The hazards of the burn off argument
Posted by John, February 14th, 2009 - under ALP, Australian politics, Bush, Bushfires, Environment, Global Warming, Greenhouse gases, Howard, Labor Party, Obama, The Liberals, The Right.
Dr Don Driscoll, from the Fenner School of Environment and Society at the Australian National University, has an interesting letter in the Canberra Times criticising ‘the burn off will prevent extreme fires’ argument.
He describes the ‘calls for more land clearing and fuel reduction burning’ as ‘reactionary’ and ‘muddleheaded’.
Why?
He says:
Such measures wouldn’t stop extreme fires, but would have a substantial [adverse] impact on native species.
Rather he suggests addressing infrastructure and stopping greenhouse gas pollution. He finishes off by saying:
Climate change is expected to make extreme fire weather more common, raising the question of who should really be rotting in jail if the predictions are right and these natural disasters become more common.
Good question. Some suggestions. Kevin Rudd. Peter Garrett. Penny Wong. George Bush. Barack Obama. John Howard. All of the above?
Advertisement
Comments
Comment from juan
Time February 14, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Abigail who do you beg to differ with, John or Dr Don Driscoll? Please explain.
Comment from Abigail Petit
Time February 15, 2009 at 6:28 am
with John.
Comment from Abigail Petit
Time February 14, 2009 at 4:27 pm
I beg to differ, sir.