Devine: Greenies should be hung
As the Victorian bushfires continue to rage, so to does the debate over just who is at fault for the fires.
In today’s SMH, the always delightful Miranda Devine declares: “… it is not arsonists who should be hanging from lamp-posts but greenies.” ‘Greenies’ bare the responsibility, she argues, for stopping the clearing of vegetation which “turbo-charged” the blazes.
The Kinglake area was a nature-loving community of tree-changers, organic farmers and artists to the north of Melbourne. A council committed to reducing carbon emissions dominates the Nillumbik shire, a so-called “green wedge” area, where restrictions on removing vegetation around houses reportedly added to the dangers. In nearby St Andrews, where more than 20 people are believed to have died, surviving residents have spoken angrily of “greenies” who prevented them from cutting back trees near their property
Roger Underwood, chairman of the Bush Fire Front makes a similar (if somewhat less inflammatory) argument in The Oz, taking a jab at the Wilderness Society, but proposing a range of solutions for better fire management.
Meanwhile, writing in the Guardian, Tim Flannery points the blame at climate change and those responsible for it. He also acknowledges the role of dry and unabated growth, but seems to consider it more a symptom of global warming than a cause in and of itself.
So what do we think? Should environmentalists shoulder some responsibility, is it all just part of the wider effects of climate change, or are they all missing the point completely?
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.
As written elsewhere today Devine and Underwood and let’s not forget Packham in Stephen Lunn’s piece page 2 The Oz, are variants on malign coverage.
Some slam dunks: Underwood slimes TWS by saying they are wrong about immense increase in prescribed burning in “southern Australia”. But that’s his selectivity. TWS are national eg NT, FNQ, Kimberley etc. There is a let ‘er rip culture in the north which ironically can well increase wildfire risk with fireweeds and just escapes. (The father of nsw bushfire commissioner died in a planned hazard reduction along with 3 other NPWS workers).
Then there is Lunn’s piece suggesting TWS want restraint on prescribed burning again cutely deceptive as to whether this is remote large intact legally defined wilderness areas, as per say the NSW 1987 Act, or your local council reserve, roadside verge or national park on the edge of town. One is probably a 100km away, the other a stone’s throw. TWS do the former not the latter. Sly deceptive journalism that.
As the long long string of comments pointed out – on the story that kicked the ball into play being Asa Wahlquist p1 yesterday – the government, is the government, is the government, on keeping people safe via buffer zones, prescribed burning, planning rules.
Just like the Jews, the G/greens don’t have world government, or any government in Australia. Not one local council. Not one state or federal. So who killed the 300 people really? Sure the propensity for mega fire ever since the ACT conflagration in 2003 in a changing climate or drought is one factor.
But I think the main clue is really this: Two major parties agreed to forego question time this week. Quite possibly out of shame.
This was on New Matilda 10 Feb on a comment string here:
http://newmatilda.com/2009/02/09/could-inferno-be-prevented#comment9779
“David Packham may be right that fuel levels contributed to ferocity of the fires on Saturday, but he is wrong in claiming it was the main factor. I know Kinglake West well. Kinglake West is (or was) a mix of small farms and open bushland, most of which had recently been burned off. We will have to wait for the Royal Commission to report but I can tell you now that fuel load was not an issue with the destruction of Kinglake West. What killed people was the speed of the firestorm. We’ve had terrible fires before, but nothing like this. Fires in the past were deadly because people were ill-prepared or there was no infrastructure to fight them. This time people were prepared but were overwhelmed by the speed and size of this fire. This really was something new.
I have to say that David’s article (published in The Australian) attacking the fire service and blaming the fire on ‘academics’ is sickening, but what truly shocked me were the comments posted to his article. They are ghastly. There is no acknowledgment that climate change was a factor and an almost frantic, desperate desire to blame the Greenies. “
A few “greenies” oppose all fuel reducton burns. The majority want to see a sensible and reasonable balance between clearance and protecting natural areas. However, when building area zones are enlarged by local government bringing poeple closer to the “bush” without equivalent fire protection measures then that is a recipe for disaster. Some towns should be identifed as not being allowed to spread any further becasue of the proximity of native vegetation, wildlife habtat, that is wanted for conservation. UNtil housing developments, native vegetation, bushfire preventio are considered as a whole package at the time when town ex[pansion is considered then this roand and round “who is to blame” game will continue.
The experts will continue to debate about fire management as they should.
The other debate is for all of us to get involved – making a civilised public life, free from hate-politics.
Calling for anyone to be lynched is evil and should not be published in a serious news outlet.
The SMH editors have questions to answer – why did they publish this column? How could it be ‘balanced’ – a column calling for journalists to be lynched? I hope not. It is another nasty nothing-debate by Devine. She has to go.
Thanks heavens for independent media such as Crikey, to raise these important public policy issues in a level-headed and analytical way (as opposed to the Murdoch media’s predictable ‘Rush to Judgement’)
In 1994, like Tom McLoughlin, I was actively involved in the NSW conservation movement when the tragic bushfires raged. It was the holiday season and like most other organisations, conservation groups were running on a skelton staff. The NSW Coalition was in power. Some of the Nats – from a position of Government – started some vicious finger-pointing at conservationists. Elements of the mass media (the usual suspects) lapped it up like cream and spat it out like dragon’s vomit.
It was a shameful episode, but it led to a renewed effort by the NSW conservation movemnet to engage intelligently in long-term fire management planning – ultimately with modest support from the more enlightened Carr Government.
I live further north now – where cyclones are a bigger issue than fire – and don’t claim to be directly in touch with recent developments. Even so, from a distance, I understand that connections made between conservationists and other interested parties – at local, regional and State level – have been beneficial. Better planning and more community consensus has been the result.
Yesterday I wrote an article about this topic on my own blog that attempts to contribute in a constructive way to the current debate. See:
When Bushfires Rage: It’s not easy Being Green at
http://sydwalker.info/blog/2009/02/12/when-bushfires-rage-it%e2%80%99s-not-easy-being-green/
It really is time some Australians grow up and stop treating every cold snap as ‘proof’ that climate change isn’t happening – and every bushfire as ‘proof’ that conservationists are responsible for the deaths.
Inquiry before Judgment please – not the other way around.
The stapling of extreme and often nasty social agendas to Black Saturday is appalling but not surprising. Almost every popularly discussed topic these days seems to get burdened with stereotyping and indignation and angst.
I’ve been following the same phenonema on the Weatherzone Forums under my real name.
We need not predicate actions post the Royal Commission on social agendas, like denuding the forests, and turning them into grasslands friendly to cattle, just to name one unsubtle agenda, or hanging our fellow citizens.
The 7.30 report’s broadcast of a video shot by St Andrews survivor Jim Baruta is a case in point. Baruta survived in an simple, comparatively inexpensive above ground fire shelter. It looked like part of his house, except that it had no windows.
If such shelters had been a condition of new building approvals or certificates, or had been required of B&Bs and other leisure accommodation, in such at risk areas, a very high proportion of those that died would have survived, even if their homes didn’t. Including many of those who died on the roads trying to get away when it was no longer safe to drive.
The cost of one more window less room in a house of particular thermal durability is a very small proportion of the total cost.
This would not involve denuding the forests, hanging greenies, reducing biodiversity, or exposing people to the risks of bungled mass enforced evacuations which would never work anyhow.
It would simply involve applying the lesson learned but then lost after the 1939 fires.
Provide a shelter. Just like the cyclone proof room in Darwin homes. It’s such a simple, non controversial idea that it will never get up.
Well said Ben.
On a similar basis, I believe there’s a case for building more robust cyclone-proof structures, strategically placed (and above storm surge level) in cyclone-prone regions such as FNQ. Every person in the community should know where to go or how to seek help in case of a cyclone emergency. That’s the Cuban system – and it puts our cyclone emergency response in Australia to shame, at least in this region.
There are rare times – let’s hope they remain rare – when we can’t even save most houses from fire, windo or flood, but with the right infrastructure and systems in place, we can save human lives (and household pets!)
Australia is a fire prone country and it will only get worse while climate change is not taken seriously.
Climate change is ‘significantly enhanced’ as a result of vegetation clearance and pollution from fuel reduction burns.
There are a number of people currently blaming ‘greenies’ for this disaster. It’s a sad state of affairs when people who actually care about the environment have a label. It demonstrates the fact that there is an opposite group of people who do not care – red necks. How can you not care for something that sustains us? Of course the environment will work against us if we don’t look after it!
It is much too easy to blame others when things go wrong. ‘Greenies’ could equally blame the Country’s red necks for causing the clearance and burning of large expanses of Australia’s vegetation, which has significantly contributed to these climatic conditions. It is important to remember that quite a number of the houses that burnt were within established towns and cleared paddocks!
As such, when it comes down to it, the answer is not to increase vegetation clearance or fuel reduction burns, but to ensure that people living in high risk areas have access to fire-proof bunkers or have a house design that is ‘proven’ to be fire proof. This must be made compulsory, as it is otherwise too tempting for people to spend such money elsewhere. It’s like car registration – even though it serves an important purpose, if it wasn’t compulsory who would pay it?
Each town should also have a fire alarm, or several well positioned fire alarms which are activated at an appropriate time to call residents to a safe communal area.
So many people died through panicking when the fire was too close to safely escape. This includes a friend of mine. I am not judging from the sidelines; my property was also burnt in these fires. It is the risk you take living in these areas.
At a time when people are grieving, when there is very high emotion in Victoria, and when many people are still fighting fires, is it right for the Sydney Morning Herald to permit one of its columnists to effectively call for the lynching of her scapegoats of choice? Is not this even more so in the light of many very violent attacks on greenies in remote areas?
If there’s one area of policy the Greens do not control, it is forestry, and it is ludicrous to blame them for these fires. But leave that to one side for now. Surely this piece oversteps the bounds of simple human decency?
The SMH should not have given Devine’s inflammatory remarks the oxygen of publication. The decision to run this trash will stand as an ineradicable stain on the reputation of the newspaper.
Please login below to comment, OR simply register here :
Thank you for registering, we have just sent you a confirmation email, which includes your new password to be entered below.