Not Much for Australia ?

offshore

Well-known member
Messages
1,751
Reaction score
128
I am not sure if I am on the right track, but the UK doesn't seem to being doing much visibly for Australia in its current predicament ?

I would of thought we could of offered a British Naval vessel with helicopters to stand off the coast or a coordinated fund raising effort to purchase new fire fighting kit.

I realise AU is a wealthy country and these may only be token gestures, but they still count for something.

Perhaps Foreign 'Aid' is all about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer - and AU doesn't fall in the second category ?

Oh well.
 

Hemmy

Well-known member
Messages
3,693
Reaction score
115
I think the navy and it’s vessels are otherwise engaged at the moment and for the foreseeable future
 

FaughanPurple

Well-known member
Messages
8,158
Reaction score
320
Location
Belfast/Derry
if it had been a burning concrete structure were people worshipped a man made deity, instead of the Environment. Maybe they'd have done something then.

As such, Oz falls into the same category as the Amazon. Out of sight, out of mind and over there.
 

offshore

Well-known member
Messages
1,751
Reaction score
128
I think the navy and it’s vessels are otherwise engaged at the moment and for the foreseeable future
I take your point, with the Strait of Hormuz etc , but you would of thought we had at least one vessel in that part of the world that could be diverted for a few weeks. Perhaps I am completely wrong about that.
 

HOWKEMOOT

Active member
Messages
463
Reaction score
25
Location
N W Highlands
I take your point, with the Strait of Hormuz etc , but you would of thought we had at least one vessel in that part of the world that could be diverted for a few weeks. Perhaps I am completely wrong about that.
Hi Offshore,

I don't think you are wrong, we should offer some help to AU, they are Commonwealth and have helped us in the past. And maybe now we are at last about to leave the EU we should be looking to strengthen connections with the Commonwealth which the EU rules denied us. The Gulf is a watch and remove situation, not a shooting war we were not invited to, I'd say let Uncle Sam push on with whatever secretive plans he has.

M
 
Last edited:

Rrrr

Well-known member
Messages
6,470
Reaction score
523
We were talking about this at work yesterday, i rekon distance has alot to do with it. Usualy countries would lend fire fighting aircraft etc but getting them to aus would be abit tricky.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
 

SOS

Well-known member
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
257
I know Aus is a vast country but i think what they need is an army of bulldozers to make fire breaks across the country,and also build many lakes that would store the water for when/if they ever get rain again.
Did the yanks not seed clouds during the vietnam war to saturate the ground to make the NVA less mobile on the ho chi minh trail,and to ruin crops.
Between the Aus fires and the burning of the Amazon not good news for planet earth and its inhabitants,although the Aus fires are a natural regular event.
 

bassfly

Well-known member
Messages
2,366
Reaction score
137
Location
Cheshire
Listened to an Oz resident in one of the fire zones who was talking on the radio. He said that Bush fires had been around for years and that fire breaks where used to control the fires. He said the Greens had stopped this burning and this was one of the main reasons for the excessive spread of the fires. Just saying

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk
 

cgaines10

Well-known member
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
169
Yep preventing burning on their own part would have stopped all this chaos and damage.

We couldn't really help mch tbf. There's plenty of things they could have done initially to stop the outbreak.
 

sneakypeter

Well-known member
Messages
1,536
Reaction score
166
I am sure if any of our assets, Naval or otherwise were there, they would have been offered, but not a lot use, given the immense scale of this disaster, its not a fire, it is loads , over a vast expanse, probably the size of Europe, driven by crazy weather, huge temperatures, and big winds, and then weather generated by the fires themselves, resulting in an uncontrollable, unpredictable spread. The human cost is terrible in terms of lives lost, and property, but probably the worst scenario is the potential complete destruction of many ,unique species of animals, many live in relatively confined areas, even if individual animals or groups of survive the fire, the virtual complete loss of habitat, may well result in starvation, leading to annihallation.
peter
 

Stu101

Active member
Messages
201
Reaction score
44
Listened to an Oz resident in one of the fire zones who was talking on the radio. He said that Bush fires had been around for years and that fire breaks where used to control the fires. He said the Greens had stopped this burning and this was one of the main reasons for the excessive spread of the fires. Just saying

Sent from my SM-J330FN using Tapatalk
I have family in SA and NSW who both own and operate a number of farms. In both areas they have been unable to carry out controlled burning for a number of years - simply as there has not been long enough safe periods for it be to carry in out. This is the same seeminlgy across a lot of areas in those states.

They can obviously create fire breaks in otherways, and that is what they have done- as no one wants their farms, houses, etc to burn. No one has any issues with this.

It sounds like the caller radio is a bit of a right wing ludite, looking for excuses. Probabaly supports Scott Morrison. I wonder how much he actually knows about land management?

I wish I could put him in contact with my friend whose father and step-brother were off firefighting and hadnt been in contract for hours, while she was tasked with shooting the family horses and abandoning their farm of 20+ years if it came to it. Luckily they only lost a few outbuildings.
 

Walleye

Well-known member
Messages
2,463
Reaction score
926
I am sure if any of our assets, Naval or otherwise were there, they would have been offered, but not a lot use, given the immense scale of this disaster, its not a fire, it is loads , over a vast expanse, probably the size of Europe, driven by crazy weather, huge temperatures, and big winds, and then weather generated by the fires themselves, resulting in an uncontrollable, unpredictable spread. The human cost is terrible in terms of lives lost, and property, but probably the worst scenario is the potential complete destruction of many ,unique species of animals, many live in relatively confined areas, even if individual animals or groups of survive the fire, the virtual complete loss of habitat, may well result in starvation, leading to annihallation.
peter
So nothing to do with the fact that since we colonised Australia and brought our deforestation, farming practices etc. the frequency of wildfires has increased?
And those habitats would not exist if it wasn't for bush fires. Those habitats rely on bush fires to exist in their current form.
The animals will be fine. The fires can't kill them all or Australia would be a very different place today having suffered from bushfires for many thousands of years.
Johnson offered support some time ago. Beyond that there is not much we can do. The Australians have a long history of dealing with bushfires, some with far greater risk and loss of life than these fires. I don't believe there are many UK bush fire fighting experts and throwing inexperience into the mix may make it worse. Perhaps this is why Australia don't actually need much help - you can't put the fires out.
Fundraising for the victims is probably the best thing we can do.

To add some perspective to the whole discussion and to demonstrate how blind we are to anything other than AGW, since the Australian bushfires started in mid September, industrial man has cut down 5 billion trees elsewhere in the world. Assuming about 2000 trees per hectare of forest then industrial man has cleared an area of forest roughly the same as that affected by the extraordinary Australian bushfires of 2019/20.
The Australian bush fires will eventually extinguish naturally some time in the next few months. Industrial man will continue their destruction of natural
forest habitat which by definition is not robust to such an impact, unlike the Australian bush which has coexisted and evolved with fire for millenia.

By September this year, industrial man will have cleared forested areas 2-3 times larger than the burned areas in Australia, not all of which contains forest. Industrial man will keep on doing this every year until we run out of trees, or profit, whichever comes soonest.

So tell me, where is the real crisis?
 

offshore

Well-known member
Messages
1,751
Reaction score
128
So nothing to do with the fact that since we colonised Australia and brought our deforestation, farming practices etc. the frequency of wildfires has increased?
And those habitats would not exist if it wasn't for bush fires. Those habitats rely on bush fires to exist in their current form.
The animals will be fine. The fires can't kill them all or Australia would be a very different place today having suffered from bushfires for many thousands of years.
Johnson offered support some time ago. Beyond that there is not much we can do. The Australians have a long history of dealing with bushfires, some with far greater risk and loss of life than these fires. I don't believe there are many UK bush fire fighting experts and throwing inexperience into the mix may make it worse. Perhaps this is why Australia don't actually need much help - you can't put the fires out.
Fundraising for the victims is probably the best thing we can do.

To add some perspective to the whole discussion and to demonstrate how blind we are to anything other than AGW, since the Australian bushfires started in mid September, industrial man has cut down 5 billion trees elsewhere in the world. Assuming about 2000 trees per hectare of forest then industrial man has cleared an area of forest roughly the same as that affected by the extraordinary Australian bushfires of 2019/20.
The Australian bush fires will eventually extinguish naturally some time in the next few months. Industrial man will continue their destruction of natural
forest habitat which by definition is not robust to such an impact, unlike the Australian bush which has coexisted and evolved with fire for millenia.

By September this year, industrial man will have cleared forested areas 2-3 times larger than the burned areas in Australia, not all of which contains forest. Industrial man will keep on doing this every year until we run out of trees, or profit, whichever comes soonest.

So tell me, where is the real crisis?
A good point - more is being destroyed systematically by mans actions daily, than through the current crisis in AU.

My original post was that we don't seem to be offering a lot of moral support (psychological rather than physical), in the form of limited aid and donations coordinated at national level. I realise they would be a drop in the ocean, so to speak.

The UK has plenty of true enemies and not many friends.
 

ozzyian

Well-known member
Messages
4,793
Reaction score
304
Location
East Lothian
So nothing to do with the fact that since we colonised Australia and brought our deforestation, farming practices etc. the frequency of wildfires has increased?
And those habitats would not exist if it wasn't for bush fires. Those habitats rely on bush fires to exist in their current form.
The animals will be fine. The fires can't kill them all or Australia would be a very different place today having suffered from bushfires for many thousands of years.
Johnson offered support some time ago. Beyond that there is not much we can do. The Australians have a long history of dealing with bushfires, some with far greater risk and loss of life than these fires. I don't believe there are many UK bush fire fighting experts and throwing inexperience into the mix may make it worse. Perhaps this is why Australia don't actually need much help - you can't put the fires out.
Fundraising for the victims is probably the best thing we can do.

To add some perspective to the whole discussion and to demonstrate how blind we are to anything other than AGW, since the Australian bushfires started in mid September, industrial man has cut down 5 billion trees elsewhere in the world. Assuming about 2000 trees per hectare of forest then industrial man has cleared an area of forest roughly the same as that affected by the extraordinary Australian bushfires of 2019/20.
The Australian bush fires will eventually extinguish naturally some time in the next few months. Industrial man will continue their destruction of natural
forest habitat which by definition is not robust to such an impact, unlike the Australian bush which has coexisted and evolved with fire for millenia.

By September this year, industrial man will have cleared forested areas 2-3 times larger than the burned areas in Australia, not all of which contains forest. Industrial man will keep on doing this every year until we run out of trees, or profit, whichever comes soonest.

So tell me, where is the real crisis?
That's about the long and short of it I think. Certainly, in terms of actual rural fire fighting I couldn't imagine a manpower or equipment contribution that Britain could offer.

The truth of the matter is that the white mans requirements of the land are not naturally supported by environmental conditions in Australia. The whole backburning issue is pretty complicated as mentioned a couple of posts ago and there isn't a simple solution. You have to remember the size of the affected areas as well - it's vast.

I was reading that fire fighting services that were shifted seasonally between Nth America and Aus as the fire season alternated is no longer working well because drought in both Aus and California has changed the fire seasons - which now overlap. Thus equipment (aircraft mainly) are less available than ideal.
 

longchuck

New member
Messages
4,859
Reaction score
5
Location
banks o bonnie doon
The UK foreign aid bill is around 14 billion a year.i strongly believe that money should be spent at home
Sending money to some countries in Africa and India for example is only lining the pockets of there governments.
I watched a program last year where one of the countries we send money to had invested it in a fleet of limos for government officials,440 of them got limos.
Some of the countries we send to have the fastest growing economies in the world.?,
Lots of the cash we give goes no further than corrupt governments.
Britain needs to look after its own first or we will soon be the ones needing foreign aid.
Homelessness ,child poverty for example needs the money we send abroad.
AUSTRALIA,yes we should help in one way as they are friends and allies.
RANT OVER
 
Top