WPQuote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
I think that's a lovely selection of thoughts. Can I add an addition? I don't want to grow old!
:wink:
:D
Regards
Paul
Printable View
WPQuote:
Originally Posted by woodPixel
I think that's a lovely selection of thoughts. Can I add an addition? I don't want to grow old!
:wink:
:D
Regards
Paul
How about an addition of half an inch of rain every night between 2 and 3am and sunshine all day? Plenty of water and minimal inconvenience to anyone
Im just wondering. At what level do we humans require the obviousness of a complete and total existential threat to act?
Has it simply become too big? Despite our apparent genius, perhaps we cant "solve" this and this is the end of the road for our species?
Have we created our own extinction level event?
I'm reminded of this comic...
Attachment 466981
I watched David Speers interview with Smoko (30 minutes). He's acknowledged the Hawaii mistake, and is going to present a Bushfires Royal Commission possibility to Cabinet.
What mystifies me though is why Journalists (even those as good as Speers) don't insist on windbag politicians answering the question. Smoko went off on big long non-answers - just taking the opportunity to beat his chest. Finally after 3 minutes of this Speers asked him the same question again, and still did not get a definitive answer.
Smoko complained that he had already responded to such-and-such twice before (previous to today) "I've already answered that on two other occasions" but he's quite happy to beat his chest about some minor achievement every day until even he gets sick of it. "So answer it again for those who didn't hear, and we'll see if your answer is the same twice running".
The job of a Journalist is to hold them to account, not give them endless opportunities to pass wind.
I just hope that people remember that he had to be shoved into many of the current small fixes, like the Royal Commission idea (not sure who), compensating Fireys (Albanese), shutting his mouth for a few days (Cobargo residents), getting more aircraft (who??), because he'll claim them all as his own. Bloody disgraceful performance from a so called Leader. Hasn't had a single original idea to fix this, that I know of.
XAttachment 466982Quote:
Originally Posted by woodpixel
Mod edit
:rulez2:
seriously, what benefit will we get from a Royal Commission? and will such a commission need to wait till after the WA, Vic, SA, NSW, Qld and Tas coroners have held their enquiries?Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Conclusion 1 -- Climate change is real and we as humans need to something more than look at the problem and go "It's all too hard."
Conclusion 2 -- the current widespread drought greatly exacerbated the severity of the fire season.
Conclusion 3 -- hazard reduction burns had little to no effect on the current fires.
Conclusion 4 -- every road in a "fire prone area" needs to be cleared out to the fence line (or even beyond) so that the road acts as a real fire break. Kiss good bye to most species other than foxes, feral cats and dogs getting across such a barrier.
Conclusion 5 -- The RFS, CFA, et al need to be placed on a more sustainable footing.
plus another 100 or so
One of the most enjoyable aspects of war are the small-group militias. Partisans, ninjas, SAS knife squads... Smash and grab, vaporise into the woodwork...Quote:
Originally Posted by ian
Perhaps, rather than monolithic organisations based on endless interminable hierarchy, we could use the CFA in such a manner. They look after their patch (cos everyone fights like hell to save their own), but can be rapidly deployed in other near-local groupings. Act like ants or hornets in a swarm.
Every 200 or 1000 citizens must put forward a group of people, then its provided with a truck and gear. It's kept in a shed Just In Case.
I'm certain this is how the CFA would operate now. From the people I've seen over the last few weeks, they are as rough and Aussie as they come. They'd happily tell some duded-up bureaucrat to go shove it up their Khyber.... but very happily thorw themselves into front.
(My son and I are joining. Its the right thing to do)
My fear with ScoMo is he sees things ONLY in a monolithic top-down hierarchy (e.g. "god") and They will use this to create yet-another mega department.... being in Canberra I see hundreds of these one-off political-solution one-time departments who generate nothing but pointless paperwork to justify their indefensible existences.
Nothing is done by these people by accident. ScoMo was chosen for a reason. Perhaps its good to have an idiot as the king... especially for those unseen string-pullers with the real ambitions.
I’m on the same page as most here but here’s a few thoughts for discussion.
The east coast of Oz was mostly rain forest way back, a lot of species that now only exist in Tas were up here.
This has been changed over the use of fire by the local original inhabitants, has anyone considered this in the call for aboriginal burning.
Also what effect have these current fires had on our remaining pockets of rainforest on the escarpment etc let alone the Wollemi region.
Has any real in depth research been done on why various society’s have collapsed in the past ?
Easter Island springs to mind but also there were a few in South America plus those in the top end of Africa that the desert overan.
Are we the next in line?
H.
Much as many would like to deny it, humans are an integral part of the environment. Always have been, always will be as long as there are people on the Earth. Clear Out makes the excellent point that the landscape which the early settlers found when they came here was largely influenced by Aboriginal land management practices Without their influence who knows what the place would have looked like. It begs the question -"What is really the natural environment?" Is it what you get as a combination of the geology, weather patterns and flora and fauna (humans included)? Still, humans are about the only part of the equation which could possibly have any real control over the outcome, so whatever your view of who or what is responsible for the mess WE are responsible for fixing it.Quote:
Originally Posted by clear out
Does "fixing it" necessarily mean taking it back to what it was before? I cannot see that as a satisfactory solution because WE changed it because there are now more of us to feed and accommodate than there was "before". Would Cultural burning and reintroduction of the old species of flora and fauna allow the region to support it's current population? The environment has to evolve with the growth or we have to restrict the growth. Either way it's up to the human race to manage this.
The population of Australia before the First Fleet arrived is estimated to have been 750,000. Now it is 25,000,000. Obviously things have to be a little different. We cannot go back to how it was.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we can go back to how it was. Is no possible.
I don't see how Cultural Burning can't fit in to the current lifestyle, as it's just a more gentle alternative to the White Fella's far more aggressive hazard reduction / back-burning.
It may well be just the thing we need. We don't have to throw away everything in the past to move on to a prosperous future. All I was saying is we need to go with what works and change what doesn't. If the Aboriginal custodians can tailor the cultural burns to make the landscape support what it now has to support and not try to use it to restore what once was then why not go for it? But of course, we have continued to push back the boundaries of sustainability way beyond breaking point many times already. If we could suddenly change the environment to be perfect and sustainable for now, what will stop us from continuing to expand our numbers and demand on resources until we are once again where we are now?Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Agreed Doug.
I'm not sure that would really come into it because the burns would just be in bushland (I would have thought). Now that may well be privately owned bushland (i.e. the bush around somebody's buildings). I doubt it would have any place in non-bush areas, but who knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Well, yes, it would have to be considered as part of the whole overall environmental system. There has to be a balance which means that there must be enough bushland and it must be sustainable and flourishing. Bushland is the lungs of the earth. It is also the habitat for so much of the flora and fauna which make up the all important biodiversity the greenies rightly go on about. It is a major part of keeping the whole system healthy.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Does anyone know the difference between cultural burning and any other back burning operation?
The wildlife gets effected and or dies just the same.
All the Climate Change Deniers that I have come across or read about, and that includes Malcolm Roberts, have an enviable characteristic: they all, to an individual, claim to be open minded about it. That being the case, they should have no trouble reading this:
Have you got climate zombies? We debunk the myths that refuse to die - Science News - ABC News
The best line is this (with reference to Climate Science being a conspiracy of the elites):
"The plot: 97 per cent of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis,
only to be exposed by a plucky band of billionaires and oil companies."