Bushfire Myths in Australia
"The bush will carry a fire regardless of what you do beforehand. In extreme conditions, bushfires could rage across treeless paddocks rendered bare by drought and feeding livestock. [Hazard reduction] has a negligible effect on slowing or stopping a fire." Andrew Cox, head of the National Parks Association of NSW
Bushfires are to Australians what earthquakes are to the Japanese. They are simply a fact of life and a threat to be endured. Despite taking a lot of lives and doing untold economical damage, something positive does come out of them. In disaster, communities are drawn together and some of the best aspects of the human character, such as helping others, are brought to the surface.
Although bushfires are a hazard of living in Australia, they really don’t need to be. The economic and human cost of bushfires has been made much worse by poorly designed houses, irrational burning regimes and naïve myths that fire somehow helps the ecosystem. In a nutshell, the maintenance of eucalypt or pine forests near suburbia, for ideological or commercial reasons, makes Australia a very fire susceptible country. A wiser alternative would be to plant fire-resistant foreign species that not only are less likely to burn, but can actually lock up enough moisture to act as a firebreak when a bushfire is ranging through native forests.
Myth 1 - Bushfires are good for the ecosystem
Contrary to what some silly myths propose, fire is devastating for an ecosystem. When a fire rips through, the two things needed to stimulate plant growth - nutrients and water - go up in flames. Furthermore, in the post-fire desolation, there is little grass cover capable of holding the soil together. Wind or rain can then result in the ecosystem being stripped of the vital ingredient needed to rebuild itself. Because fire reduces the productive capacity of the land, it also reduces the potential biodiversity of the ecosystem.
50,000 years ago, human’s fondness for fire resulted in climate change and mass extinction. Large-scale burning of the Australian land turned rainforest into savannah, and then into desert. After the foliage was razed to the ground, rain fell and soaked into the sand or quickly evaporated under the scorching sun. In turn, a reduction in humidity decreased the number of clouds forming.
In 2004 and 2005, Dr John Magee and Dr Michael Gagana from the Australian National University showed that burning caused a decrease in the exchange of water vapour between the biosphere and atmosphere. Clouds stopped forming and the annual monsoon over central Australia failed. Whereas once the Nullarbor Plain was home to forests and tree dwelling Kangaroos, now it is desert. Likewise, Lake Eyre, formerly a deep-water lake in Australia's interior, is now a huge salt flat occasionally covered by ephemeral floods. (1) A small change caused a chain reaction that led to a large change.
In addition to causing ecological collapse, the intentional use of fire probably eliminated most of Australia’s predators. The first to go were the Megalania and Marsupial Lion. Continued burning probably resulted in the Devil and Thylacine eventually going extinct from the mainland as well. (The two only survived in Tasmania where fire was not using in hunting.) Other predators, such as the Roseburg Goanna, were also reduced in numbers due to fire. It was only in fire free ecosystems such as Kangaroo Island where they remained in such high numbers that they were able to completely eradicate rabbits.
The deceptive nature of recovery
Photo taken in 2007, four years after the 2003 ACT firestorm, an uncontrolled burn. Eucalyptus trees use weakness in the ecosystem as the opportune time to push for individual dominance. Fire has not imparted some magical energy that stimulates growth.
Myth 2 - Bushfires increase biodiversity
Even though fire is devastating for the Australian ecosystem, a few silly myths have developed that the Australian ecosystem somehow needs it. For example, Allen Greer, a herpetologist from the Australian Museum, writes:
"In fact, many Australian plants need fire to survive...Fires remove competing plants, open up the canopy to greater sunlight and enrich the soil with ash from the previous generation of plants. This creates ideal conditions for the growth of certain short-lived but fast-growing species, such as acacias. Further, some plants have seed capsules that only release their seeds after being singed or seeds that need to be scorched to germinate." (1)
Perhaps the silly myths can be explained by the appearance of the bush a few weeks after a bushfire. There is an explosion of greenery as trees regrow and seeds germinate. Looks; however, are deceiving. The explosion of greenery is nothing more than plants using weakness in the ecosystem as the opportune time to push for individual dominance. These explosions use the plant's energy reserves, and most of the new plants will eventually die. If another fire came through, the explosion of greenery would be less. If too many fires came through, the ecosystem would collapse. Although some native plant seeds only germinate when exposed to smoke (not singed), it is wrong to say the Australian bush needs to be burnt. Likewise, although a little bit of ash enriches the soil, the amount of nutrients released by a fire is far far less than the enrichment of the soil via a process of decomposition. Needless to say, the "scientists" that burn the bush to increase its fertility don't burn their backyard gardens to increase their fertilty. Due to some quirk of psychology, the scientists are logical when it comes to their own gardens, but ideological when it comes to the Australian bush.
Another silly myth is that fire management adds to biodiversity. According to herpetologist Allen Greer,
"Humans have been using fire to manage the Australian landscape for tens of thousands of years. Today fire is being used increasingly to promote long-term biodiversity. "
The theory goes that if the bush is intentionally burnt in patches, then the burnt area will develop a slightly different ecosystem to the unburnt area. In the long run, a mosaic of ecosystems will be created.
Words like "mosaic" are emotionally pleasing and indeed selective human input into an area will result in a "mosaic" of slightly different ecosystems. By the same logic, mosaic logging should add to biodiversity because a logged area will have a slightly different ecosystem to an unlogged area. Nevertheless, burning (and logging) decreases the productive capabilities of the Australian land and with a lower productive capability, overall biodiversity is reduced. Afterall, rainforests have more biodiversity than grasslands and deserts. If humans really wanted to intervene to increase biodiversity, it would be better to implement "mosaic watering", "mosaic mulching" , "moasic seeding" or "mosaic fetilisation" instead of "mosaic burning."
Biodiversity - A changed ecosystem but a more productive ecosystem?
Photo taken in 2007, four years after the 2003 ACT firestorm, an uncontrolled burn. Whether a "hot" or "cold" burn, a fire changes the biological composition of an ecosystem, but it is wrong to say it increases biodiversity. Biodiversity is increased by increasing the productivity of the ecosystem. Much like logging, fire reduces productvity.
Myth 3 - The only way to stop communities being destroyed by bushfires is to have burning regimes
A third silly myth is that controlled burning is necessary to reduce fuel loads for bushfires. After the 2003 firestorm that threatened Canberra houses, the ACT Government established the McLeod Inquiry to report on how the fires could have been avoided, and homes saved. The inquiry blamed the government for not reducing the build up of fuel with periodic burning. According to the theory, if there had been less fuel, there would have been less heat and fire fighters could have put the fires out.
Like many government reports that have shaped Canberra into anything but a world renowned city, the report was flawed. The firestorm started in a national park, then hit Canberra via a pine plantation corridor. The fireball was then so huge that it flew across tarred roads, lawns, grasslands and then onto houses that simply caught alight.
Although fuel loads could have been reduced by burning the eucalypt forests, the pine forests where the firestorm really picked up heat could not be burnt without losing their commercial value. Controlled "cold burns" in the pine plantation simply weren't an option. Furthermore, no controlled burns could have occured in the suburbs that got hit because there was nothing to burn. The only thing that could have been burnt was the national park, and it was too big to burn safely.
The real problem was that a silly public servant had linked the city to a eucalyptus-based national park via a pine plantation corridor. It was a disaster waiting to happen. Needless to say, the government report blamed itself for not being rigerous enough in its fuel reducing (cold burn) policies. It didn't blame itself for doing the equivalent of connecting houses to a service station via a line of petrol-filled barrels.
Since the release of the report, the ACT government has kept people employed by periodically burning native bushland on the edges of Canberra's suburbs. Although the burning regimes show that the government is “doing something”, they provide no protection at all. A eucalypt forest, whether it is burnt once every year, or once every 100 years, is still a fire hazard. Oil rich leaves are always read to go up in flames. Leaves on the ground always decompose slowly. Sticks always litter the ground or hang out of trees to provide kindling. In fact, fire regimes can increase fuel loads because they reduce decomposition, reduce locked up moisture, and increase the number of dead branches, sticks and tree trunks. Admittedly, they consume the compacted leaves on the ground, but compacted leaves are not always a problem.
No longer a fire hazard????
Cold burn designed to "reduce" fuel loads. The burns often consume leaves but not the stems or tree trunks, which then sit as fuel for another fire. Adjoining areas that were not subjected to "cold burns" have more leaf litter, more dry grass, more top soil, but less dry sticks and less dead branches. Whether they have more fuel really depends on how fuel is measured and which type of fuel is considered to be most dangerous. For some people, compacted leaves are more of a fire hazard than elevated sticks. For other people, elevated sticks pose more of a fire hazard. Which is worse probably depends on the intensity of the fire, amount of moisture in the soil and wind direction.
As well as being shown in the Canberra firestorm, the futility of fuel-reducing “cold burns” was also shown in the 2009 Victorian firestorm. An estimated 100 lives were lost when the town of Marysville went up in flames. Controlled burns had been used to reduce fuel loads around the town in 81, 82, 85, 87, 99, 04, 05 and 08. The fuel reducing strategies did very little. Even clear felling did little. Flames jumped 150-meter wide fire breaks as well as major highways on their way to the town.
After the 2003 firestorm, the ACT government did something sensible by not replanting the pine trees in the corridor that connects Canberra to the national park. Instead, the government established the Canberra International Arboretum and Gardens. In the sales pitch to the general public, the government said that the Arboretum:
“holds potential as a recreational, educational, scientific and tourist asset, as well as being a beautiful and national icon.” (2)
" provides an opportunity to conserve threatened species, a place for community recreation and a valuable resource for ongoing education and research" (3)
In truth, the Arboretum was probably created to be a fire break. Pine plantations and eucalypt forests will always be fire hazards that will put communities in danger during the summer months. On the other hand, many plant species from the northern hemisphere do not produce foliage that encourages bushfires and as an added benefit, their moist leaves trap flying embers. Although trapping embers often results in their own destruction, it also dampens the flames and slows or halts the fire's spread. Potentially, the Arboretum is like replacing one of the barrels of petrol that connect Canberra to the national park with a barrel of water. Although not perfect, it is a far better option that a cold burn intended to make one of the barrels 3/4 quarters full of petrol, instead of filled to the brim.
Dealing with ideology or excusing government stupidity - Built on the site of a burnt-out pine plantation, the aboretum was probably conceived to be a firebreak but sold with emotive cosmopolitan arguments about protecting endagered flora of the world.
While the aberetum is an ok fire break, the ideal one is a fruit orchard because they capture flying embers without being ignited by them. As an additional benefit, fruit trees don't contribute to fuel build up. The leaves are either eaten by animals, such as kangaroos or possums, or quickly decompose due to their high moisture content. Although they need more water than native trees, there are many fire prone areas of Australia where they can survive without watering. Even if watering is needed, it is far better to have water already locked up in trees before a bushfire rather than dropped it from helicopters during one.
Even though fruit trees make great fire breaks, for ideological reasons many Australians want a home amongst the gum trees, not a home in which fruit trees separate them from gum trees. Deliberately planting foreign flora makes them feel like the evil 19th century colonists that manipulated the native ecosystem for their own benefit. They would rather burn a eucaltypt forest to show their respect to 1788 ecosystems rather than take the pragmatic steps to stop themselves being killed in a bushfire. It's well-intentioned but really not very smart. They could best help native ecosystems by planting firebreaks that slow or stop bushfires from spreading. With less bushfires, the productivity of the land and overall biodiversity would increase.
An increase in fuel after a "hot burn"
Hot burn - Plenty of fuel still exists after an uncontrolled fire. In fact, there is more fuel after the fire than before.
Cold burns - towards collapse
The aftermath of an ecosystem that is repeatedly subjected to "cold burns" (human initiated burning.) Some of the tussocks have been burnt one too many times, and have died. Decaying plant matter has been burnt, and much of the ash has washed away. The top soil is only a few millimeters thick. The ground is rock hard, and relatively exposed to the scorching sun. Rain falls on the rock hard earth, flows away or quickly evaporates. With few low level bushes, very little moisture is trapped in the ecosystem and the decomposition process is very slow.
Cold burn - Build up of fuel after a bushfire
With little decompsition, all the leaves and sticks from the euclaypts fall, are dried and sit as fuel for a potential bushfire. Even if the dead foliage could be completley removed, the oil rich leaves would always ready to go up in flames. The only real solution is to replace natives plants with lush foreign varieties that are eaten by Australian animals. Like a "cold burn", the introduction of foreign species would represent human interference in the ecosystem.
Myth 4 - Bushfires are the solution to global warming
A final silly myth is that burning the bush is the solution to global warming. This myth is actively being promoted by Dick Williams from the government-funded CSIRO. According to Williams, if an ecosystem is burnt, then it won't suffer extreme bushfires in the future. Therefore, paying people to burn the bush should be seen as a form of carbon trading. American gas company ConocoPhillips agrees, and is now paying people in West Arnhem land $1 million a year, for 17 years, to offset 100,000 tons of the refinery's own greenhouse emissions. The company has used this arrangment in "public education" campaigns demonstrating that it is an environmentally concious organisation.
|
By Andrew Harding
BBC News, Northern Australia |
|
Carbon Country
Reporter: Mark Horstman
If Williams' logic were extended, if a tank of petrol was burnt over three months it would release less CO2 than a tank that is burnt in a single day. If so, perhaps a form of carbon trading could be to buy petrol and then slowly burn it off. Furthermore, clear-felling forests should also be a form of carbon trading beause it too reduces the threat of bushfires. In fact, Japanese companies that woodchip Australian forests should be able to engage in carbon trading because they are reducing available fuel load.
The real motivation for burning-to-reduce-CO2 emissions is money. Scientists want to get money to go out bush, start some fires and then sit back with a few beers. It is a very enjoyable pastime and naturally they would love it if they could get paid at the same time. The Aboriginal angle provides a “moral” argument to justify the profit motive. Even though Aborigines never burnt the bush to reduce CO2 emissions, pretending they did looks better in a grant application. Obviously it was a wise campaign strategy because in 2009, Climate Change Minister Penny Wong and Environment Minister Peter Garrett announced a grant of $10 million dollars to scientists at the CSIRO to further their research.
Needless to say, the grant made the CSIRO very happy. While simultaneously pushing the “Aboriginal angle while disseminating information to other potential firebugs that there is profit to be made, the CSIRO’s environmental economist Scott Heckbert declared:
"Society may be moving from dismissing the indigenous presence in the landscape to acknowledging its importance and even recognising it in real dollars in markets."
Contrary to what politicians like Peter Garret and Penny Wong want voters to believe, intentionally lighting a fire only reduces the threat of more bushfires in that it reduces the productive capacity of the Australian land. If the ecosystem is not burnt to the point of collapse, the bushfire actually increases the risk of another bushfire. Because the native plants that survive have a comparatively strong ability to recover from bushfires, they have evolved to encourage bushfires so that they can maintain their dominance. As a result, the Australian ecosystem is dominated by oil rich eucalypts that dominate over lush vegetation that decomposes quickly, is enjoyed by animals and does not easily burn. Furthermore, it is only the koala that eats the eucalypts in any meaningful way. Because few animals eat the eucalypts, vegetative matter is likely to end up as fuel, rather than be turned in animal droppings that decomposs quickly back into the soil. When the ecosystem is not burnt, the thicker canopy results in more decomposition, more moisture being trapped close to the ground and less fuel ready to go up in flames. Admittedly, eucalypt foliage decomposes very very slowly. Nevertheless, the more decomposition that occurs, the less fuel that will be destined for a bushfire.
Myth 5 - Aborigines burnt the bush to protect it
Amongst Australian environmentalists, there is a desire to show respect to the practices of pre-1788 humans. This desire has in turn created an ideology that everything done by the pre-1788 humans must have had some kind of mystical environmental insights lost by the modern generation. Rather than change the ideology to suit the facts, facts are interpreted to fit the ideology.
In truth, the pre-1788 humans were exactly the same as all other humans that have ever lived. They manipulated the environment for their own benefit. Fire was burnt to herd kangaroos towards spears. Fire was also used to clear forests that were not liked by kangaroos. In a nutshell, fire was used in the interests to their stomachs, not the interests of the ecosystem.
Because the fire regimes were developed to benefit humans living a hunter gatherer lifestyle, they really don't have much value to humans living a settled lifestyle in houses. Despite what new age environmentalists want to believe, pre-1788 humans did not burn forests to increase biodiversity, decrease CO2 emissions, protect houses from bushfires or to eradicate invasive species of flora and fauna.
The respect for pre-1788-humans ideology has in turn been exploited by scientists. Scientists are more likely to get a grant if they can somehow give their research a respect-for-Aborigines angle. The result is that scientists, who really just want to study things being burnt down, use some dubious arguments to fool people into believing that there is something positive in their actions. There isn't. These scientists are pyromanics, motivated by greed, and are extremely dishonest.
Burning the koala and then offering her a drink
Contrary to myth, Sam the koala was not burnt during the 2009 firestorm. She was burnt a week earlier in a controlled backburn designed to make a fire break. In theory, native wildlife will run away from a controlled burn and survive. Kangaroos do, but koalas, lizards and some small marsupials are not as mobile. They just hide in logs or cling to trees and just hope for the best. Because it was a controlled burn, Sam survived with severe burns. She subsequently drank three bottles of water given to her by one of the fire fighters that had set her home alight. She was then put on a saline drip and dropped off at a wildlife refuge.
Had an uncontrolled hot burn hit her, Sam would have been roasted. In that regard, the controlled burn might have saved her life. Of course, there is not always a guarantee that an area subjected to a cold burn will suffer a hot burn in the lifetime of the animals living there.
1) http://www.amonline.net.au/factsheets/fire.htm
2)http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/arboretum/arboretum
3)http://www.cmd.act.gov.au/arboretum
