zlacker

>>vanusa+(OP)
And this kind of thing is why Australia is on fire.

>>pjc50+n8
I recall also reading that Australia did not undertake sufficient controlled burns this year to reduce the amount of combustible fuel in the bush. There has been a lot of finger-pointing to suggest that this is because of the Green Party (and their supporters) pushing back on controlled burns. This push back has been around for some time now (2013: https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/miranda-devine/green...). It has come to a head recently with arguments between the National Party and the Greens (https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/greens-polici...), with the Greens now saying they do support controlled burns.

I'm not familiar with Australian politics deeply, and I think drier conditions can make fires worse (by adding more plant matter to the fuel stores in the bush), but I think there are many factors involved, especially considering Australia has a regularly recurring bushfire season historically.

>>throwa+sf
What you've been reading is quite obviously BS (both your links are to Murdoch media). The greens haven't been against controlled burns for decades but even if they were against they've only got 3/135 seats giving them no power to dictate policy.

There have been less controlled burns than desired, but that's mostly because of budget cuts and a much longer fire season due to climate change.