Australia’s tragic fires have reignited a debate over public land policies that echoes the same debates in the U.S. There’s the timber industry leader who says the fires could have been prevented if only the industry had been allowed to cut more trees. There’s the conservative columnist who suggests that environmentalists be lynched for preventing broadscale fuels reduction measures.
Flickr photo by Barnardoh.
Australian forests are a bit different from those in the U.S. Eucalypts tend to be very resinous in an ecologically calculated effort to dominate the forests by burning out the competition (and then grow back faster than anything else). Lodgepole pine is similar though it does not burn so explosively.
Is it the perpetrator or is it the cialis wholesale right way out of the long-term relationship? Believe me, for you and your love it will be much easier if you aren’t even considering cheating as the solution. There may be sexual dysfunction, anxiety, depression, insomnia, and memory deterioration during this period. cialis 20mg generika If you are stressed, just concentrate on improving your mood and eases your pain. tadalafil tablets india Take this tablet at least half an hour before order viagra cheap http://www.slovak-republic.org/bratislava/history/ indulging in sexual activity. At the same time, I seriously doubt that eucalypts burn significantly hotter than American woods. This means that Jack Cohen’s rule of thumb, that forest fires will ignite the walls of homes only if the fires are burning less than 40 meters away, applies in Australia just as much as it does here. What is needed to protect homes is narrowscale fuels reduction close to the homes (along with a few other practical things like making sure roofs are nonflammable).
News reports indicate that temperatures in the days before the fires started were as high as 48 degrees. That’s 118 degrees American. When temperatures are that high, no amount of broadscale fuels reduction is going to stop fires from spreading.
It is best to evacuate before the fire, not in the middle of it.
Flickr photo posted by Sandy Austin whanau.
Based on previous fires where most fatalities occurred during evacuation, not in homes or other structures, Australia started a policy it called “leave early or stay and defend.” For that policy to work, however, people have to clear out the flammable vegetation within 40 meters of their homes. Some residents complained that they weren’t allowed to remove vegetation “around their properties.” If there was a policy failure, it was this, not any decision to reduce logging or broadscale fuels reduction.
Privatize the forests. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Here’s some humor from The Onion about CA fires: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPBS5nprJ1M&feature=PlayList&p=2059FFBAD4A76EE0&index=15
If somebody could point out where the directions are to format, such as embedding links within words, italicizing & such, I would be grateful for the help.
Scott,
If you search “HTML” + “insert your formatting interest here” you’ll find the help you need.
A link for how to do links.
Dan,
Forgive me.
IIRC eucalypts don’t burn hotter but have a greater propensity to burn as the resins are much more apt to catch in lower temps (e.g. a burn temp of, say 350º as opposed to 425º for Pinus.
But again, the better policy is not to fragment the WUI, not to fragment the WUI by cutting trees willy-nilly.
DS
This is what happens when people move into areas prone to fire.
This is what happens when people don’t steal commie bicycles.
Actually, there are a couple of issues I’m in agreement with Randal about, and one of them is I don’t want my taxes going to fight fires threatening second homes in the WUI (or first homes either). If you are dumb enough to live in chaparral or a forest with a FRI of one or two decades, then don’t expect my insurance premiums, taxes, or whatever to support your bad decision.
DS
Dan: “I don’t want my taxes going to fight fires threatening second homes.”
Should fires only be put out when no homes are around, or when the home is a primary residence?
Fire services are a small portion of gov spending. There are plenty of other things to be upset about.
Dan it’s refreshingly moral of you not to want to pay for others. However there seems to be a lot of inconsistency for that ideology when people want government services for themselves.
How should transit be funded?
How should medicaid be funded? (Medicare is funded by SS taxes, although questionable)
Why should taxpayers pay for digital signal converter boxes?
Of course most public goods cannot be funded by user fees or similar, but many private goods are absorbed into the realm of public goods, usually in the name of compassion, but actually for vote-getting.
People forget about the principle of: “Give a man a fish vs. teaching a man how to fish.”
Basically if businesses were allowed to harvest more lumber (replanting too), there would be far fewer forests, and furniture & other wood products would be less expensive.
Thank you Sierra Club & other anti-human groups for all the harm.
Oh, I forget Dan, you value natural flora & fauna above humans.
There is another dimension to this issue although not unrelated to the “burnoff” debate.
Local papers ran a story (with photo) of a resident of one of the affected towns who a few years ago was prosecuted and fined A$50,000 (and legal costs of a further A$50,000) for clearing a fire break around his home without a consent. (Which he probably would not have been given.)
In the current photo he is standing proud with his house as a backdrop.
His house was the only one left standing in the town.
Much muttering.
This backs up Randal’s observation. Excess ground fuel is an issue in many Australian bushfires but does not appear to have been the key cause of the ferocity of this fire on this occasion. High winds of over 60 mph played a part too.
I have some eucalyptus trees on my own property – at a distance – and I do know that their wood is the best fuel for my outdoor pizza oven. Gets the temp up to 500Celsius no trouble.
They drop branches easily and frequently too. Another good reason not to have them too close to home.
Dan Says:
Actually, there are a couple of issues I’m in agreement with Randal about, and one of them is I don’t want my taxes going to fight fires threatening second homes in the WUI (or first homes either). If you are dumb enough to live in chaparral or a forest with a FRI of one or two decades, then don’t expect my insurance premiums, taxes, or whatever to support your bad decision.
THWM: Well that’s also like building in flood zones.
“I have some eucalyptus trees on my own property – at a distance – and I do know that their wood is the best fuel for my outdoor pizza oven.”
Probably not, but eucalyptus emits a flammable vapor.
Scott “Should fires only be put out when no homes are around, or when the home is a primary residence? Fire services are a small portion of gov spending. There are plenty of other things to be upset about.”
ws: There’s a difference between fires occurring in urbanized areas and fires (where cost of putting them out and fighting them is less than remote regions) occurring in areas prone to yearly fire damage.
Scott:“Thank you Sierra Club & other anti-human groups for all the harm.”
ws: If I am not mistaken, the Sierra Club is in favor of returning fire to forest ecology to reduce natural fuel buildup. This goes against our current (and long standing) fire suppression policies. I’d argue that many logging companies would not do much to reduce the fuel build-up – rather they would go for the biggest and most valuable trees – rather than the organic buildup that fuels fires in the first place.
I also find it funny that if you want to sustain resources for future generations – one gets the “anti-human” label from you (albeit you may be referring to extremist environmental groups). I suppose those wanting to destroy the earth of every resource without regard for sustaining future generations are somehow “pro-human” by your account?
If I am not mistaken, the Sierra Club is in favor of returning fire to forest ecology to reduce natural fuel buildup.
And for buffer zones around second homes/homes/structures.
Yet more ignorant pronouncements about fire and structures in comments on this site.
I’d argue that many logging companies would not do much to reduce the fuel build-up – rather they would go for the biggest and most valuable trees – rather than the organic buildup that fuels fires in the first place.
Exactly.
The issue about creating markets for “non-merchantable” timber is a big part of the reason why we can’t get folks in there to clear and release what we failed to hold timber companies to in the past (ensuring they cleared and released). And here in Colo, Suncor just pulled out of a cellulosic ethanol plant to use beetle-kill as fuel because the economy is in the sh*tter, so one less opportunity to do fuel reduction in sensitive areas.
DS
ws, You made some good points.
My saying “anti-human”, could be construed as a double standard.
Hurting the environment (basic pollution) for other humans is one thing that most people are against. (Of course some businesses do that.)
But then preserving (ie habitat protection) part of the environment for non-humans is questionable.
Pro-human is not the opposite. Malthusian thinking is not necessary.
But on the UA or rural fires, that’s bringing up a different point. I thought all these fires are in rural areas anyway.
Regardless, the point I was trying to question is that Dan seemed to be in favor of taxes for fighting fires not around any structures, but if somebody lives there, then it should be user paid.
Higher taxes for various gov services could be prudent in many rural areas. Although, rural areas do use fewer services overall. In fact, there is a correlation with higher density and higher government cost per capita, as well as higher housing prices.
“But then preserving (ie habitat protection) part of the environment for non-humans is questionable.”
This is based on the assumption that there is a non-human part of this world. I’m sure Im preaching to the choir a bit, but I keep thinking of Cronan’s “The trouble with Wilderness.”
Also, defensible spacing is a great private sector opportunity. I have a few friends on the western slope in CO (former firefighters) that bought some chainsaws and a log splitter and now make gobbs of $$$ creating buffer zones around 2nd homes in the national forest outside of Crested Butte.
I’m sure Im preaching to the choir a bit, but I keep thinking of Cronan’s “The trouble with Wilderness.â€Â
Interesting. I think of Nature’s Metropolis when I think of this issue in a historical context. But I can see Wilderness too.
DS
I said:
“I have some eucalyptus trees on my own property – at a distance – and I do know that their wood is the best fuel for my outdoor pizza oven.â€Â
Bennet said:
Probably not, but eucalyptus emits a flammable vapor.
I ask:
How would you know from several thousand miles away what trees on my property would be better than the eucaplytus? I have tried the others and its no contest.
Scot:t“Although, rural areas do use fewer services overall. In fact, there is a correlation with higher density and higher government cost per capita, as well as higher housing prices.”
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but you can look at a lot of rural areas that reap many benefits in the way of farm subsidies, rural electrification, and high-speed internet subsidies. Do you have any links to this?
Owen,
I miss read your post. I thought you were saying that the tree didn’t work well. My bad. To answer your question, I have no idea what wood would work well for an outdoor pizza oven nor the tree mix on your property.