Victorian bushfire tragedy?
jboy is obviously yet another Clive Hamilton flunky.
This is up there with your drivel in regard to net censorship, Clive. Was there a point in there somewhere? I’m not really sure.
The problem isn’t so much with people being environmental or green. It is the manner in which they endeavour to implement green policy. At the moment it seems to be leading to a top down approach that manifests in lots of regulation and bureaucracy, and blanket policies that aren’t suitable in all cases. I’ve been asked by the Dpeartment of Conservation to destock my land. They’ve never actually come and seen me, talked to me, or engaged me in anway, except to send me a letter telling me what they think is best. And this is what I, and a lot of people, resent - people who have never set foot on these areas of land, making the decisions, but not facing the consequences when those decisions create problems. It seems you regard ‘bushies’ like myself as sub-human and ignorant and that we need to be controlled ourselves like animals rather than to be interacted with. Yes, that really wins us over and makes us co-operative. Good work, fulla!
On forests Clive has cred. As I understand he was chief of research for the (Hawke/Keating) Resource Assessment Commission or RAC as I alluded to. In late 1992 it produced the Forest And Timber Inquiry Report in several volumes, no. 1 still on my shelf. It’s a very well constructed easily accessed document of a mere 570 pages (!).
Fair point re people facing 30 tonnes per hectare of (dry) fuel loads. Notice I add the dry. Assuming the metric is right, how the hell did we get to this situation? That’s my point about change of forest type across landscapes for 50+ years from patchy rainforest, wet old growth to now majority dry sclerophyll regrowth.
In a way this is an irrelevant historical comment. “How does it help with the threat now?” you would be fair to ask. But in another it’s a crucial starting point.
For instance: We have to know what happened previously to wet forest types to understand the problem now. For instance it is so wrong to be logging any of the last 10% of wet forest types. Absolute madness. It must be stopped to prevent preparation of more dry sclerophyl regrowth tinder box landscape in the age of climate change.
2nd it helps explain why the damn dry fuel load won’t rot down in previously moist conditions, moist even in hot weather. Those wet old forests were giants pumps of humidity. Took hundreds of years to establish.
It gives clues to how at least in some smaller buffer areas we might be able to help improve the water cycle in dry regrowth - possibly selective ecological removal of skinny regrowth to speed up dominant trees and closed canopy. I don’t have any science for this idea but we need to think as laterally as possible. It’s either that or face theoretical cool burns over millions of hectares of dry regrowth courtesy the logging industry of the last 50 to 100 years.
Another concept is breeding up native critters as what Darwin would call co-evolutionary rabbits. Fence out ferals and munch the understorey and leaf litter.
I am an “environmentalist”, an activist in the 1970’s whose family home in Warrandyte was burned in the 1962 fires which burned in the same area as last week’s devastation. I have with my husband raised our family in the same area and like my parents before me engaged in the practice of ‘cool burning” (we simply called it burning off in the autumn in my childhood!)our bush blocks and even into the surrounding crown land and road reserve where possible. Various strictures imposed by local government, probably for the best of reasons, have made this much more difficult. I do not personally know any environmentalist who objects to the practice. What we do object to is the muddle-headed confusion of responses which has led to sudden decisions to burn, in unfavourable conditions, years of accumulated fuel, thus destroying mature trees and understorey in what turn out to be very hot fires indeed. The Royal Commission will need to establish with DSE and CFA just what constitutes “cool” in order to make sure that this is what we get. The hysterical (and probably libellous) accusations being levelled us so-called “greenies” are an example of just the kind of ill informed and inaccurate judgements which create conflict and heartbreak rather than work toward the measured and reflective responses which the Royal Commission will need.
I would take the author more seriously if he stated that he has faced a bushfire with 30 tons of fuel per hectare; that he himself has observed how quickly the bush bounces back if there is a cool burn as opposed to a wildfire (one is measured in months the other years); that he himself has observed the TOTAL destruction of all wildlife in a wildfire as opposed to a cool burn; and that he is happy with that situation.
Until he can answer those questions his article is unmitigated bulls*** and deserves to be consigned to the waste bin.
I suggest he stays in his ivory ethics university tower and pontificates on subjects that do not affect me.
Clive may not have meant to paint such a stark divide between environmentalists and the ‘old-school’. In fact many environmentalists are now supporting prescribed burning of native bush. The difference lies in the detail; how often to burn and what to burn.
I live in the Far South Coast of NSW which is also a highly flammable and heavily forested part of Australia. Here the National Parks and Wildlife Service has a very active program of annual control burns in national parks. But they don’t try to burn everything in the forests - they concentrate on areas that are most dangerous to adjoining communities, or areas that are most likely to burn.
Ecologists tell us that if you burn the Australian bush too often you actually make it more flammable - you encourage annual grasses to take over and you have an almost unmanageable annual fuel problem. But you do need to burn the bush and manage the fuel levels, so the national parks managers use science and experience to optimise the burns and get the best results possible.
Of course that doesn’t please the people that want nice simple solutions - the ones that write for the Australian newspaper and want to have baddies and goodies, and create a ‘them and us’ mentality.
Bob Ross
(Chair, Regional Advisory Committee, Far South Coast Region, NSW NPWS)
Presumably the aim of all this heated debate is to dramatically reduce the loss of lives and property from bushfires. Surviving those bushfires which will inevitably occur is one thing, but wouldn’t it be nice to prevent them in the first place?
We know that the majority of bush fires are deliberately lit (if quotes in the media are to be believed). So, even if we assume that this is really 50%, eliminating arson will at least reduce the number of fires by half.
A large number of the rest are caused by people doing stupid things (such as using angle grinders) on days of high fire danger. Let’s target these with a long-term education program. That should get the number of fires down by, say, another 25%.
Many of the rest are caused by faults in electrical power lines. Maybe we should develop technology in Australia to suit Australian conditions in this field.
A small number are caused by lightening strikes. In bushfire weather the weather bureau can see on its radar where the thunderstorms are. Why not have fire crews track them and put out the fires in their infancy?
There remains a small number of fires with unknown cause. More research should reduce this number too.
So, quite apart from all this discussion on controlling the fires once they have started, there are a small number of clear targets where we can, potentially, make very large reductions in the number of fires which happen. Maybe the “once in a decade” fire can be reduced to “once in a century”.
Yes, I know prevention is not as sexy as reporting on the devastation of a massive fire. Houses which don’t burn down are not newsworthy. However, given their potential for damage, shouldn’t we be treating arsonists like terrorists or pedophiles? We don’t wait for these people to carry out their crimes, but do our best to know who they are, and control their activities BEFORE they do their damage.
and the Amazon & Indonesian rain forests were so special that they virtually sucked CO2 out of the atmosphere like a sump converting (wasn’t it about 40%) of global CO2 to O2 .
It’s an affect of the density & contagious chemical behaviour which means you could plant 100 times the number of plants/trees scattered around the globe and you wouldn’t get 10% of the effect.
Who tried to stop that, I heard someone going on about it I think some few even had a megaphone. Even President Kennedy gave speaches about global warming.
Oh yes and some where in the big picture we invented the combustion engine.
Keep planting trees. They grow best on good farm land and we don’t need more of that since we’ve become so good at watching people starve to death. If you don’t breath you don’t add carbon dioxide.
It would have been cheaper to put the Amazonian Indians up in Hilton Hotels and not let them clear the Amazon jungle to grow beetroot.
I would take the author more seriously if he stated that he has faced a bushfire with 30 tons of fuel per hectare; that he himself has observed how quickly the bush bounces back if there is a cool burn as opposed to a wildfire (one is measured in months the other years); that he himself has observed the TOTAL destruction of all wildlife in a wildfire as opposed to a cool burn; and that he is happy with that situation.
Until he can answer those questions his article is unmitigated bulls*** and deserves to be consigned to the waste bin.
I suggest he stays in his ivory ethics university tower and pontificates on subjects that do not affect me.
Australian Muslim cleric Sheikh Haron has sent a letter 12th February to John Brumby the premier of Victoria. Sheikh Haron has revealed some intelligence about the Islamic operation for lighting bushfires which was a plan to make Australia’s 9/11. Sheikh Harun says that the Kilmore fire which started on the 7th February 2009 was successfully lit ….
Ayatollah Manteghi Boroujerdi wrote in his letter:
“Australia’s 9/11 would be an act of revenge. Yes, it would be an act of revenge for Australian’s participation in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would be an act of revenge for the Bali bomber’s execution which was the result of Australian pressure on Indonesian politicians. It would be an act of revenge for all kinds of oppression our Government has committed.
Dear Mr. Brumby if the victims of the Victorian bushfires were innocent, the civilians who were killed by the Australian soldiers in Afghanistan were innocent as well.
Australians are busy with sex, drugs, drinking and gambling, so as a result our corrupt politicians have the opportunity to oppress other nations.
Australian citizens will be killed as long as they don’t stop their authorities from killing the citizens of other countries.
Australians deserve to be burned in the fire of hell, the fire of Bush is nothing!”
Do you think Victorian bushfires were Australia’s 9/11?
Also Sheikh Haron has issued a Fatwa (Islamic edict) to deliberately light bushfires for defence.
http://sheikyermami.com/2009/02/18/australian-jihad-website-issues-islamic-fatwa-about-deliberately-lighting-bushfires/
http://www.sheikhharon.com/announcements.php
ABC Radio on 15 February says about Sheikh Haron:
http://www.abcscience.net.au/rn/spiritofthings/stories/2009/2487292.htm
Greenie ideology elevates the value of the environment and wildlife as being equal to or greater that human life and fails to recognise the sanctity of human life. An increasing number of people have flirted with this ideology as it became trendy. Wiser heads remained suspicious. Their worst fears have been realised. Many now understand that it is largely to blame for the scale of devastation and loss of life.
David Packham gave the greenies a metaphoric poke in the eye with his recent comments. Clive Hamilton comments are evidently a reaction to that. He tries desperately to discredit David Packham. To me his attempts only highlight the pettiness and feebleness of his own position. He portrays Packham as someone who was sidelined by the progressive and trendy greenies. Packham was one of the few who were willing to raise the alarm and confront the authorities. If he did this in spite of being unpopular our respect for his efforts should be greater. Hamilton should give credit where it is due and be willing to learn some lessons. Instead his comments show he failed to grasp the magnitude and gravity of what has happened. He fails to realize and admit that his cherished ideology is heavily implicated in this human catastrophe.
We’re hearing greenies now claiming to support controlled burning. What we are also learning is that this support is heavily qualified. It has to be at the right time, temperature, and after numerous studies have been conducted etc etc. In practice those qualifications are so onerous that they are a major impediment. Adequate clearing around residential areas could have prevented the vast majority of deaths. In spite of this we continue to hear greenies telling people that they if want to live in the bush they need to accept the inherent risks.
And that is the fundamental problem with this ideology. It is this almost fatalistic belief that we should limit our impact on the environment even if this means putting human life at risk. Man
This terrific piece could and should kick off a discussion among those who know rather than the armchair firefighters on what are the best ways to avoid such tragedies in the future.
Could I suggest Guy Rundle’s recent list as a starting point:
*The pros and cons of burning off are heavily debated among bushfire specialists.
Forest fuel levels have no effect on fire speed, which was the main killer in these fires.
*Dryness is a contributor to fire speeds.
*Forestry activities may promote dryness by thinning forest canopies.
*Climate change may be a factor, and if it is, a different set of strategies will need to be employed than if it isn’t, so it’s worth debating.
*Fires of the “Black Saturday” intensity burn through burnt-off bush because they move at crown and canopy level
*The burn off levels advocated by green groups, are of the same order as those advocated by those bushfire experts who believe that higher burn-off levels increase risk of fire without giving consequent benefit.
*Burn-off levels do not play a role in urban green votes, and they never have.
Greenie ideology elevates the value of the environment and wildlife as being equal to or greater that human life and fails to recognise the sanctity of human life. An increasing number of people have flirted with this ideology as it became trendy. Wiser heads remained suspicious. Their worst fears have been realised. Many now understand that it is largely to blame for the scale of devastation and loss of life.
David Packham gave the greenies a metaphoric poke in the eye with his recent comments. Clive Hamilton comments are evidently a reaction to that. He tries desperately to discredit David Packham. To me his attempts only highlight the pettiness and feebleness of his own position. He portrays Packham as someone who was sidelined by the progressive and trendy greenies. Packham was one of the few who were willing to raise the alarm and confront the authorities. If he did this in spite of being unpopular our respect for his efforts should be greater. Hamilton should give credit where it is due and be willing to learn some lessons. Instead his comments show he failed to grasp the magnitude and gravity of what has happened. He fails to realize and admit that his cherished ideology is heavily implicated in this human catastrophe.
We’re hearing greenies now claiming to support controlled burning. What we are also learning is that this support is heavily qualified. It has to be at the right time, temperature, and after numerous studies have been conducted etc etc. In practice those qualifications are so onerous that they are a major impediment. Adequate clearing around residential areas could have prevented the vast majority of deaths. In spite of this we continue to hear greenies telling people that they if want to live in the bush they need to accept the inherent risks.
And that is the fundamental problem with this ideology. It is this almost fatalistic belief that we should limit our impact on the environment even if this means putting human life at risk.
ABC online wouldn’t publish this:
The Green are in damage-control:
“… this is part of a desperate attempt [by Greens] to regain credibility and divert attention after the horrific Victorian Bush-Fires. I remember just last year those Greens having hissy fits about burn-offs in Tasmania. And complaining that they made the sky look like “cigarette smoke”. And saying “the tourists don’t like it when Forestry Tasmania burns-off”