The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Putting the flame to blame > Comments

Putting the flame to blame : Comments

By Andrew Hamilton, published 13/2/2009

It is momentarily satisfying to find someone on whom to fix blame for the fires. But it is unhelpful to be fixated in blame.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Allow me to point a finger. Those who successfully opposed fire hazard-reduction burning in the face of expert advice as to the consequences should be mortified, their worth as advisers should be severely questioned, politicians who pandered to them should hang their heads.

But I agree with some broader points, we can't change the past, we can act only in the present, and out present volition, speech and actions will help determine our future. Anger and seeking culprits are not positive, they don't contribute to a better future. At the same time, and acknowledging the uncertain nature of existence, when certain parties have wilfully put others in danger, that should be recognised, those parties should face up to the consequences of their actions and re-examine their values and beliefs.
Posted by Faustino, Friday, 13 February 2009 9:50:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was shocked to hear the findings of the Canberra bushfires

- if the garden was mulched, the house burned

- if there were trees near the house, the house burned

When homeowners prepare their property for a smaller environmental footprint
- they plant trees to shade the house in summer to reduce reliance on air conditioning
- mulch their gardens to reduce water evaporation, especially important when water restrictions only permit watering 2 days per week

I imagine that people who are concerned about fire safety clear all the bush for a kilometre around their house, so that they build in a paddock, grow lawn and place garden beds away from the house.
As the drought in Victoria enters its 12th year drying out all the bush it appears that bush living is incompatible with fire safety.
Posted by billie, Friday, 13 February 2009 10:24:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faustino and billie touch on two overlapping, though different, issues.

1) Fire hazard reduction-burning, and;

2) Safety clearances of vegetation for dwellings.

I believe the first matter of reduction-burning holds some primary importance here. David Packham has articulated that point well (see: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25031389-7583,00.html), no doubt to the chagrin of many Vic green fanatics and bureaucrats.

On the second matter, the case of the Sheahan family is striking: fined AUD100K by the state for felling some 250 trees on their own property as a fire break, but the Sheahans were some of the very few to make it through so relatively well in the inferno. They have no doubt that their own firebreak saved them, but the green-dictated laws set a break of no more than six metres from buildings (see: http://www.theage.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090211-84sw.html?page=-1).

It seems clear that at various levels in the state's strategic fire management and legal framework of environmental management, the bushfires exposed failures, slackness, ineptitude and culpability. Acting on such incompetency need not be considered mere emotive reaction such as "blame".

In normal, healthy commerce and properly conducted military operations, for example, such failure would cause those responsible to be investigated and judged for the extent of their negligence and/or culpability, or lack thereof.

Perhaps Vic's state government apparatchiks and fat cats (if not the SJ too) operate by other standards of conduct. I'm sure the terms of reference for Brumby's royal commission will ensure that the investigation leaves out even the faintest hint of "blame", except perhaps for that general culprit living-breathing "humanity" and its "carbon footprint" leading to "global warming".
Posted by mil-observer, Friday, 13 February 2009 11:08:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brumby is doing what Sir Humphrey Appleby would have recommended, put off any nasty findings until after the next election. Then when the report comes in subject it to an internal inquiry. Then.....

Some on OLO don't like him but Andrew Bolt hit the nail squarely on the head with his long list of inquiries that have already been held after disastrous fires. Have the recommendations been implemented? The answer is obvious.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_those_warning_we_failed_to_heed/

Premier Brumby wants another multi-million dollar inquiry when the recommendations are already there for him to read. What a waste of money. But hey, Brumby's political behind is worth the money. Or is it?
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 13 February 2009 3:39:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While it won't help those who have already lost their lives, finding and punishing those who in spite of all the reports from the last fires, continued to impose their idealogical beliefs on those that knew better.

The farmer who was fined $50 000 dollars by a municipality for clearing his land, but had the only house left standing, is a prime example. The others who lost their homes and family have a prime facie case to sue the municipality and state for millions.

Only when the officials responsible for pandering to the greens have financially lost their shirts will they review their negligent behaviour.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 14 February 2009 8:49:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The website I administer has attracted a considerable number of visitors and articles concerning the Victorian bush fires. They concern the conservation and land-use planning implications of the bush fires. They pose questions about what are the best long-term solution to the problem and challenge many mainstream views about the bush fires. The articles can be found at http://candobetter.org/VictorianFires2009

The bush fires further confirm the views of those who have been arguing for years that runaway population growth, particularly when urban planning is as abysmal as it is in Australia (largely thanks to Malcolm Fraser having abolished Whitlam's Department of Urban and Regional Development) is unsustainable.

An article, which I therefore consider related to this tragedy is "How the growth lobby threatens Australia’s future" at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8485 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8485&page=0

(Cross-posted to http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/02/08/fire-and-flood/comment-page-2/#comment-228814 http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/02/13/more-fire-updates/#comment-635151)
Posted by daggett, Sunday, 15 February 2009 8:44:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy