Australia faces rethink: prepares for long-term bushfires and air pollution
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
People forget that Australian bush forest needs to burn. That either happens with small fires frequently, or big fires infrequently. Those are the choices. Not burning at all is effectively choosing a massive fire very infrequently.
You could chop the trees down, but that would leave you with no forest. It's not just mature trees that drop fuel, even growing trees do this.
If you have a forest in Australia[0], it has to burn regularly. It's not like Europe or America, where you can cheerfully build your house in the woods and it's all very pretty. If you build your house in the bush, then you have to cope with the fires.
Good to see the Guardian article talking about adaptation for once. One possible answer is to create houses that won't burn, and that are sealed from the heat and smoke.
[0] I gather that Tasmanian forest are less reliant on fire, so the situation may be different there.
It's not like there haven't been any "small" fires in the preceding years?
Every acre of bush needs to burn every few years. If it doesn't, fuel load builds up and then there's a huge fire.
There's also been a lot of talk about opposition from left-ist parties to backburning and clear-felling, when their real policies are actually based on what the science recommends, which is a lot more complicated than either do or do not backburn. (I doubt that allowing unchecked clear-felling is a good strategy either - grass fires can rip through paddocks as they do forests.)
Bush fires are of course down across the world[1] and continues to decrease, Australia is probably going down but it's hard to tell relative to death tolls since data is mostly a few large incidents. It might just be hitting a local maxima.
On a bright note education about airborne pollution is up and getting the attention it deserves.
[1] https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/did-2019-really-bring-us-un...