I think the basic problem is that pre 1788 you had a large workforce of
people on land managing it the whole time by mosaic burning. Since then the
workforce on the land has dwindled to such an extent that such a burning
regime is now impossible and all that can be achieved are very small scale
conservation burns, when funding, and wisdom, is available, and cosmetic
and destructive 'hazard reduction burns' which are haphazard.
John Leonard
On 5 September 2013 16:46, Ross Macfarlane (TPG) <>wrote:
> Prescribed burning is actually claimed to be a net positive for greenhouse
> emissions because small, low-intensity burns produce less emissions than
> hot, landscape-scale bushfires, and because they stimulate new growth that
> ties up carbon.
>
> Done right, this is probably a valid argument but that requires one to
> trust the Departments to do the burns right.
>
> Re the Bushfires Royal Commission recommendation for an annual burn
> target: this is still a live issue in Victoria. The target is a flat 5% of
> all public land every year (and wildfires do not get counted.) A burn every
> 20 years would drive malleefowl (for 1) to extinction if there is no
> long-unburned mallee to breed in.
>
> On the other hand, the annual target of nearly 400,000 hectares is still
> less than the Big Desert-Murray-Sunset complex fire in 2002, that nearly
> wiped out Mallee emu-wrens in South Australia. A 400,000 hectare burn in
> the wrong part of Murray Sunset and Hattah could wipe out the Victorian
> population and drive the whole species to extinction in a weekend.
>
> There is a need for some prescribed burning, for ecological reasons as
> well as for public safety. They create a mosaic of vegetation classes that
> different species need - e.g. malleefowl feed on wattle seeds etc. in
> disturbed habitat, and the Triodia that Mallee emu-wrens live in senesces
> in long unburned habitat. And the firebreaks can protect some long-unburned
> "lifeboat" patches from landscape scale bushfires.
>
> I think we need to argue the conservationists' case and keep the bastards
> honest - not blindly trust any government department, but not fight to
> despair over every hectare "lost". What we should demand is that decisions
> are backed up by science and data, not driven by political and financial
> imperatives, which is what worries us most about the Victorian approach.
>
> Ross Macfarlane
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy O'Wheel
> Sent: Thursday, September 05, 2013 3:17 PM
> To: Philip Veerman
> Cc: Roger Giller ; Birding-aus
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] the fire hazard reduction program
>
> The amount of extra heat from the sun "trapped" by the CO2 from burning
> fossil fuels is far more significant than the amount of heat generated from
> combusting those fossil fuels because the CO2 has an atmospheric half life
> of is significantly longer compared with a dissipating unit of heat. The
> heat that we receive from the sun is much greater, and the fossil fuels
> help "trap" that heat for many years. I believe the estimates are 0.018
> watts/square meter for heat generated by burning fossil fuels, while 2.1
> watts/square meter for CO2.
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> On 5 September 2013 14:33, Philip Veerman <> wrote:
>
> I have also thought that but I do not understand why more attention is not
>> devoted to that what is happening is that the solar energy that was
>> absorbed
>> into the system for many millions of years and stored as what is now
>> fossil
>> fuels, has been largely used and that energy released within about 200
>> years, ultimately as heat. Thus it is not just the burning of fossil
>> fuels
>> but the unbalance due to millions of years of accumulated solar energy
>> being
>> released almost instantaneously. Why is that not talked about as a factor
>> that impacts on warming?
>>
>> Philip
>>
>> -----Original Message-----From:
>> <>
>> <>]
>> On Behalf Of Roger Giller
>> Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013 1:58 PM To: 'Frank O'Connor';
>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] the fire
>> hazzard
>> reduction program
>>
>>
>> Frank,
>>
>> While agree with your other points I can not let the first one go
>> unchallenged.
>>
>> Burning the bush is only one step in a relatively short term cycle. As it
>> grows it sucks up carbon. When it is burnt, or dies and decays, the carbon
>> goes back into the atmosphere it came from. If the bush is burnt every X
>> number of years then on average nothing changes. (Note that I am only
>> referring here to the effect on atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the
>> ecology, which sadly is the loser in all this) The problem with climate
>> change is the burning of fossil fuels. They locked up the carbon millions
>> of
>> years ago. Life as we now know it has evolved to be happy with the
>> concentration of carbon dioxide that remained in the atmosphere, until we
>> started adding to it by accessing and burning the fossil fuels.
>>
>> Roger Giller.
>>
>> ==============================**=
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> send the message:
>> unsubscribe
>> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> to: <>
>>
>> http://birding-aus.org
>> ==============================**=
>>
>> ==============================**=
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to: <>
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ==============================**=
>
>
> ==============================**=
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to: <>
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ==============================**=
>
--
John Leonard
Canberra
Australia
www.jleonard.net
I want to be with the 9,999 other things.
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
