IT is politically naive for the Greens to seek funding for fighting fires in remote World Heritage areas while the rest of the community is stressing over the defence of their homes and livestock.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
It makes you wonder at times if the Greens holiday on another planet.
We know that they are definitely not saying: sacrifice life and property for the sake of the wilderness.
Their emphasis, however, on protection of the World Heritage area, while not being strong advocates of burnoffs, does not endear them to the broader community.
Greens senator Nick McKim said that while his party recognised and supported the need to protect homes and lives "this does not need to come at the expense of defending the values of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage area."
This is an insensitive comment, when there are many Australians this summer and in previous summers who have lost everything to bushfires.
Fires in World Heritage areas are more likely the result of lightning strikes than anything resulting from human actions. That's nature in all its agony and wonder.
Fire has ravaged these areas in the past and will again. It's a shame, but our thoughts and concerns are more focused on farmers and rural fringe dwellers.
If there's federal money for tackling World Heritage area fires well and good, but it is doubtful the nation has the resources to protect life, stock and property and go after the remote wilderness fires as well.
Even if the conservation movement successfully rallied a whole legion of their troops to fight fires this summer, we would expect them to prioritise life, stock and property.
Few people in 2016 would poke fun at the concept of climate change, given the weird seasons and weather patterns we now face. Perhaps in time more of us will come to accept that man created climate change, which in turn created the bushfire menace - but the priorities will never change.
