Habitat OR humanity – the question in Australia

Back in February I blogged about the devastating wildfires in Victoria, Australia. The final death toll was 173.

Now, the BBC reports that an official inquiry into what happened, and why, is stirring major controversy between urban ‘Green’ viewpoints and those of rural dwellers. It’s something that’s very relevant to the same debate in the USA.

This was supposed to be the “People’s Royal Commission”, according to the Labor state premier, John Brumby, but many feel excluded.

Out in the bush, there’s also fear that the commissioners’ meeting in Melbourne will be urban-centric.

There’s concern they will not emphasise what many locals see as one of the main causes of the fire: the management of the forest land and the amount of fuel allowed to build up – partly because of the influence of the environmental lobby, or “Greenies” as they are disdainfully known.

In the forefront of this most acrimonious of debates is Liam Sheahan, who has become something of an anti-authoritarian folk hero for many of his fellow bush-dwellers.

In 2002, he decided to chop down 250 of the 30,000 or so trees that surrounded his hilltop property in Reedy Creek, to protect his homestead from bushfires.

The following year, he was fined $A30,000 (£15,000) by Mitchell Shire Council for illegal clearing – a breach of the environmental regulations – and was saddled with another $A70,000 in legal costs.

Now, though, he feels vindicated, since his is the only property that remains standing. His man-made fire break worked. Seven of his neighbours’ properties burned down.

“We were the only house standing within a 2km radius,” Liam Sheahan told me.

“This green religion, if you’d like to put it that way, is impinging into society everywhere. Green is sacred. Everything green must be upheld. You can’t touch the bush. You can’t touch this.

“You can’t pick up a stick off the side of the road. Because some little bug might be living under it.”

David Packham, from Monash University’s school of geography and environmental science, believes that the green agenda has been pushed too far, especially on the issue of prescribed burning: safe, controlled blazes designed to remove the fuel, such as dead leaves and pieces of bark, which bushfires feed on.

In a letter to his local paper in late January, just weeks before Black Saturday, he predicted that 1,000 to 2,000 properties would be lost and 100 people would lose their lives through high intensity fires. The final death toll was much higher, 173.

Three things determine the intensity of bushfires, says David Packham. The temperature, the wind and the fuel. The only thing that man can control is the fuel.

Here, he says, modern Australians should learn from the ancient custodians of the land, the Aborigines, who have long used fire to fight fire.

“We have thumbed our noses at their practices,” David Packham told me.

“They were the stewards of this land for 30-40,000 years, and we have just totally disregarded what their knowledge led them to believe, that you have to have frequent and mild fire in a lot of the Australian bush to ensure that it is healthy and safe.”

He said: “We have been effectively in a fire exclusion policy here in south-eastern Australia for about the last 30 years. There’s been a belief that now we have technology and helicopters and mobile phones that we can be masters of the fire. We can’t.”

. . .

One of the most contentious areas is the subject of roadside fuel.

Many people were killed in their cars as they tried to escape the fire, driving along roads lined with burning trees, leaves and debris.

Had the fuel been cleared, locals contest, lives would have been saved.

“Roadsides are the last areas of habitat that some species have,” argues Gavan McFadzean, “and without the roadside vegetation many species, especially bird species, would go extinct. So there is a substantial cost.”

He says that protecting lives and protecting biodiversity is a matter of fine balance. But when he appeared in a televised debate in the immediate aftermath of the fires, he was shouted down for living in Melbourne and taking an urban-centric view.

Unquestionably, the public debate is becoming increasingly polarised and antagonistic as the Royal Commission begins its evidence-gathering hearings.

City against country. Bush-dwellers against the “Greenies”.

There’s more at the link.

The ‘Green’ agenda has been implicated in many of the devastating wildfires in the western US over past decades. Activists have not only sought to prevent logging activities, but have tried to force the US Forest Service and other authorities to cease all activities which interfere with ‘nature’ – even if that means a buildup of fuel that makes wildfires many times worse, and far more difficult to control. Fortunately (so far) we haven’t seen large-scale loss of life because of that; but I suspect it’s only a matter of time.

I’m somewhere in the middle on this issue. I firmly believe in managing the environment according to what works. If it works to have periodic ‘clearing’ fires, as the Australian Aborigines appear to believe, go for it. If it’s necessary to cut back roadside bush and trees in order to ensure the safety (and sometimes the survival) of those who use them, do it. People are more important than trees. On the other hand, I also believe that many residential developments should never be built. If you look at many wildfires in California, and subsequent problems such as mudslides, etc., they’re made much worse by the fact that people chose to build in an area plagued by such difficulties. If they put themselves in danger, why should I put myself in danger to rescue them – or pay higher insurance premiums because of their losses? It’s their fault in the first place, for siting their home unwisely!

I don’t know the answer. I don’t even know if there is an answer. However, the souls of 173 dead people are looking over the shoulders of the Royal Commissioners in Australia. I hope they feel their presence, and do something to ensure that others don’t die so horribly in future.

Peter