National Bushfire & Climate Summit

--

The Climate Council is Australia's leading independent, community-funded climate change communications organisation. We're a catalyst propelling Australia to take bold, effective steps to address the climate crisis.

We're made up of some of the country’s leading climate scientists, health, renewable energy and policy experts, as well as a team of staff, and a huge community of volunteers and supporters who power our work.

Find out more and connect with us here:

[feemcdonald]

Brilliant you all speak reason and give me hope

[deirdresparrius]

Dempster still has the skills of a great moderator. Intersting input from all these participants.

[margaretgollagher]

Love this: "Whether governments like it or not, communities are determined that we are going to work together. That's what this has demonstrated, and if I was a good political leader, I'd want to be a part of it...we really hope they will partner with us, because there is a huge amount of community goodwill and determination because lives really are at stake...that's what great political leadership looks like - to get behind this and not wait for the next disaster to come..." Yes, exactly. Music to my ears.

[michaeloneal]

I find that this chat is good but I feel the lack of input from the federal government will dampen the enthusiasm of this part of the conversation. I think Oliver is right in saying about the divide in the way we manage fires, his peoples have had 40000 years of managing fires, whites have had 200 years and made a mess of it. Let us work with our first nations people and ask them to kindly work with us to manage the fires for country and environment and all the wildlife we depend on.

[vernaxxx]

Having skimmed through the plan, a couple of points : it's a report based on the opinions of this group of distinguished people (ie it's an argument from authority, not a scientific investigation - necessarily due to the time frame). What I miss, here and elsewhere, is any scientific evidence that indigenous land management practices are a good match to current objectives in land management. It seems always to be presented in a warm and fuzzy way. My understanding is that their fire practices aimed at increasing the population of game animals. They did change the environment, promoting particular types of vegetation and driving megafauna to extinction, apparently. If they also prevented wildfire, let this be scientifically established, it's a bit early to say "let's do it" in an uncritical way. Any sort of regular fire regime is going to change the composition of the bushland. We need to consider if and why this is desirable. That "fuel" that is referred to are native plants which maintain their own distinct fauna populations. Are they not desirable because they are flammable? Might as well say that because trees are flammable, they should all be cut down! Some clear thinking is required here.
Point number two : unless I missed it, there is no reference to the need for mass reforestation of cleared land. Trees mitigate the effects of climate change - we should be out there planting trees in their billions. We have lost millions of trees in the bushfires, and as a sequel many many more are being cut down. I have seen this in my immediate environment. Neighbours who might have had problems previously in getting permits to cut down trees have used the fire aftermath as an excuse to cut down trees dead and recovering, en masse. Near Eden I saw hundreds of acres of burnt bush which has been clearfelled. I note the recommendations re logging, but our privately owned lands need to be protected also. There need to be powerful incentives to preserve and restore our trees which contribute so much to the environment.

[margaretgollagher]

talk to collaborative governance people - e.g. at Curtin University's Sustainability Policy Institute (CUSP). The collaboration is a governance issue. It's very possible. I've had preliminary discussions with DFES, in WA, for instance.