http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/23/what-royal-commission-dse-keeps-on-lighting-fires/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 08:54:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/23/what-royal-commission-dse-keeps-on-lighting-fires/#comment-20722 Frank Campbell Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-20722 All salient points. Why do I have this queasy feeling that DSE are being influenced by the tiny "Stretton group" of geriatric ex-"foresters" led by the noisy David Packham (see their semi-literate website)? This dyspeptic gang of five have a single-point agenda: "controlled burning". The wonderful aroma of this red herring seduced the slew of commentators who vented after Black Saturday. Germaine Greer was just one famous fool among many to fire this single shot in the direction of The Enemy (the Greens, admittedly a stumbling confederacy of urban dunces, but guilty of nothing). All have fallen silent now. There's hardly been a word about the fires for weeks in the media. Not a word of analysis or criticism after the wordstorm of waffle. <br />If we'd burned the bush, all would have been well, say the Packhamites, but a moment's reflection reveals that "controlled burning" is largely pointless. The list of arguments against "controlled burning" is far longer than Greer's attention span: rapid growth of fine fuels, irrelevance to crown fires, irrelevance to built-up areas, drying out of "wet" forests, fire "escapes', very limiited opportunities to burn because of adverse weather, severe smoke problems in still air, great cost,...I could go on but I'm boring you shirtless, aren't I? That's because you don't live in a fire-trap. It concentrates the mind. This Royal Commission will have to ruthlessly quiz the fire bureaucracy and the scientists who got it all so wrong. They'll have to demand access to arcane evidence and whistleblowers. Is Teague up to it? All salient points. Why do I have this queasy feeling that DSE are being influenced by the tiny “Stretton group” of geriatric ex-“foresters” led by the noisy David Packham (see their semi-literate website)? This dyspeptic gang of five have a single-point agenda: “controlled burning”. The wonderful aroma of this red herring seduced the slew of commentators who vented after Black Saturday. Germaine Greer was just one famous fool among many to fire this single shot in the direction of The Enemy (the Greens, admittedly a stumbling confederacy of urban dunces, but guilty of nothing). All have fallen silent now. There’s hardly been a word about the fires for weeks in the media. Not a word of analysis or criticism after the wordstorm of waffle.
If we’d burned the bush, all would have been well, say the Packhamites, but a moment’s reflection reveals that “controlled burning” is largely pointless. The list of arguments against “controlled burning” is far longer than Greer’s attention span: rapid growth of fine fuels, irrelevance to crown fires, irrelevance to built-up areas, drying out of “wet” forests, fire “escapes’, very limiited opportunities to burn because of adverse weather, severe smoke problems in still air, great cost,…I could go on but I’m boring you shirtless, aren’t I? That’s because you don’t live in a fire-trap. It concentrates the mind. This Royal Commission will have to ruthlessly quiz the fire bureaucracy and the scientists who got it all so wrong. They’ll have to demand access to arcane evidence and whistleblowers. Is Teague up to it?

]]> http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/03/23/what-royal-commission-dse-keeps-on-lighting-fires/#comment-20723 Mark Duffett Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000 #comment-20723 Eh? I'd have thought the default position ahead of the Royal Commission would be that the status quo prevails. If that means continuation of burning at previous levels, then so be it. To do - or to stop doing - anything else would be to preempt the findings of the RC. Eh? I’d have thought the default position ahead of the Royal Commission would be that the status quo prevails. If that means continuation of burning at previous levels, then so be it. To do - or to stop doing - anything else would be to preempt the findings of the RC.

]]>