Greens Policies are responsible for deaths

[Guest]

Stick a cork in it Jovial Monk. Do you ever shut up?

[Jovial Monk]

no

[boxy]

You try getting a bureaucrat to put their arse on the line by authorising a controlled burn in "their" park then, Monk. Even if you wade through the excuses not to do it, and actually get a commitment, the conditions have to be absolutely perfect on the day it's scheduled, or it gets <s>rescheduled</s>... <s>postponed</s>... canceled.

Yes - so why do these actions make the Greens responsible? The deals they usually make with the two major parties have nothing to do with backburning - although they are against the ravaging of Tasmania's beautiful forests through logging.

If you bother to look into the causal affect of these fires properly you will find that not only are many of the local communities at loggerheads as to whether to backburn or not to backburn, but as Postul said the state governments accept handouts from big developers who build new estates in fire prone areas, usually with only one combined entrance/exit. There are many environmental reports, findings & recommendations that are completely ignored by the bureaucrats and just thrown in the too hard basket and this is because of the cost involved in harm reduction and a lack of understanding of up to date scientific methods of minimising bushfires.

Look, I'm not saying that the Green's type of ideology is responsible for the fires, but it does play it's part... and I do believe that a lot of the deaths and infrastructure loss could have been avoided if people didn't want to live right inside the "beautiful bushland", and didn't fight against backburning for "the smoke gets in my eyes" reasons.

If people want to "live with nature", there's going to be causalities. We either accept that, or we keep the fuck out of the forests in fire season. You can bet the Aborigines kept out of the forests in weather like that! We're not nomads though, so we should build where it's safe, eh.

[AntiGreen]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/wi ... 34,00.html

Here's some one telling it like it is when it comes to the Greens/Wilderness Society and their uneducated campaigns- who typically turn their uneducated campaigns into political rhetoric when it blows up in their face (read: oh its all global warmings fault)

This disaster obviously has groups like the Wanderlust Society (and the Greens who they back slyly enough to not effect their funding- NGO's are supposed to be non-political) scrambling pathetically for the higher ground

The society asserted that a "massive increase in hazard reduction burning and firebreaks is destroying nature, pushing wildlife closer to extinction and in many cases increasing the fire risk to people and properties by making areas more fire prone".

Finally, I note the old chestnut that "global warming will cause inevitable mega-fires". This is now being said so often by so many pundits that it has achieved the status of biblical truth. What it ignores, however, is the presence in the system of intelligent and determined humans.

If the computer models are correct and the weather becomes hotter and drier, it does not inevitably mean that we have to throw up our hands in despair and retreat into a bunker, waiting for the next inferno to come roaring over the horizon. We already know how to minimise fire intensity and fire damage by taking pre-emptive action. Indeed in southern Australia, the computer-generated predictions suggest greater opportunities for fuel reduction burning under mild conditions, as winters will be drier and springs and autumns warmer. Less fuel will lead to less intense fires, less fire damage and easier and safer fire suppression, to say nothing of healthier, greener forests.

While there are many deficiencies in Australian bushfire policies and practices, the solution is not the throwing up of hands, as suggested by the climate doomsdayers, or the sort of measures put forward by the Wilderness Society. It lies in strong leadership from land managers who are prepared to put bushfire preparedness and damage mitigation in front of the razzle-dazzle of aerial suppression technology. It requires governments to put more resources into research and into monitoring bushfire outcomes, including the environmental impacts of large, high-intensity bushfires and continuous feedback to management systems from real-world experience out in the forest.

Roger Underwood is a former firefighter and a district and regional manager with the Forests Department in WA. He is chairman of Bush Fire Front, an organisation dedicated to best practice in bushfire management in Australia.

[mantra.]

Yes a firefighter has given his opinion - but he is not the decision maker - but he is blaming the state governments as well. If you looked at the Environment and Natural Resources Committee's findings you would see that it doesn't matter what advice or recommendations are suggested - firstly the government usually ignores most of it and when it comes down to the final word it is the community which is indecisive in so many cases.

The fact is estates shouldn't be built in the bush with only one road leading in and out. We've had a drought for years, water restrictions and slack state governments who cost cut wherever they can, particularly in regard to protecting properties from bush fires. The article says exactly what I said above.

[AntiGreen]

but he is blaming the state governments as well.

Hmm..now what political persuasion would they be and whose preferences did they rely on to get in?

The fact is estates shouldn't be built in the bush with only one road leading in and out.

Why do you think that is? In most cases it is some Green zealot didn't like the development so found some kind of rare cave spider that limited the development so that only one road could be built to save the poor spider from the intrusion of the nasty humans.

The Greens are implicit in this disaster

[mantra.]

The Greens are implicit in this disaster

Don't you mean complicit - and prove it! What deals did the Greens make with the Victorian State Government that helped exacerbate these fires?

[AntiGreen]

I would think that you are quite aware that when it comes to preference deals, the nitty gritty is resolved behind doors rather than some all encompassing press release stating exactly what the majors will be doing for the minors.

Given the time the state Labor parties have been in power with their coupling to the greens and the current state of forestry affairs, the proof is in the charred and overcooked pudding.

Feel free to stick your head in the sand though.

[Jovial Monk]

Come up with some proof. Fuel reduction burns are done. Yes, GW makes fires bigger and hotter.

[Guest]

GW has no play in this argument
Fuck up while the adults are speaking