For politicians, the problem with bushfires is that it becomes necessary to throw money at the victims, but when people are hurting and looking for someone to blame, sometimes less is more. The guiltiest looking politician can be the one who shovels too much cash, sheds the most insincere crocodile tears, and engages in the most ridiculous displays of faked public sympathy (see Victorian Premier John Brumby's display on the Sunday night news).
When the politicians are finished handing out lollies and the reality of the situation sinks in, the victims will be looking for the reasons why so many structures, many of which had stood for over a century, were able to be swept away with such ease, and why so many people found it impossible to find places to shelter from the inferno.
It is only a matter of time before people begin to realise that the real reason for the loss of so many lives and structures was that state and local government environmental regulations, introduced in the 1980s and 1990s, prevent residents from felling large trees on their properties, irrespective of whether they pose a fire danger to structures. Now I'm not in favour of people felling forestland willy nilly, but there is definitely a case to be made for replacement of large eucalypts with less flamable varieties, especially where their canopies pose a danger to structures.
The lessons for state governments are.
Native trees = native scrub
Native scrub = bushfires
Bushfires = loss of life.
Therefore, alter environmental regulations to allow clearing of native bush around structures.
But am I missing the point? As Roman emperor Nero knew full well:
fires = a great distraction for the general public
great distractions = less public opposition
less public opposition = less incentive for government to prevent fires.
Are we likely to see change? Not unless it is made clear that the government is responsible for the fires and they are punished in the opinion polls.
No comments:
Post a Comment