Skip to main content
Recent Posts
1
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Bush Fires
Last post by LP -
I do not know if this is state wide, but I've been told people living in Victorian alpine regional areas with logging permits are no longer allowed to clear deadwood or fallen timber, they have to cut live green timber only, with the allocation dropped down from 8 tonne to 6 tonne annually.

My CFA contacts tell me the changes in the rules had a profound effect.

Firstly, apparently in alpine regions it can take about 3 yrs for cut timber to fully dry out before it can be used in one of those expensive slow burners like a space heater or a wood burning Auger stove. If you don't dry it out properly it creates havoc with the heater or stove, so everybody dries their timber.

Secondly, this means that in his highest fire risk areas people now only cut down green living trees, leaving the highly combustible dry fallen timber and branches in the undergrowth, and around the house they have up to 18 tonne of cut timber drying(The 6 tonne in-use pile, and 2 years in advance with up to another 12 tonnes)!

Finally, the bush is full of dead decaying trees, probably from fires, that fall without notice on camper-vans, tents, rare or endangered wallabies, wombats, CAF volunteers or off-road vehicles. Not one has managed to hit a passing politician or Prahran based environmentalist yet, but in the alpine region outside of Falls Creek they are rarer than a Yowie apparently!

It's tough to blame the residents when you find bureaucracy so hard at work! (Downhill skiing it seems! :o)
2
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Bush Fires
Last post by Gointocarlton -
Whilst not related specifically to the bush fires, I have a friend who works in industry that falls under Parks and Environment. He has been telling for me years these guys (relevant ministers in government and in the Parks offices) are utterly clueless. It therefore doesn't surprise me the forests are a mess.
3
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Bush Fires
Last post by LP -
At the top of the list are the premiers and ministers responsible for land management, such as it is, and bushfire policy, and the public servants in their departments with jurisdiction over forests and national parks. State governments in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have palpably failed to do the most important job they were elected to do: protect the lives and livelihoods of their citizens and the health of their environment. And their public servants have failed to do the job they are being paid to do: serve the public.
I tend to agree with Thry, while I agree about the waste, waste of money, opportunity and initiatives, the Feds wield far more influence than they are willing to admit.

They'll turn up to spruik their contribution when a new freeway, tunnel or bridge opens, but they 'll evaporate the minute something like this happens with comments like it's a state issue. Yet roads, forests, farms, rivers, lakes and bays are all infrastructure.

 The truth sits somewhere between State run and Federally financed.

A good example is the sale of the Port of Melb, the State made the decision and cut the deal, which the Feds had to tick off. But the Feds also claimed a big slice of the cake while the State argued it should get it all the funds! As far as I know the state lost the debate!
4
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Bush Fires
Last post by flyboy77 -
So much for not burning off, the gift that keeps on giving!

Run off into creeks from the rain is already killing fish by the thousands according to reports coming from East Gippsland this morning.

I must admit I'm very sceptical about the previous conditions preventing burn-off, so is my brother who is CFA and lives near a state forest. He' told me they have been begging the DSE to let them do control burns for three years and they keep getting refused permission with claims it was too dry. But he said the peaks of some areas near him had snow on them, while other peaks had been cleared of all trees for, wait for it, wind turbines!

So we suspect the real reason for missing targets and resorting to "strategic burns" comes courtesy of some bean-counter somewhere who now has a fat bonus for cutting/saving million$ from the spend on forestry management! ;)

I think the correct term to describe the situation is "Cluster of Fork", or something like that!

Bet article I've seen on topic.

https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2020/01/an-inferno-of-incompetence-and-obfuscation/

"It is very obvious who the people are who should be held accountable for the current mess.

At the top of the list are the premiers and ministers responsible for land management, such as it is, and bushfire policy, and the public servants in their departments with jurisdiction over forests and national parks. State governments in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria have palpably failed to do the most important job they were elected to do: protect the lives and livelihoods of their citizens and the health of their environment. And their public servants have failed to do the job they are being paid to do: serve the public.

Under the Australian Constitution land management, and therefore bushfire management, is the responsibility of the states. It is state governments which decide how crown land will be managed, and how the protection of communities and their assets from bushfire damage will be organised.

Local government authorities are also high on the list of those accountable — and here again state governments bear responsibility, as they should never have allowed them to get away with the nonsenses we have seen coming out of town halls over recent years with respect to vegetation clearing and building approvals. Some premier or minister should have cracked down hard on this foolishness, and cracked down hard.

Of all the things that perplex me about the current mess the most significant is this: the blatant ignoring  by premiers, ministers  and agency bureaucrats of the warnings of bushfire scientists  that a disaster was imminent and, on top of that, their failure to study bushfire history.  Our climate, even the ‘pre-climate-change climate’,  our vegetation and the abundant sources of ignition mean that we are inherently a bushfire-prone country. And even on top of all that,  our governments and bureaucrats have been provided, over and over and over again, with evidence that killer bushfires will occur in Australia unless pre-emptive action is taken.  Not just here, but in California, Canada, Greece and Portugal — anywhere in the world with hot dry summers, periodic droughts and flammable vegetation."
5
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Last post by Thryleon -
^^

Don't get me wrong, mother nature can and will cause a variety of unforseen circumstances, but screwushima is literally a freak act of nature that caused their problems.  If we dont do things because of the threat of mother nature, then realistically we may as well have remained in caves keeping the power off altogether.

The big question that I have that I have literally seen not one person talking about 13 pages about the environment is as follows:

Given what we understand about nature, and the fact that it is a well known fact that cloud seeding technology exists (yes we create the conditions which cause rain artificially read more here: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/cloud.htm) what piques my interest is whether or not this is a bigger factor towards climate change than anything else we can conceive.

What is the ongoing effect of seeding our own clouds on the overall environment?

Im led to believe that the world is a delicate eco system (studies show this is true of every environment that occurs naturally) so modifying one part of a natural cycle would only naturally lead to modifications that are both foreseen and unforseen wouldnt it?
6
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Bush Fires
Last post by LP -
So much for not burning off, the gift that keeps on giving!

Run off into creeks from the rain is already killing fish by the thousands according to reports coming from East Gippsland this morning.

I must admit I'm very sceptical about the previous conditions preventing burn-off, so is my brother who is CFA and lives near a state forest. He' told me they have been begging the DSE to let them do control burns for three years and they keep getting refused permission with claims it was too dry. But he said the peaks of some areas near him had snow on them, while other peaks had been cleared of all trees for, wait for it, wind turbines!

So we suspect the real reason for missing targets and resorting to "strategic burns" comes courtesy of some bean-counter somewhere who now has a fat bonus for cutting/saving million$ from the spend on forestry management! ;)

I think the correct term to describe the situation is "Cluster of Fork", or something like that!
7
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Last post by LP -
Nuclear appears to be the most environmentally friendly of all the options available provided there's no meltdown...
Not to mention Japan which is now building modern coal to supplement remaining nuclear, and it's turning nuclear plants back on slowly as are some of the European states as you mention. Two reasons seem to be primary concerns, reliability of energy supply and the unsubsidised ongoing cost of green energy. Green activists make claims that countries like Japan are addicted to nuclear, but that claim doesn't stack up as many of the same countries are actually providing the green energy innovation as well.

In fairness I don't think we can compare Three Mile Island or Chernobyl to a modern plant, and as much as screwushima(Cop this autocorrect mods, some activist is taking the piss!) Daiichi now presents some problems there may have been the odd external influence. Those old plants, the design, construction and location, are relics compared to modern plants. It's like comparing a Model-T Ford to a Tesla. But in fairness, even the situation with coal plants is pretty much the same, we talk about our Latrobe Valley facilities but these are dinosaurs compared to modern plants, the main difference being the old plants lack of ability to ramp production to meet demand, they are too slow to react so they leave them running wasting far too much resource. It's like leaving your car running overnight so it can ready to go at breakfast! In fairness nuclear plants are similar, they leave them idling 24x7, but they don't consume much resource or produce greenhouse gas in that state.
8
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Deer in the Headlights
Last post by Thryleon -
I heard a story about the Netherlands.

Apparently they turned off their nuclear plants to go green and focus on solar and wind.

Apparently they had to have coal powered backup to cover the shortfall in green technology.

On a side note building a giant solar farm comes with it's own environmental drawbacks.  Bird populations suffer due to radiation and reflection of said panels.

Nuclear appears to be the most environmentally friendly of all the options available provided there's no meltdown...
9
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Bush Fires
Last post by Thryleon -
State Gov can often struggle to achieve its targets due to federal policy.  I.e.  funding targets. 
10
Blah-Blah Bar / Re: Bush Fires
Last post by flyboy77 -
Disagree strongly Dodge.

Fires can't be intense, or long lived, if there is little fuel load.

It is a very basic, understood equation - and recognised globally without question (Byram's Fire Intensity Equation)

It's the one thing man can control. And we FAIL to control it. Fail miserably in fact (NSW are no different it seems).

And all the experts know that once the intensity level passes a point - it's uncontrollable - so mitigation/suppression efforts are futile.

Even if you buy (to some extent) the shortened burn off season, someone has f...up badly here.

The RC said burn off 5%, they burn off less than 2%. Massive, massive difference.

Do  the maths on the extra fuel load on the ground....

It happens time after time after time.

That's inexcusable, yet everyone bleats at Scomo (major dill granted).

They should be howling for the blood of Dan and Gladys.