SMH (Australia)
One of the biggest furphies in the supercharged debate in the wake of
Victoria's bushfires is the claim by green groups that they are great
supporters of hazard reduction burning.
Also known as prescribed
burning, this scientific regime creates a mosaic of lightly burned land
at regular intervals of five to seven years, thus reducing surface fuel
loads by varying amounts within the mosaic.
This reduction of fuel loads is expensive, but Australia's
pre-eminent bushfire researchers, such as the CSIRO's Phil Cheney and
Monash University's David Packam, say it has been proven to reduce the
power and intensity of fire. Every bushfire inquiry since the 1939
Stretton royal commission has recommended increased prescribed burning
to mitigate the effects of inevitable wildfire.
It is a matter of
public record that green groups have long opposed such systematic
prescribed burning, as is evident in their submissions to bushfire
inquiries from as far back as 1992. They complain of a threat to
biodiversity, including to fungi, from "frequent burning" regimes and
urge resources be spent on water bombers and early detection, as well as
on stopping climate change - good luck with that."
No comments:
Post a Comment