Eucalypts are native to Australia (and most forests are full of naturally-occurring Eucalyptus), and evolved to not only survive bushfires but also replentish t

Eucalypts are native to Australia (and most forests are full of naturally-occurring Eucalyptus), and evolved to not only survive bushfires but also replentish themselves as a result of bushfires. That's almost certainly why they promote and thrive in bushfires -- it's part of their lifecycle. There is plenty of other Australian fauna which depends on bushfires for reproduction. But to your main point -- Australia has had eucalypts for tens of millions of years. It seems unlikely that eucalyptus is the cause of these extreme and very unusual bushfires. It's much more likely that the recent drought, reduced forest management, and similar factors are at play. Environmentalists are right to be concerned about introduction of non-native species. The entire history of European colonisation in Australia has proven categorically that introduced species almost always cause unforseen and irreparable damage to the local ecosystem. For God's sake, we built three fences in the middle of the outback to try to stop rabbits from spreading. This is something that is so well known and simple that you learn about in primary school history classes. But I do agree that California should probably stop planting non-local fauna in large numbers. Australia's biosphere has evolved with bushfires for millions of years, and California's has not.