We are not bush fire experts. Actual experts are bound to have more and better ideas, which only need funding…
In the near or distant future, more catastrophic bushfires are guaranteed to occur. It is quite possible that the fires will become worse and soon. We need a government that is proactive rather than reactive. We have situations where various projects are rejected because of the impact on the environment, and yet the environmental damage from fires dwarfs all such projects and we are not proactively fighting to defend.
- Free fire insurance for all Australian homes. This is a win-win in general (no insurance company profits, insignificant fraud), and a major win for people who lose their homes to bush fires
- Fire breaks. Commercial forests have fire breaks to minimise the spread of fire. We need to sacrifice some bush to save most bush. And do it as gently as possible. Communities can participate
- Surveillance. A large percentage of fires are deliberately lit. Forests have few people around, and few witnesses. We need to monitor or restrict who enter bush areas
- Bunkers. A good aspect of bush fires is that they move fast. Sometimes a few minutes underground is all that is needed. We need to promote and perhaps subsidise fire bunkers for at risk properties. They are quite cheap. In the USA, tornado bunkers are commonplace. This will enable people to protect their properties and have a safe space.
Fire Breaks
Fire breaks / fire lines / fuel breaks are an existing proactive strategy for reducing the impact and spread of bushfires. With the catastrophic fires of 2019-2020, it is obvious that they didn’t do the job.
Any proactive measures we can take would be cheaper and preferable to those catastrophic fires. Especially when you consider mental health, the economy, tourism, native wildlife and the stark possibility (slight but real) that nearly all of Australia’s bush could be gone in a year of two.
After reading a lot of literature regarding firebreaks, I have come to these conclusions:
- The word firebreak can have different meanings. It can be a strip of land which had been cleared primarily so fire appliances can access fires. The key width factor is the space required for an appliance to turn around. Or it can intended to remove fuel load to stop a fire spreading, which is what we are discussing here
- There is no national strategy or standards for fire breaks. Even at state level they appear to be laws that private landholders should, but often don’t, abide by.
- They are never intended to stop catastrophic fires from spreading. They can and do stop low intensity fires.
- Cost/benefit is definitely a factor with their implementation, and with less funding there would be more and better-maintained firebreaks.
Extreme Proactive Approaches
No existing approaches are going to stop the recent catastrophes, so more radical approaches are required. We would like to consult with experts on the following ideas, getting a quick “back of the envelope” consensus, and begin implementing the recommendations immediately, while serious research is undertaken for a longer term approach.
Wider firebreaks. Existing firebreaks did not stop the spread of fires. So make them wider.
The footage of the wildfires ‘jumping’ and crossing over highways in New South Wales in 1994 not only shows the enormous power of high-wind driven fires, but also the total ineffectiveness of a 30-40m wide firebreak (such as the highway) in slowing the spread of the fire.
http://www.fireandbiodiversity.org.au/_literature_47142/Operational_Fire_Manual
Firebreaks involve splitting bushland into portions. We can begin by widening the existing fire breaks which are the most prominent and useful.
Green firebreaks. Use native vegetation that has low flammability. When it reaches sufficient height it also becomes a wind break, something clear firebreaks is missing.
Roads as firebreaks. Existing highways can have bush removed from the edges, which will have two benefits – as a firebreak, and ensuring access for fire crews and evacuations. New road firebreaks can be created for towns that are one road in and out.
Multi-purpose firebreaks. Consider their use for agriculture, tourism or leisure. In some areas they could be used for skiing. Goats are good at reducing the vegetation in fenced areas, or on leads. Bicycle trails are another possibility, or even 4WD activities which are bound to stop the growth of vegetation.
Employment. Many “work for the dole” activities are of dubious benefit. If there is the opportunity to create jobs and new skills, then additional firebreaks has great economic value.
Housing. We should consider a moratorium on building near bush, for now. While the latest building standards will most likely save some homes from burning down – primarily by restricting their ability to catch fire at all – that is simply protecting those who are uninsured and don’t have solid evacuation plans. Most people’s sentimental items are easily removed and are not bulky.
Houses built to the latest standards will still have people trying to defend them, and they will still be the priority for fire crews. When perhaps stopping the spread in general could be a better priority.
Free home insurance. For everyone. It is reasonably foolproof for the government to run, and will lessen the number of people who die protecting their home.
A federal plan and budget for firebreaks with set short-term goals that have to be met.