9 ms·

Nearly 500M animals killed in Australian bushfires

71 points by edgefield0 7y ago

Proven 7y ago
499,999,000 of them were ants I presume?
kewball 7y ago
Sucks but what can fix it?
- mavdi 7y ago
  I’d say not voting in climate change deniers would be good first step.
  - docdeek 7y ago
    If you are right, what would voting in an ALP or even Green government have done to avert global climate change and these fires? And when would they have to have been voted in to have stopped these fires being so obviously devastating? I understand that any movement towards a goal is useful to a certain extent but Australian domestic policies have little (but not no) impact on global climate change.
    - moosey 7y ago
      But it would have been one less major government working against the ecological systems that we still depend on. When all is said and done and we've defeated climate change, the future generations will look back and wonder how we could have been so callous about the beautiful cacophony of life we had. All of this unnecessary political naysaying won't change it, but if you're seriously asking this question out of frustration that nothing is being done, then advocate.
      - docdeek 7y ago
        It's frustrating that an insufficient plan is in place to address climate change in Oz but also frustrating that I keep reading suggestions that under a different government the fires wouldn't have happened or would've been less destructive. Especially when links are made to the most recent election result, I just find that unrealistic. A different election result recently wouldn't have impacted the fires at all; it might have had an impact on future fire seasons (I still think a small one considering the global nature of the climate challenge) but that's something very different.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - cmroanirgo 7y ago
    I've seen this argumentation quite a lot, even in the local media, but there are quite a lot of factors that have built up to a series of bushfires the size of Belgium (some 3 million hectares): notably has been the refusal to allow back burning (a safety measure), failing to follow the advice of the indigenous in fire management, reduction in spending on the fire brigades itself, the remoteness and inaccessibility of the fires (Oz had a very low population density, meaning no roads), and rugged terrain. To then have 30m flame height, means that fire trucks are ineffective. As someone who's been in the shadow of fire for nearly 2 straight months, I can clearly attest to the death of animals. Never before have I seen so many roos in my area, hit by cars, as everyone is fleeing the choking smoke and flames. To chalk it all up to climate change (which is clearly a factor) is both disingenuous and rather disrespectful to the amazing volunteers that are out there fighting these monstrous fires. Please refrain from deliberately adding a political angle to what is a highly stressful time.
    - jamil7 7y ago
      Can I ask in what way the grandparent is being disrespectful? This has been used as an evasion tactic of the liberal government whenever asked about the connection between the fires and climate change. The culmination of reasons you listed in your first paragraph (which I agree with) above are all, in my opinion political and should be able to be discussed. Please refrain from policing people's political opinions.
    - cam_l 7y ago
      The refusal to use back burning / fuel reduction has been fairly widely reported and also very thoroughly refuted. But if all you read is country newspapers or the Australian (or worse) you may be forgiven for thinking those damn greenies are to blame. The truth of the matter is back burning (controlled burning in the path of the fire to stop it's spread) is very much still used when it is safe. The issue is the strong hot winds have meant several of these efforts have gotten out of control. Fuel reduction burning has been increased substantially in the last decade but the climate conditions mean the areas needed for fuel reduction are widening at a greater rate and the windows of safe burning are closing down. Chalking it up to climate change is what most of the volunteers are doing. Saying otherwise is disrespectful, disingenuous and highly political.
- vixen99 7y ago
  Not doing this might make a contribution. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/in-australia-if-you-try-to-clear-a-firebreak-on-your-land-you-could-go-to-gaol/ http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/in-australia-if-you-try-to-... "His crime. Pushing over 46 hectares of scrub on his own property to make a twenty meter wide firebreak in a bush fire prone area between DEC controlled scrub."
  - jamil7 7y ago
    This happened 10 years ago and his actual crimes were contempt.
9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
Reading any article like this, it's worth bearing in mind that bushfires are a natural seasonal phenomenon in Australia, and both flora and fauna are adapted to them. There are even some Australian plants that reproduce only after fires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte The worrisome thing this time around, though, is the accompanying drought. Droughts too are a fact of life in the world's driest continent, but if this is now the "new normal" due to climate change, the land will not be able to recover.
- adamnemecek 7y ago
  Not on this scale. It's kinda like saying anthrax is natural.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Truth be told, anthrax is natural.
    - adamnemecek 7y ago
      That's the point.
- gonzo41 7y ago
  Have a look at this. The scale is different from a regular wildfire. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2019/dec/07/how-big-are-the-fires-burning-on-the-east-coast-of-australia-interactive-map https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-inter...?
  - akerro 7y ago
    Damn, this map is really scary https://i.imgur.com/t1ls7wG.png https://i.imgur.com/t1ls7wG.png
  - 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
    Yes, I'm aware of that, but locally it doesn't make much of a difference how big the fire is. Australian plants are built to survive bushfires and assuming there's water -- which is the big if I called out earlier -- they'll regrow. Put enough way: the bushfires, in and of themselves, are not the problem. The underlying drought caused by climate change is.
docuru 7y ago
Oh no!
pergadad 7y ago
There are probably entire species that we haven't even discovered that have gone extinct just from these fires.
nealabq 7y ago
The fires aren't the only things killing Australian wildlife. Cats kill 4 times as many animals every year: https://www.livescience.com/65915-australia-cats-wildlife-killers.html https://www.livescience.com/65915-australia-cats-wildlife-ki...

71 points by edgefield0 7y ago

Proven 7y ago

499,999,000 of them were ants I presume?

kewball 7y ago

Sucks but what can fix it?

mavdi 7y ago
I’d say not voting in climate change deniers would be good first step.
- docdeek 7y ago
  If you are right, what would voting in an ALP or even Green government have done to avert global climate change and these fires? And when would they have to have been voted in to have stopped these fires being so obviously devastating? I understand that any movement towards a goal is useful to a certain extent but Australian domestic policies have little (but not no) impact on global climate change.
  - moosey 7y ago
    But it would have been one less major government working against the ecological systems that we still depend on. When all is said and done and we've defeated climate change, the future generations will look back and wonder how we could have been so callous about the beautiful cacophony of life we had. All of this unnecessary political naysaying won't change it, but if you're seriously asking this question out of frustration that nothing is being done, then advocate.
    - docdeek 7y ago
      It's frustrating that an insufficient plan is in place to address climate change in Oz but also frustrating that I keep reading suggestions that under a different government the fires wouldn't have happened or would've been less destructive. Especially when links are made to the most recent election result, I just find that unrealistic. A different election result recently wouldn't have impacted the fires at all; it might have had an impact on future fire seasons (I still think a small one considering the global nature of the climate challenge) but that's something very different.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- cmroanirgo 7y ago
  I've seen this argumentation quite a lot, even in the local media, but there are quite a lot of factors that have built up to a series of bushfires the size of Belgium (some 3 million hectares): notably has been the refusal to allow back burning (a safety measure), failing to follow the advice of the indigenous in fire management, reduction in spending on the fire brigades itself, the remoteness and inaccessibility of the fires (Oz had a very low population density, meaning no roads), and rugged terrain. To then have 30m flame height, means that fire trucks are ineffective. As someone who's been in the shadow of fire for nearly 2 straight months, I can clearly attest to the death of animals. Never before have I seen so many roos in my area, hit by cars, as everyone is fleeing the choking smoke and flames. To chalk it all up to climate change (which is clearly a factor) is both disingenuous and rather disrespectful to the amazing volunteers that are out there fighting these monstrous fires. Please refrain from deliberately adding a political angle to what is a highly stressful time.
  - jamil7 7y ago
    Can I ask in what way the grandparent is being disrespectful? This has been used as an evasion tactic of the liberal government whenever asked about the connection between the fires and climate change. The culmination of reasons you listed in your first paragraph (which I agree with) above are all, in my opinion political and should be able to be discussed. Please refrain from policing people's political opinions.
  - cam_l 7y ago
    The refusal to use back burning / fuel reduction has been fairly widely reported and also very thoroughly refuted. But if all you read is country newspapers or the Australian (or worse) you may be forgiven for thinking those damn greenies are to blame. The truth of the matter is back burning (controlled burning in the path of the fire to stop it's spread) is very much still used when it is safe. The issue is the strong hot winds have meant several of these efforts have gotten out of control. Fuel reduction burning has been increased substantially in the last decade but the climate conditions mean the areas needed for fuel reduction are widening at a greater rate and the windows of safe burning are closing down. Chalking it up to climate change is what most of the volunteers are doing. Saying otherwise is disrespectful, disingenuous and highly political.
vixen99 7y ago
Not doing this might make a contribution. http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/in-australia-if-you-try-to-clear-a-firebreak-on-your-land-you-could-go-to-gaol/ http://joannenova.com.au/2013/01/in-australia-if-you-try-to-... "His crime. Pushing over 46 hectares of scrub on his own property to make a twenty meter wide firebreak in a bush fire prone area between DEC controlled scrub."
- jamil7 7y ago
  This happened 10 years ago and his actual crimes were contempt.

9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago

Reading any article like this, it's worth bearing in mind that bushfires are a natural seasonal phenomenon in Australia, and both flora and fauna are adapted to them. There are even some Australian plants that reproduce only after fires. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrophyte The worrisome thing this time around, though, is the accompanying drought. Droughts too are a fact of life in the world's driest continent, but if this is now the "new normal" due to climate change, the land will not be able to recover.

adamnemecek 7y ago
Not on this scale. It's kinda like saying anthrax is natural.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  Truth be told, anthrax is natural.
  - adamnemecek 7y ago
    That's the point.
gonzo41 7y ago
Have a look at this. The scale is different from a regular wildfire. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-interactive/2019/dec/07/how-big-are-the-fires-burning-on-the-east-coast-of-australia-interactive-map https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/datablog/ng-inter...?
- akerro 7y ago
  Damn, this map is really scary https://i.imgur.com/t1ls7wG.png https://i.imgur.com/t1ls7wG.png
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 7y ago
  Yes, I'm aware of that, but locally it doesn't make much of a difference how big the fire is. Australian plants are built to survive bushfires and assuming there's water -- which is the big if I called out earlier -- they'll regrow. Put enough way: the bushfires, in and of themselves, are not the problem. The underlying drought caused by climate change is.

docuru 7y ago

Oh no!

pergadad 7y ago

There are probably entire species that we haven't even discovered that have gone extinct just from these fires.

nealabq 7y ago

The fires aren't the only things killing Australian wildlife. Cats kill 4 times as many animals every year: https://www.livescience.com/65915-australia-cats-wildlife-killers.html https://www.livescience.com/65915-australia-cats-wildlife-ki...