Free Markets, Free People


When “Green” Turns Deadly

Some real anger is welling up down under against some “green” laws which prevented residents from taking prudent fire control measures which may have prevented both property destruction and deaths:

ANGRY residents last night accused local authorities of contributing to the bushfire toll by failing to let residents chop down trees and clear up bushland that posed a fire risk.

During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne’s northern fringe, Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council’s help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” he said.

As many as 230 feared dead in Australian bushfire

As many as 230 feared dead in Australian bushfire

Sound familiar California? And there are other places as well where environmental activists have successfully blocked forest management procedures which help inhibit the type of holocaust loosed in the bush of Australia and in the California fires of a year or so ago.

It seems, when given the opportunity, environmentalists tend toward the extreme. The result in Australia, of course, just as in California, was the total destruction of all the trees they were supposedly saving. Not doing what anyone with common sense would call prudent has also lead to the deaths of not only masses of wildlife, but fellow human beings as well.

There was widespread applause when Nillumbik Mayor Bo Bendtsen said changes were likely to be made about the council’s policy surrounding native vegetation.

But his response was not good enough for Mr Spooner: “It’s too late now mate. We’ve lost families, we’ve lost people.”

Congratulations.

~McQ

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

9 Responses to When “Green” Turns Deadly

  • I will point up that green is usually at least problematic if not fatal.

    Example: The push toward smaller vehicles, for example; the number of people who have died in cars too small for the task is a question that none of the greens and certainly none of the nanny state wonks will answer.

    Of course, there’s the big push toward MBTE, which was supposed to be green. Oops. How many illnesses did that cause? And what will it cause in future, despite having been banned by the government that mandated it?

    And while I understand it, I chafe a bit, Bruce, at your use of  the phrase ‘common sense’, when so many of the ‘green initiatives’ are supposedly ‘common sense’ as well. Granted the phrase gets twisted, but there it is.

    However that may be… remember something please; I told you a few weeks ago, that it’s hard to control and redistrubute wealth based on the idea that what global warming there is, is caused by the sun.  I tell you now, this is merely more of the same. That such control, such central planning, is proven to be the exact opposite of beneficial,  matters not to the Enviro-wchakjob crowd. They’re not about to give up their control level on society, and the actions of individuals, regardless of whom it hurts, or how disproven their stated reasoning is. The question is, how many more people will have to die, how many more jobs will be lost, how much more progress will be sacrificed before we stop listening to the greens?

  • Sound familiar California? And there are other places as well where environmental activists have successfully blocked forest management procedures which help inhibit the type of holocaust loosed in the bush of Australia and in the California fires of a year or so ago.

    That’s dead on, Bruce. I used to represent timber companies who specialized in not only forest management logging, but also salvage logging. In the former instance, procedures that resulted in healthier forests (clearing underbrush, sick and dying trees, broken stands, etc.) were routinely stopped by environmental groups who would tie up the federal government procedures involved in selling timber for years. Typically, much of the hype against the logging had to do with “selling our forests for profit to plunderers” and the like. If someone was making a buck, IOW, then it had to be bad and against the public interest.

    The worst cases, however, always involved salvage logging. After a fire sweeps through a forest, the landscape may look bleak, but there is still a lot of salvageable timber available. Timber companies have (had? Most are gone now) become very good at getting into the areas with minimal impact and removing the salvageable wood. If that wood is left in place it attracts all sorts of infestation from forest pests that will breed, multiply and then move on very quickly to the healthy stands nearby. The end result is that devastated forest lands which are left un-salvaged create the conditions that lead to further fires and destruction. Again, the main reason these sorts of operations are opposed is that timber companies make money off of the operations (as, actually, does the government).

    • MichaelWIf someone was making a buck, IOW, then it had to be bad and against the public interest.

      You just explained the liberal view of capitalism.

  • My in-laws live in the box canyons southeast of Billings, MT.  They’ve had two major fires in the area around their house in 2006 and 2007.  Fire officials have told them the only reason their house is still standing is that they cleared brush and trees from around their house.  When giving public education seminars, the same officials have actually used the in-laws’ work around their house as an example of what to do.

    Common sense (and unfortunately fire) trumps enviro-whackos every time.

  • Well, I’m not holding my breath for the greens to admit fault. I mean, they caused a global famine by pushing for ethanol and have never admitted to that.
    I have some relatives (all of whom are fine, physically) but they’re all happy lefties and greenies and I doubt they have any clue that they might have contributed to their own endangerment. Liberalism is an ideology about action, not consequences.

  • meant to say, “I have some relatives in Melbourne, Victoria…”, but it got cut when editing.

  • This is a classic Nixonian example with the UK Met Office Hadley Centre doing a “limited hangout“.

  • Sorry the questioner didn’t get Al Gore’s message, fewer people, fewer global warmers. Can’t make a green omelette without breaking some eggs.

  • It’s not only that, the environmental movement effectivly forbade fire reduction burning.

    Also check out “THEY were labelled law breakers, fined $50,000 and left emotionally and financially drained. But seven years after the Sheahans bulldozed trees to make a fire break — an act that got them dragged before a magistrate and penalised — they feel vindicated. Their house is one of the few in Reedy Creek still standing….”

michael kors outlet michael kors handbags outlet michael kors factory outlet