Select to expand quotebeefarmer said..
wow some ideas on here are pretty wacko. but i like the out of the box thinking. even the off the planet thinking is good for a laugh! just make some rain 
- way to go Macroscien, if we could do that we could end this drought once and for all, and the bushfire problems too!
I work in land and fire management in midwest WA and actually, back to the OP, some of the original question isn't so out there. often times in our extremely remote parts of the state we monitor fires from satellites only - the satellite technology to spot fires is pretty good, down to 15 minute frequency now (maybe less?) , and we often watch a fire trickle around for a few days or weeks before it runs into some bare or burnt ground or wet weather and extinguishes itself. obviously, only if there's nothing at risk from the fire.
There have been plenty of occasions where the satellite has picked up a hot spot in a very hard to get to location (no where near any access tracks), we've dispatched bombers to dump a load or two on it, and occasionally been able to put it out. Often its enough to take the heat out of it, slow down progression of the fire, and allow time for ground crews to get there and put it out before it gets to anything significant. But its extremely rare that this is sufficient to extinguish a fire by itself.
I believe there is plenty of room for improvement in the equipment and tech we use for fighting fires. e.g. our fire trucks are ok, but they're basically just tricked up commercial trucks. they get bogged pretty easy. they stake tyres. the truck cab interior melts when it gets hot, releasing all sorts of toxic gas to inhale, and aren't even insulated to protect a firefighter trapped inside. we could do better. i saw this one in action recently, definitely a step up in capability. www.facebook.com/ShireofDandaragan/posts/2140819012694697
There are many good points in the above posts - below a few things i think are worth considering.
- fuel management (prescribed burning) i believe is the only effective way to reduce the wildfire risk to acceptable levels at the landscape scale. this has its own risks, but they are manageable, and definitely preferable to the alternative (not burning, increasing risk of extreme wildfires).
- the bush needs to burn. ecologically, its important to burn most areas (in australia) - the more variation in fuel ages we have across the landscape, the better. if we dont burn the bush, it'll do it itself.
- I don't think I've ever met a professional firefighter that is a climate change denier. even in my relatively short time involved in fires (10 or so years) the difference in length of fire seasons is noticeable. we used to have a fire season, and a spring and autumn burn season. now its an extended spring -summer - autumn fire season, and we've been able to burn in the middle of winter (which wasn't possible, even 10 years ago).
Climate change and associated bushfire season changes are here now, it's not a thing of the future. unfortunately we're going to have to figure out how to deal with it before we even get close to fixing the cause of the problem.
Great post.
Do you reckon it's worth writing to that idiot deputy PM McCormack and relay your thoughts on climate change?
He seems to think anyone who links the persistent drought and wildfire threat to human induced climate change is an inner city WOKE greenie.
Select to expand quoteIan K said..Foghorn said..
www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/life-after-black-saturday-david-packham-bushfire-scientist/8248666
You won't learn anything listening to green ideology.
Just watched this guy on sky he makes way to much sense amongst the hysteria.
The video has expired on that link. Here's Dr Packham's 2009 interview, before climate change was under such a spotlight.
Did climate change even get a mention in the 2017 interview Foghorn?
The main concern many fire experts appear to have with the prospect of climate change is the effect it may have on the window of opportunity for prescribed burning. Any increase in the extremes of weather being secondary to any lost opportunities to do prescribed burning
www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-13/is-the-prescribed-burn-window-closing-in-australia/10236048
It makes sense that after 40 or 50,000 years of the eucalypt forests evolving in partnership with aboriginal fire management that they are going to go out of whack if the level of burning is suddenly reduced.
Some scientists are suggesting that humans have a far greater influence on forests, or lack thereof, than we thought.
www.newscientist.com/article/mg24432540-600-earths-most-important-rivers-are-in-the-sky-and-theyre-drying-up/
Maybe it's a bi-stable system, flicking to the vegetative mode that existed prior to human settlement is not just a simple matter of winding back prescribed burns, as we seem to be doing. Amongst other things, if that was/is the aim, we would need to re-evolve the megafauna ?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bistability#In_biological_and_chemical_systems
Sorry just read the article you can watch him on sky though.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..beefarmer said..
wow some ideas on here are pretty wacko. but i like the out of the box thinking. even the off the planet thinking is good for a laugh! just make some rain - way to go Macroscien, if we could do that we could end this drought once and for all, and the bushfire problems too!
I work in land and fire management in midwest WA and actually, back to the OP, some of the original question isn't so out there. often times in our extremely remote parts of the state we monitor fires from satellites only - the satellite technology to spot fires is pretty good, down to 15 minute frequency now (maybe less?) , and we often watch a fire trickle around for a few days or weeks before it runs into some bare or burnt ground or wet weather and extinguishes itself. obviously, only if there's nothing at risk from the fire.
There have been plenty of occasions where the satellite has picked up a hot spot in a very hard to get to location (no where near any access tracks), we've dispatched bombers to dump a load or two on it, and occasionally been able to put it out. Often its enough to take the heat out of it, slow down progression of the fire, and allow time for ground crews to get there and put it out before it gets to anything significant. But its extremely rare that this is sufficient to extinguish a fire by itself.
I believe there is plenty of room for improvement in the equipment and tech we use for fighting fires. e.g. our fire trucks are ok, but they're basically just tricked up commercial trucks. they get bogged pretty easy. they stake tyres. the truck cab interior melts when it gets hot, releasing all sorts of toxic gas to inhale, and aren't even insulated to protect a firefighter trapped inside. we could do better. i saw this one in action recently, definitely a step up in capability. www.facebook.com/ShireofDandaragan/posts/2140819012694697
There are many good points in the above posts - below a few things i think are worth considering.
- fuel management (prescribed burning) i believe is the only effective way to reduce the wildfire risk to acceptable levels at the landscape scale. this has its own risks, but they are manageable, and definitely preferable to the alternative (not burning, increasing risk of extreme wildfires).
- the bush needs to burn. ecologically, its important to burn most areas (in australia) - the more variation in fuel ages we have across the landscape, the better. if we dont burn the bush, it'll do it itself.
- I don't think I've ever met a professional firefighter that is a climate change denier. even in my relatively short time involved in fires (10 or so years) the difference in length of fire seasons is noticeable. we used to have a fire season, and a spring and autumn burn season. now its an extended spring -summer - autumn fire season, and we've been able to burn in the middle of winter (which wasn't possible, even 10 years ago).
Climate change and associated bushfire season changes are here now, it's not a thing of the future. unfortunately we're going to have to figure out how to deal with it before we even get close to fixing the cause of the problem.
Great post.
Do you reckon it's worth writing to that idiot deputy PM McCormack and relay your thoughts on climate change?
He seems to think anyone who links the persistent drought and wildfire threat to human induced climate change is an inner city WOKE greenie.
I think it may be a waste of time, firstly you'd need a pm that actually believed in evolution...
Fuel reduction vs. water bombing? The truth is somewhere between. The statement that fuel reduction will do the trick and fires in Australia suddenly disappear is as naive as attempts to waterbomb extensive busifiress ranging over whole states.Do somebody believe that we could rake whole australia of any flammable material and there is nothing left to burn anymore? We used to blame power lines , electric companies , here and in California , but nobody dare to say a loud that most of the fires are ignited by people. Either by stupidity and accidents or intentionally by arsonists. If we can eliminate the last ( arsonist) amount of bushfires will drop by a half at least if not more. Anyway returning to interesting water bombing article - I would like to see study of accidents where fire was spotted or reported and attacked from air within 15 minutes with water force from sky.Water Bombing wide spread bus fire - vs quickly splashing focused fire before has a chance to spread. Advantage of helicopters is not is enormous capacity to carry loads of water but reaction time, arrival to the spot in straight line and availability within minutes of alarm.Beside that spotting small fires from satellite network doesn't make much sense too. We need to hang stationery air blimps like those protecting UK during WWII. Cheap tethered blimp , easy to deploy overlooking vast areas with cheap web camera, solar powered sending video down.For a blimp hanging about 825 meters diameter of observation is almost 200 km ( 100 km radius).Network of such blimps covering most of Australia could be cheaper then satellite networks. Beside those blimps could serve as towers for telecommunication 4G and 5G, so possibly we may have them paid by telecom companies and utilize observation cameras as extra service free of charge.
Select to expand quoteMacroscien said..
Fuel reduction vs. water bombing? The truth is somewhere between. The statement that fuel reduction will do the trick and fires in Australia suddenly disappear is as naive as attempts to waterbomb extensive busifiress ranging over whole states.Do somebody believe that we could rake whole australia of any flammable material and there is nothing left to burn anymore? We used to blame power lines , electric companies , here and in California , but nobody dare to say a loud that most of the fires are ignited by people. Either by stupidity and accidents or intentionally by arsonists. If we can eliminate the last ( arsonist) amount of bushfires will drop by a half at least if not more. Anyway returning to interesting water bombing article - I would like to see study of accidents where fire was spotted or reported and attacked from air within 15 minutes with water force from sky.Water Bombing wide spread bus fire - vs quickly splashing focused fire before has a chance to spread. Advantage of helicopters is not is enormous capacity to carry loads of water but reaction time, arrival to the spot in straight line and availability within minutes of alarm.Beside that spotting small fires from satellite network doesn't make much sense too. We need to hang stationery air blimps like those protecting UK during WWII. Cheap tethered blimp , easy to deploy overlooking vast areas with cheap web camera, solar powered sending video down.For a blimp hanging about 825 meters diameter of observation is almost 200 km ( 100 km radius).Network of such blimps covering most of Australia could be cheaper then satellite networks. Beside those blimps could serve as towers for telecommunication 4G and 5G, so possibly we may have them paid by telecom companies and utilize observation cameras as extra service free of charge.
Can't we just tether the blimps to the dome? Surely that would be cheaper?
Jokes aside, I don't know anything about spotting fires from satellites, but I imagine it would be using IR cameras and able to cover the whole of Australia pretty easily. 15 minutes is not such a bad resolution.
Not sure how blimps go in 80/100km winds.
Most fires in Vic are natural not human assisted
Select to expand quotekato said..
Not sure how blimps go in 80/100km winds.
Most fires in Vic are natural not human assisted
Blimp is tethered, but improved over those from WWII could have this extra ability to maneuver against wind like kites do.Something like steerable blimp or airship on the leash.1 km of strong rope is all we need and helium balloon to have observation point in the sky.I doubt that satellite could detect single , focussed fire that just started. As we can see maps from Queensland and NSW , almost all fires are on the coast where people are. Actually conditions inside land are much worse , hotter and none as much rain at coast enjoy but no fires so far. I could imagine such procedure in the nearest future. All voluntary bone, open fires in the season like that will require registration with fire service. I smoke is detected , by our in sky system - helicopter is send immediately to dump it. If that was just friendly bone fire, not registered and permitted - person will pay for helicopter fire service - say $10,000.Usual fire truck carry 2,000 liters of water plus 100 liters of foam concentrate.Similar amount could possibly carry small Westpac helicopter , we don't need even air crane for first response.I propose now that Westpac should give one of those to Kato , and from now he could fight the fire from air, and save legs from walking, lungs from inhaling smoke.
This is another interesting idea.Water scooping fixed wing airplane could deliver 600, 000 liters of water within 4 hour shift.There is one catch. Plane need 800- 1000 m long stretch of water to scoop water in fight without stopping. Obviously there are not so many big lakes in the outback Australia and here is the moment when government needs to invest in long channels filled with water on many plains inside Australia. Those channels stretching 1000 -1500 meter should be build 50 m wide, not too deep.When unused for main purpose could be leased free of charge to inland windsurfers . Those poor inland windsurfers living 300 km of coast or lakes suffer chronic dehydration.In return this windsurfers could deliver free of charge guardianship to those firefighting water channels.
Nightcap national park is burning. It's a rainforest that's normally in one of the highest rainfall areas of NSW.
It's not the only rainforest that's burning at the moment.
The fire that went over the top of my investment house was started in a dry swamp.
Its crazy dry here compared to a normal drought!!!!. I have large trees dying and I'm down on the floodplain.
Why to bother about bushfires? Australia is well prepared and spending all money on war which China and Russia.If we could not win fight with some bone fires there at least we could crumble now those two nuclear superpowers using 12 leased from USA submarines.I am sure submarines will not see any action in next 50 years from now , but bushfires will come next year as well with even stronger force. Interestingly enough Australia is quoted as only country able to afford those lease of 12 submarines from USA and other poorer countries may only dream about.Obviously for the same money we could hire whole army of fire fighting planes from USA and this deal could do both sides happy.USA may have that money they deserve in ransom for our protection and Australia have all fires gone into extinction. So lets think again : Which war is real , worth to carry and with prospect to win? Bushfires or nuclear war with Russia and China together? I am sure that those 12 submarines in real nuclear conflict with Russian and China will have us much effect as PM pissing on the largest bushfire actually consuming NSW.
Select to expand quotekato said..
...
Most fires in Vic are natural not human assisted
I wonder about this.
I crossed the Nullarbor a few weeks back, and stayed in a caravan park, after having battled crazy stong headwinds all day. The campsites all have evidence of lots of campfires, but there was a big 'fire ban' sign up when you enter the campground.
I see this guy breaking up firewood, and I am thinking, oh great, a stinky fire is going to be setup next to me. I go to chat with him and mention that there's a fire ban. He then gets all defensive and then asks me if I think he is stupid, and that he is collecting firewood for when he is free camping the next day. I then explained that I don't know about fire bans, but we were driving through huge winds to get here, and I doubt that open fires would be a good idea.
I don't know about these sort of people. Sure, camping for free and having a nice warm fire at night is a nice thing, but look around. Going without sitting outside with a fire is not a dream killer, and given that you are on the Nullarbor, you are going to get enough heat during the day that the cool of the night is probably a welcome relief.
That said, I don't know if there is a problem with open fires on the Nullarbor, I just worry if those same people do the same thing everywhere and just think 'she'll be right'. Until its not.
Great piece on ABC 7.30 about the issues with the current fires and control burns.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..A clear attempt by the ABC to protect the greens.
Such paranoid nonsense.
Kato says he works in this field as a paid professional.
www.dfes.wa.gov.au/waemergencyandriskmanagement/obrm/tbqdocuments/DFES-Presentation-Workshop-Practically-Science-Technology-and-Measuring-Up.pdf
Pay particular attention to graph representing reduced burnoffs to increase in wildfires.
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..kato said..
...
Most fires in Vic are natural not human assisted
He then gets all defensive and then asks me if I think he is stupid,
A fire chief once told me " There are 3 causes of fire.... men, women and children "
or mor precisely
www.abc.net.au/news/science/2015-12-11/bushfires-in-south-east-australia-mostly-caused-by-humans/7013914
"official data on more than 113,000 bushfires ignited between 1997 and 2009 in 144 bioregions across New South Wales and Victoria.
Of the fires with a known cause, 47 per cent were due to accidental causes, due to such things as cigarettes, escaped burn-offs and campfires, or sparks from equipment or powerlines.
Forty per cent were deliberately lit and 13 per cent were caused by lightning.
The cause of 31 per cent of fires was undetermined"
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Foghorn said..A clear attempt by the ABC to protect the greens.
Such paranoid nonsense.
Kato says he works in this field as a paid professional.
Haven't been following for the last decade or more but back then there was a bit of a divide across organisations about how much prescribed burning was the right amount to do. Indications here are that the divide appears to be getting deeper?
www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/like-a-genie-researchers-scramble-to-adjust-to-rising-fire-extremes-20191113-p53aa8.html
"Professor Bradstock said the "phenomenal dryness" in NSW this year, especially in winter, had made hazard-reduction burning very risky so little such work was done this spring to cut fuel loads.
He noted NSW had some 20 million hectares of land susceptible to bushfires and that most years such prescribed burning would account for only about 1 per cent of that, or 200,000 hectares. "
Select to expand quoteIan K said..FormulaNova said..kato said..
...
Most fires in Vic are natural not human assisted
He then gets all defensive and then asks me if I think he is stupid,
A fire chief once told me " There are 3 causes of fire.... men, women and children "
Yeah, I can see that.
When I was a kid, a friend that lived near me decided one day, after finding a cigarette lighter in the street, to 'test it' by lighting some grass behind his house in a paddock. I don't know what he was really expecting, but it took off and before you know it we were trying to put out the fire by using some sacks that were there. While we were doing this, the firebrigade turned up, so some neighbour must have been watching this, or at least seen the smoke. The weird thing was that they actually thanked us for trying to put it out, which was crazy when my idiot friend had lit it.
I grew up in a time when our family still had an incinerator in the backyard and everything from the rubbish went in it and the ashes eventually went in the bin. I think this destroyed any fascination with fire for us, so maybe that's a good thing?
Maybe Australia needs to develop strips of areas where they are routinely deforested or at least somehow made less vulnerable to fire, and provide an effective firebreak? Is this even possible? If a fire gets big enough, what sort of gap will it skip over? Is it so big that its effectively impossible?
Or we could have robotic fire observation blimps tethered every few hundred kilometres with special parking for helicopters on board and 500 tonnes of water...??
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/traditional-owners-predicted-bushfire-disaster/11700320
very interesting article, of course the government know it-alls wont give it any credibility. the these guys have been surviving than we been around, perhaps they do know something.
Select to expand quoteTonz said..
www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-14/traditional-owners-predicted-bushfire-disaster/11700320
very interesting article, of course the government know it-alls wont give it any credibility. the these guys have been surviving than we been around, perhaps they do know something.
I'm not keen on burning off land to manage it. Burning off gradually dries the soil out and kills organisms in the soil. I think its better to use machines with blades and hammers to cut back and mulch the bush and weeds. Machines can reduce the risk of bushfires as well as burning off can, with the benefit organic material decomposes into the soil instead of floating away into the air when burned. Mulching the brush effectively locks up carbon into the soil where its used by fungi and microorganisms as food.
We have the technology and resources to improve the land and reduce fire risk through cutting and crushing vegetation. Fire risk can't be eliminated but we can reduce it, especially around property. Fire is a good way to clear land if you have few resources besides fire. However if you have a tractor with a slasher then its a better way to clear and improve the land.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
www.dfes.wa.gov.au/waemergencyandriskmanagement/obrm/tbqdocuments/DFES-Presentation-Workshop-Practically-Science-Technology-and-Measuring-Up.pdf
Pay particular attention to graph representing reduced burnoffs to increase in wildfires.
No one is arguing controlled burning doesn't reduce fire severity - otherwise we would do it.
What you don't seem to grasp is that the period where it is safe to burn off has reduced to almost nothing due to severe drought and longer fire seasons, arguably caused in part by human induced climate change.
A group of ex and current fire chiefs are telling us this now, but do you think happy clappy ScoMo and his band of coal-loving nutters is going to listen?
Select to expand quoteFormulaNova said..
Or we could have robotic fire observation blimps tethered every few hundred kilometres with special parking for helicopters on board and 500 tonnes of water...??
That is great idea ! I propose even such experiment.We could have one of your friends from early years with matches trying to start a fire/ bush fire."Then we will have firetrack 10 meter away setup and ready.You can give your friend advantage of head start- pause before firetruck crew will jump into action. 1 minute? 5 minutes , 10 minutes? 30 minutes ?
Who is going to win ? Lets imagine that this tested place and time resemble critical australian conditions.
Logically we could deduct that this single fire truck will be able to put the fire down regardless of afford of your arsonist friend. But only at very early stage. How much reaction time is needed to be 100 % successful? I think that this simple thought experiment will lead in the future to successful bushfire prevention. Nonsense like a talk about fuel reduction, preventing burning, hot weather and wind are only naive excuse.
There will be never possible in Australian conditions to burn all the natural fuel. You remove in one place ,the fire will start in another. As long as there are tree and grass growing there will be always chance for bushife regardless of effort. So there is my bold statement the NOT prevention but early action is needed in any case of bush / vegetation fire.
I imagine that in the nearest future we could have automatic helicopter drone, able to start immediately after rising alarm and arriving to prescribe spot within 10-30 minutes anywhere in Australia where the risk is serious. Eventually having this fleet of helicopters on standby will be much cheaper then fighting bushfire and property damage.
I could imagine that this future ( not so distant in time) will remain nowadays Phantom electric drone but scaled up , able to carry 500 kg .Electric drones will not require expensive maintenance as usual helicopter do, don't need professional expensive/experienced crew to operate.Electric drone will operate mostly autonomously, crew may arrive onsite later on with set of lithium battery , so drone could swap them in the minute and keep working sucking water from pond, dropping on fire. Now we could consider hypothetical question:
What we realistically are able to do:
1> Build electric drone 500 kg load capacity
or
2.Remove all flammable material from surface of Australia and reverse suddenly climate to arctic conditions, stop all winds, get all the matches and lighters of the hands of all arsonists ?
BTW. OUr electric drones may serve as rural posite and couriers delivering farmers everything they need. from food to urgent tools and material in smaller quantity. I will be grateful for such drone bringing me instantly set of bolts from nears Bunnings directly to my farm. Postie drones in case of emergency will switch to fire mode, taking water bombing buckets instead od mail delivery.Australian company is already building such buckets for military Black Hawk helicopters, that convert then into fire fighing machines in minutes.
www.flashover.com.au/australias-first-firefighting-blackhawk/
Career firefighter Jim Casey couldn't put it more clearly:
"These longer, more intense fire seasons will take a huge toll on our frontline services - mentally, physically and financially.
"What fire services need right now is not empty praise from politicians, or thoughts and prayers. We need on-the-ground support.
"We need more resources and we need to recognise that volunteers should not be expected to face these enormous challenges alone.
"We urgently need a discussion about how volunteer labour is expected to meet the demands of longer fire seasons.
"And we need our national and state leaders to pull their heads out of the sand and acknowledge that climate change is creating fire conditions the likes of which we've never had to face."
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Career firefighter Jim Casey couldn't put it more clearly:
I can not disagree more.
This is like glorifying all our combat soldiers that died during the war.
The problem is that if not the war in first place , nobody needs to die in glory. Same with firefighters.We don't need more people to sacrify, or even pay them better because they do harm himself. We need to do their work easier , safer, more effective by providing technological means where it is possible. If that same firefighter could do his job by remotely operating firefighting drone from safe distance, why we need to send him just with aluminum blanket into this inferno? We could invest in nuclear submarines , F35 fighters, fibre optics to deliver porn to every corner of Australia, but we could not afford to give firefighters money for modern toys ? like drones? That situation reminds me internet fibre optic NBN fight we had here few years back.When I was claiming that spending government money on NBN fiber to every house in Australia is complete waste of money. We could easily saved those 50-100 bln spent on never realized infrastructure and have 5x quicker internet supplied by 5G at no cost to taxpayer at all. You could get OPTUS 5G to home now at mere $70 per month.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
"We need more resources and we need to recognise that volunteers should not be expected to face these enormous challenges alone.
"We urgently need a discussion about how volunteer labour is expected to meet the demands of longer fire seasons.
Two contradicting statements. I agree with first and disagree with second.This is not a First World Was when generals could send hundreds of thousand to die on the trenches as a meat.For me bush fire fighting force is elite that must be well prepared , equipped for that fight, without the need to sacrifice their life and health anytime the go to work. We need to give them all resource modern world could offen, not just send army of volunteers with spladle, axe and rakes. It is all good to invoke whole nation to save us from bushfires like that now, but that could not be long term strategy to do so every year, the same way.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
"We need more resources and we need to recognise that volunteers should not be expected to face these enormous challenges alone.
"We urgently need a discussion about how volunteer labour is expected to meet the demands of longer fire seasons.
Two contradicting statements. I agree with first and disagree with second.This is not a First World Was when generals could send hundreds of thousand to die on the trenches as a meat.For me bush fire fighting force is elite that must be well prepared , equipped for that fight, without the need to sacrifice their life and health anytime the go to work. We need to give them all resource modern world could offen, not just send army of volunteers with spladle, axe and rakes. It is all good to invoke whole nation to save us from bushfires like that now, but that could not be long term strategy to do so every year, the same way.The next year fireseason will come again. Surprise again?
BTW that prototype helicopter drone above cost $200,000 , not that big money, and may cost less then service of ordinary helicopter over the year. Shouldn't we even try to test the idea with one team equipped in this sci-fi tools? Magnificent Five or Seven Superheros , Australian batman's flying remotely those electric drones ?
To improve on design I would only remove combustion engine and replace with bigger ,easy to swap lithium battery. Instead of refueling , service truck could arrive to spot with set of charged batteries , then recharge another in the meantime.
Does anyone think that the blimps should reload the water themselves or should there be electric catamarans built to first load the water into storage containers and then these lifted onto the blimps? It would be faster, and cheaper than the NBN.
A really good article of some of the issues and possible solutions. Thinning has its own high risk which isn't addressed in this article.
No drones or airships were mentioned either.
www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/climate-change-is-making-bushfires-worse-heres-what-we-can-do/11704858?sf223633654=1
Select to expand quotekato said..
A really good article of some of the issues and possible solutions. Thinning has its own high risk which isn't addressed in this article.
No drones or airships were mentioned either.
www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/climate-change-is-making-bushfires-worse-heres-what-we-can-do/11704858?sf223633654=1
Many of fires in NSW and Queensland are burning in areas infested with lantana. This weed has taken over millions of hectares of land in NSW and Queensland. If fire gets into lantana scrub it will burn and as lantana grows more than two meters high, the trees catch on fire too once the lantana starts burning.
If this weed was taken seriously and controlled, the risk from out of control bushfires would reduce. Lantana is also a serious environmental threat that is ignored in the debate on the environment. Go to any area where lantana has taken over. It's difficult to see any other plants growing there unless they were there before like larger trees. Birds nor other animals live in lantana either.
Reduction of this weed can be achieved through various ways, primarily mechanical.
