Bushfires mean we must reappraise our approach

These bushfires have changed my view about climate change and its potential impact. This has the makings of an environmental disaster. We have millions of trees absorbing carbon over many decades, only to release it back into the atmosphere in a matter of days. This is the opposite of emissions reduction; even the most drastic action now will take decades to have any effect, although that is no reason not to do it.

Furthermore, there is no guarantee that the bush will regenerate in the way it used to with higher temperatures and lower rainfall; mature trees have a canopy that protects the soil from drying out and roots that prevent soil erosion. With further climate change, what chance do seeds and saplings have?

So what can be done? Clearly the Prime Minister has received some good advice. As Bill Clinton would say, “it’s the fuel load, stupid”. But if all we do is burn off, that doesn’t solve the carbon problem and increases fire risk. While removing fuel is necessary, this situation presents an opportunity to think outside the box and revise our approach to environmental management, stepping away from the idea that we leave our national parks and wilderness areas alone. For example, what is the point of aspiring to pristine and unspoilt country when the reality is burnt to a crisp?

We should start thinking about wilderness as a renewable resource and manage it accordingly. This may be heresy to the Greens, but the eventual alternative is a blackened landscape incapable of regeneration.

Alan Dormer, South Yarra, Vic

It seems ironical that in a few days, while almost half of Australia is either on fire or has been destroyed by fire, we are about to fill the sky with festive fireworks. Wouldn’t it be better to direct the money spent on fireworks to the recovery?

Matthew J. O’Riley, Kuranda, Qld

Is Australia living still living in the past in relation to bushfires? I find it incredible that the lives and wellbeing of many Australians are being treated as if they were somehow worthless by the powers that be.

I find it absurd that in 2019, controlling fires is still carried out by volunteers who are themselves risking their lives and properties while thousands of fit young men and women are undergoing military training as part of their daily activities.

All those people in the military should be used for the common benefit of the country and trained instead in fire control, pollution control and many other services to the nation.

Richard A. Greenwood, Glenside, SA

It is devastating to see the loss of lives and homes in fires. While climate change may be part of the problem, it will take many years to reduce bushfire risks. What should be achieved in a short space of time is to reduce the risk of such fires breaking out.

Reports from homeowners who have lost everything indicate that many of the fires in the Blue Mountains and the Adelaide Hills have been in areas that have not been burnt for many years. Some local councils have allowed homes to be built in dense bush.

Ken Waters, Maida Vale, WA

This bushfire season has highlighted the inadequacy of our firefighting resources. Many forested areas are inaccessible, and where trucks can reach them there is limited water supply. When the ash finally settles, someone will point out the need for more air power. This will require heavy expenditure and if the government baulks at this, the focus will quickly shift to the billions committed to the submarine project.

To order four French submarines, needing modification to diesel power, and weaponry sourced from a third party in the US, would have been called heroic. To order 12 surely has to have been a typo.

William Mapleston, Ashgrove, Qld

Scott Morrison is to be commended for dismissing Swedish activist Greta Thunberg’s call for Australia to do more on climate change in the wake of the bushfires. The PM is displaying sound judgment by remaining calm amid mounting hysteria.

Labor frontbencher Murray Watt says most Australians agree with Thunberg’s call for stronger action. If that is the case, the majority would have voted for Labor’s economy-destroying 45 per cent emissions reduction target. Instead, voters used their common sense by opting for the Coalition.

Dale Ellis, Innisfail, Qld