Runner,

Globally we are at about number 11 output per capita (more than the USA) and as a country, was number 17 globally out of 186 countries back in 2005.

I don't know why you are so concerned about this - Abbott will make it all go away won't he, and show it to be the biggest scam in all of human history - even bigger than religion?

Thanks for the requested corroboration, SM.

However, there is nothing in that article that backs up your statement:

<< Under Labor, the greens have had a free hand to make fuel reduction back burning, or clearance of trees near properties nearly impossible without a signature from God. >>

The article mentions ‘do-gooders and greenies’. It doesn’t mention the Greens at all.

It is quite amazing that we haven’t learnt our lessons over the last few decades of devastating fire-storm events.

Back burning is not the answer. The answers are to not live in or near tall Eucalyptus forest, where fire can sweep through the canopy, and embers can travel considerable distances from the forest to buildings, and to build houses and everything else out of non-combustible materials, as far as is possible.

Hazard-reduction burning only achieves so much. You can’t easily back-burn or hazard-reduce the canopy in a tall eucalypt forest. And if you manage to reduce the fuel load in the ground- and mid-strata, you will still have an oil-rich leafy canopy capable of carrying a fire-storm.

Hazard-reduction thus can actually produce a false sense of security.

The amount of back-burning that would be needed is huge. There's not enough man-power. And we only have a relatively short window of time when it is not too wet or too dry or too hot or too windy….

Basically, you would need to do a great deal of back-burning in the small time windows when the conditions are just right, and nothing at all other times. This makes it very difficult to do on the scale that is needed. And then as I say: it could all actually be simply giving us a false sense of security.

The view of a resident "know all"
"The green are responsible for this fuel and therefore responsible for the fires" Do you have any evidence, or is another one of your "verbals". Given your past history I'm sure you are an expert at manufacturing the evidence, so please give us some.

May I beg the fine female posters to forgive me for what I am about to say, and know I do not think it is a rule.
NSW Parks,not unusual in its inability to bypass the office politics and let the out door workers get the job done.
Is IN FESTERED with women managers who spend more time putting warnings in mens toilets to wash hands and adjust dress before leaving.
*Any attempt to review why indoor staff numbers are getting higher,and out door one less are ignored.
Best fire fighters for bush fires come from there, best controled burn fighters too.
Again these folk men and women camp for weeks in show grounds and such hundreds of klms from home.
And Parks is starving them to death, forcing them to not fight fires.
We every one of us, must understand the greens alone are not the reason for these now common fires.
We guiltlessly ceded ground to PC, and uninformed folk, some of them wonderful, and our forests burn.
Every pre Summer EVER DONE sees some loverly mum complain about the butchery of the nice green trees, the ash on her washing and little Johny asma.
Seen in print her words rarely get answered as PC has its hands around our throats and truth is not a wanted factor.
Half a cenurary ago my worst memory offire lives.
A loverly old house owned by thelast liveing sole born there burned to the ground.
Scholl kidsstarted that fire the house was notinsuredandits last resedent ended itslife in an old folks home, the out door toilethad a boiling tin , it best discribes the anti burningfolk in my view.
Have we all given a bit to help, weshould.

Belly Oh dear, them there are fighting words!
"IN FESTERED with women managers who spend more time putting warnings in mens toilets to wash hands and adjust dress before leaving." Oh dear.
You would have been safer saying "Doing their make up, to look pretty for their husband, and thinking what they will cook for his dinner when he gets home from a hard days work."
Belly how 1950's are you?

On the contrary Paul, Belly was making fair comment on the unfortunate outcomes of affirmative action targets and the despised 'positive' affirmative action in public service agencies. You likely know that but still went for the cheap PC point.

It took courage for Belly to say what he did. He knew he would certainly be the subject of a politically correct snipe in return, which in a way proves the point he was making.

As a contractor for an international company it was usual in publicly funded agencies to encounter poor decisions and failing systems following affirmative action appointments. What else could it be called where the selection criteria had been re-jigged, 'suitable' applicants encouraged to apply and HR was there to ensure that affirmative action targets were met? The engineer who had managed water distribution for example had been replaced with a generalist studies woman who could not answer the most fundamental questions about the function she was responsible for.

They regarded themselves as 'communicators' and 'people managers', but constantly de-motivated their 'teams' with poor decisions, including elevating their mates to jobs. There was considerable churning through positions through pursuit of ambition. Most never stayed in one place long and were not interested anyway.

Whereas most women in senior roles in private companies could usually be relied upon to have the relevant skills set and a record of successful performance.