Thursday, 17 October 2013

Global Warming might contribute to Bushfires, but its FUEL on the Ground we can impact NOW

UPDATE:: http://bushfirefront.com.au/impacts-of-bushfires/occasional-papers
Two myths have emerged about climate change and bushfire management and are beginning to circulate in the media and to be adopted as fact by some scientists:
1.     Because of global warming, Australia will be increasingly subject to uncontrollable holocaust-like “megafires”.
 2.     Fuel reduction by prescribed burning must cease because it releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, thus exacerbating global warming and the occurrence of megafires.
Both statements are incorrect. However they represent the sort of plausible-sounding assertions which, if repeated often enough, can take on a life of their own and lead eventually to damaging policy change.




Maybe the weather is getting hotter and dryier because of Global Warming.
Maybe we can do something about that. Maybe we should.
This is an issue that requires local, national & international action.

The challange that was put up on Twitter was - SHOW ME that the GREEN have opposed back burning.
Well as always, the GREEN Party is careful to avoid such out right claims.
But what I can show you is a history of people complaining about environmental activists interfering in the management of fuel load in National Parks & other areas.

In  a nutshell Two Views

THE GREEN VIEW
The extent of green opposition to hazard reduction was clear in the days following the Canberra tragedy. The NSW Nature Conservation Council on January 21 denounced the practice as "futile" and a "knee-jerk reaction". The NCC chairman, Rob Pallin, said: "People who claim that hazard reduction burning is a cure- all for bushfire risk are either fooling themselves or deliberately trying to fool the public."


THE CSIRO VIEW
The CSIRO's principal research scientist, Phil Cheney, Australia's foremost bushfire researcher, also blames the intensity of the fires on the fact that, "for the last 30 years there has been a continuing decline in operational prescribed burning". He said yesterday the January fires were "a truly historic event [producing] probably the most extreme, widespread and continuously burnt area in living history".

And the reason history was made? "Really the only thing that has changed is burning practices." The gradual removal of grazing stock from mountain areas had also allowed undergrowth to build up, he said.

The above views came from 2003 http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/05/07/1052280321826.html


THE FOLLOWING CAME FROM  Hairyman Bushcraft  - THANKS MATE!


2009 Green ideas must take blame for deaths
 Scott Gentle, the Victorian manager of Timber Communities Australia
Gentle complained of obstruction from green local government authorities of any type of fire mitigation strategies. He told of green interference at Kinglake - at the epicentre of Saturday's disaster, where at least 147 people died - during a smaller fire there in 2007.

 Dr Phil Cheney, the former head of the CSIRO's bushfire research unit and one of the pioneers of prescribed burning, said yesterday if the fire-ravaged Victorian areas had been hazard-reduced, the flames would not have been as intense. 

Goonoo 2007 volunteer firefighters bulldozing a control line were obstructed by National Parks and Wildlife Service employees who had driven from Sydney to stop vegetation being damaged.
 The poor management of national parks and state forests in Victoria is highlighted by the interactive fire map on the website of the Department of Sustainability and Environment. Yesterday it showed that, of 148 fires started since mid-January, 120 started in state forests, national parks, or other public land, and just 21 on private property. 

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/green-ideas-must-take-blame-for-deaths-20090211-84mk.html#ixzz2i20ig38q


2009 You can't see the danger for the trees


So fearful are many Blue Mountains residents at the prospect of a catastrophic bushfire to rival Victoria's February disaster that their MP, Phil Koperberg, has had to call two public meetings next week to address their safety concerns.

 "People used to say 10 tonnes of ground fuel per hectare was excessive," says Don Nott, 66, a Springwood real estate agent, life member of the Winmalee fire brigade and former group captain of the Blue Mountains Rural Fire Service (RFS). "Here we have 30 tonnes per hectare. We're living on a time bomb."

 He says authorities and green groups pay only lip service to allowing local brigades to light controlled fires in the cooler months to burn off ground fuel - a process known as "hazard reduction" or "prescribed burning".

"Over the years the whole process of getting approval has become so bureaucratic and convoluted … with so much paperwork and so many restrictions about when you can light or can't light, it has made it virtually impossible."

At the royal commission into the Black Saturday fires, counsel assisting, Jack Rush, has acknowledged the importance of burning off ground fuel. 

 Whether or not you go along with the green view that global warming played a crucial role in the fire intensity, what we do know is we aren't going to stop global warming before summer. We have control only over ground fuel. 

2007 Firefighters' anger still burning

Two weeks ago, as a bushfire was raging through the Goonoo Community Conservation Area, an angry showdown between Rural Fire Service volunteers and National Parks and Wildlife Service employees threatened to derail firefighting efforts.
The streets are abuzz with the story of how, at the height of the blaze, greenie NPWS workers drove their vehicles in front of a bulldozer driver trying to clear a firebreak in order to stop him damaging any more vegetation.


2005 Burning issue that gave fire chief his political kickstart

 Green ideology - opposed to any human interference with nature, such as systematic hazard-reduction burning - has increasingly obstructed proper bushfire management. 

Bushfire brigade volunteers who once efficiently managed their patch of turf were emasculated. 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/miranda-devine/burning-issue-that-gave-fire-chief-his-political-kickstart/2006/11/05/1162340090516.html


2003 - CSIRO Said Hazard reduction did not prevent fires, but it kept them manageable.

The CSIRO's principal research scientist, Phil Cheney, Australia's foremost bushfire researcher, also blames the intensity of the fires on the fact that, "for the last 30 years there has been a continuing decline in operational prescribed burning". He said yesterday the January fires were "a truly historic event [producing] probably the most extreme, widespread and continuously burnt area in living history".

And the reason history was made? "Really the only thing that has changed is burning practices." The gradual removal of grazing stock from mountain areas had also allowed undergrowth to build up, he said.
The amount of fuel on the ground had a quantifiable effect on the speed and intensity of a fire, combined with weather and slope variables, said Cheney. If ground fuel was kept under control, with regular cool, controlled burns in winter, a fire would usually peter out in a eucalypt forest. Hazard reduction did not prevent fires, but it kept them manageable.




2002 The bushfire disaster inquiry seems intent on hearing only a limited range of views.

 The parliamentary inquiry into the Christmas bushfire disaster is in danger of becoming a farce designed to exclude anyone with a view contrary to the Government's. Submissions blaming inadequate hazard reduction by NSW authorities have been mislaid, committee members remain in the dark and major players in land management, such as State Forests, which advocates prescribed burning, have been ignored.

 One committee member said yesterday that until a forester called him to ask why he had not been asked to appear at the inquiry, he was not even aware that State Forests had submitted a detailed, thick, bound report setting out the scientific case for regular hazard reduction to minimise bushfire devastation. What's more, he has had no say in who the committee has called as witnesses. 

 Price said yesterday he did not expect a submission from Cheney and had not invited one, as federal organisations such as the CSIRO would not be expected to participate in state inquiries.

 WANT SOME REAL SCIENCE:

Managing fire

If we want to reduce fire intensity and make fire suppression safer and easier we need to accept that it is the dry undergrowth and dead leaf, bark and twig litter that provides the fuel for bushfires, and use prescribed fire to reduce fuel loads.

How does prescribed burning reduce fuel loads and fire hazards? CSIRO's Project Vesta studied the characteristics of the behaviour and spread of high-intensity bushfires in dry eucalypt forests under dry summer conditions.
Project Vesta found that reducing fuel loads by prescribed burning reduces the rate of spread, flame height and intensity of a fire, as well as the number and distance of spot fires, by changing the structure of the fuel bed and reducing the total fuel load.


Some Other Reading:

http://www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/
SPECIFICALLY www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/getdoc/...6522.../EXP.018.001.0002‎ 
YES
a. Prescribed burning is always effective in reducing fuel loads,  and thus mitigating bushfire risk, for  a minimum of 3--‐5 years following its application to the majority
of eucalypt forest types in Southern Australia.

No comments:

Post a Comment