
'Megafire' in Australia Engulfs 1.5M Acres - happy-go-lucky
https://www.npr.org/2020/01/10/795169417/enormous-mega-fire-in-australia-engulfs-1-5-million-acres
======
etaioinshrdlu
I wonder if there's a point at which the particulates from the fire become
globally relevant. Knowing what we know now about how awful particulates are
for health and cognition, we would be in a bad place as a species if none of
us can breathe clean air.

~~~
keanzu
Australia fires: Smoke turns New Zealand skies 'eerie' yellow

[https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-50969488](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
asia-50969488)

Maybe not exactly global but the smoke made it ~2000km to New Zealand!

~~~
fernandopj
Try Brazil: smoke made it to southern states, ~7700 miles

[https://www.correiodopovo.com.br/not%C3%ADcias/geral/fuma%C3...](https://www.correiodopovo.com.br/not%C3%ADcias/geral/fuma%C3%A7a-de-
inc%C3%AAndios-da-austr%C3%A1lia-chega-ao-rio-grande-do-sul-diz-
metsul-1.391494)

------
giacaglia
Is this historically different from previous instances?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushfires_in_Australia)

Just skimming wikipedia and there are a bunch of bushfires that were bigger
than this instance, and bushfires seem pretty common there

~~~
goodcanadian
Bushfires are a natural part of the ecosystem in Australia. Many plants are
adapted specifically to survive and thrive after bushfire conditions. However,
bushfires on this scale is somewhat unprecedented.

It's a bit like 5 hurricanes hitting Florida in one summer. Aren't hurricanes
normal in Florida?

~~~
markdown
> It's a bit like 5 hurricanes hitting Florida in one summer. Aren't
> hurricanes normal in Florida?

Except if 3 of those hurricanes arrived before hurricane season.

~~~
pacala
... in NewYork.

------
sakopov
If anyone is curious about a billion animal deaths figure in the article
here's what this appears to be based on [1]

[1] [https://sydney.edu.au/news-
opinion/news/2020/01/08/australia...](https://sydney.edu.au/news-
opinion/news/2020/01/08/australian-bushfires-more-than-one-billion-animals-
impacted.html)

~~~
john-radio
Stealing this take from David Steen:

> Sad and tragic.

> Incidentally, this is also how many animals that cats are estimated to kill
> in the United States each year.

~~~
throwawaymath
What's the point being driven at here? Is it minimizing the deaths of
Australian wildlife, or is it making a quip about the sheer scale of cat
hunting activity?

If it's the former, that seems like a bad comparison. The Australian wildfires
are destroying ecosystems on a scale cats don't really do. And a much greater
variety of wildlife is dying than what cats will typically kill.

Finally, wildfires don't support life. They're naturally occurring things, but
they are not an activity occurring in the support of other life. Cats kill to
hone hunting skills (or simply to hunt, if they're actually hungry). With that
observation we can impose a reasonable normative, which is that we don't need
to accept wildfires the same way we accept predator activity.

Put simply: I don't see that these two things belong to the same category of
destruction.

~~~
CaptArmchair
It's a bad comparison, but for a different set of reasons.

Wildfires aren't part of the fauna. This is true. But even without humans,
there are wildfires. When wildfires happen, they create a new playing field
for species to inhabit. Moreover, life has adapted over the course of millions
of years to a low number of wildfires i.e. the spread of a species over a
large territory whereas wildfires may be incidental and localized. The
adaptability of a species to wildfires - amongst other things - is what
defines it's resilience.

The difference here is that the size and scope of these fires is far beyond
the resilience of entire regional ecosystems. When this is over, what is lost
won't return. It will be replaced by different species - plants and animals -
that might not be as diverse or rich.

We can safely assert that wild cats are inherently part of the ecosystem.
However, if a billion animals being killed a year by cats, well, that's not
due to the mere presence of cats as a species. But because of the overwhelming
number of cats in the ecosystem. And that number is anything but normal.

Cats are domesticated animals. The main reason why there are so many out there
is simply because society tends to keep and protect cats. Cats and humans live
in a symbiotic relationship. And that's why cats thrive as a species. Much to
the detriment of other species.

Put more poignantly, nobody would argue against the need for pet owners to
keep their dogs to a leash and their pet snakes and other predators locked in
cages. But cats are the major exception. There are no laws that restrict home
owners to let cats go out of the door and roam the neighborhood killing each
any small bird, mammal or reptile around. Whereas other wild species who
espouse pretty much the same behavior - rats, foxes, mice - are seen as pests.

And so, we can safely assert that neither mega wildfires nor the strain cats
impose by their numbers are natural occurrences. In both cases, they are
manifestations causes by irrational human behaviours.

~~~
MadWombat
> Whereas other wild species who espouse pretty much the same behavior - rats,
> foxes, mice - are seen as pests.

I have not heard of anyone having a problem with rats and mice hunting other
animals. They are mainly considered pests because they eat human food stores.
And the only context I have heard of foxes considered pests is when they hunt
livestock, chickens, geese etc. If a domestic cat starts hunting chickens, I
am pretty sure it will have consequences as well.

~~~
ticmasta
>> I have not heard of anyone having a problem with rats and mice hunting
other animals

In Canada rats are a bigger threat to bird species than cats, topped only by
humans. Or visit an island environment Galapagos where they've been
introduced.

------
billfruit
I'm curious at the use of acres in this article, or even otherwise. This is
about 6070 km square kilometers, which is a square of about 77 kilometer.

~~~
mrb
Here is what a 6070 km² square looks like:
[https://i.imgur.com/kEFBxZg.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/kEFBxZg.jpg)

~~~
ddevault
About two Rhode Islands, or one Delaware.

------
fl0under
Check out the images in this story
[https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australian-
bushfir...](https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australian-bushfires-
photos-before-and-after/11854888) for some before and after fire photos

------
dduugg
Is there a reason to use acres at this order of magnitude?

In case anyone else finds it easier to imagine this way: 1.5M acres converts
to 2,343 mi^2, which i can then envision as multiples of a reference area (7
NYCs).

~~~
chrisseaton
Isn't an acre the conventional unit of area in the United States where NPR is
produced? Why use something unconventional and add to the confusion?

But if they used km^2 then almost everyone would be able to visualise it, as
almost everyone knows what running or walking a km feels like.

------
abstractbarista
So once it finishes, we should have a clean slate with vastly reduced fire
potential, right? Seems like there was a build-up of combustible material for
some time, and nature decided to run its course.

~~~
tsomctl
I don't know about Australia, but here in Northern California, that's not how
it works. 500 years ago, forest fires were common, cool burning, and did more
good than harm. Today, it's been so long since the previous fire that there's
a huge amount of underbrush and dead material. When a fire comes through, it's
so hot that it kills everything, including huge, old growth doug fir trees.
However, it's not hot enough to actually incinerate the old growth trees, so
you get left with a bunch of standing deads, and plenty of dead wood for
another fire.

~~~
abstractbarista
Ahh I see, that's unfortunate. Maybe we could do more controlled burns to
clear the low-lying stuff but leave trees living?

~~~
vkou
We could, but we don't do enough of it because of liability risks. Imagine if
the controlled burn goes out of control, and burns down <someone's
lakehouse/dacha/cabin/dog/three month old baby>.

People will be in the streets, crying for blood, and won't give up until the
Department of Controlled Forest Burns is dissolved, and its executives are
sleeping in the Bay, wearing cement overshoes.

Yes, you can buy insurance for this sort of thing, but no, money doesn't grow
on trees, and insuring your controlled burn program is _not_ going to come
cheap.

~~~
tsomctl
Not sure where you are, but controlled burns are common in California. And
it's expected that a small portion of them get out of control. Source: my
neighbor, who's a retired wildland firefighter.

------
rafaelvasco
Anyone saying this fire is a natural occurrence is completely deluded. There's
no such thing as random in the Universe (shocking to some but true),
everything has an inherent reason. A causal force. In this case it appears to
be humanity itself.

~~~
sfgweilr4f
Interesting theory but those of us on planet Earth are dealing with plenty of
fires started by lightning.

~~~
rafaelvasco
If that was the end of the story it would be great.

~~~
sfgweilr4f
It basically is. Lightning is not caused by humans in the majority of cases.

In short: humans aren't required for fire to exist. Your argument is faulty.

~~~
rafaelvasco
You're just assuming it was lightning. Or that lightning was the only culprit.
Which is most likely false; Natives have been setting control fires for
centuries, yes. That's wrong and primitive i think. But the problem was most
likely aggravated by climate changes;

~~~
sfgweilr4f
No, I've witnessed lightning start a fire. And so have many others. You have
no basis to deny this natural occurrence. Even climate change deniers can't
disagree with this. Its not even up as part of a climate change debate. At
best, you're just plain wrong; at worst you're simply committed to a useless
narrative which blinds you from actual truth.

Insulting natives for lighting fires shows complete disrespect and ignorance
of the underlying environments, flora and fauna as well as their part in all
of it. You aren't advanced and knowledgeable: you're just ignorant, smug, and
delusional.

~~~
speedplane
> I've witnessed lightning start a fire. And so have many others. You have no
> basis to deny this natural occurrence.

I agree that there seems to be a bit of bias (if not racism) in the OP's
point, but there's no denying that the vast majority of fires are created by
humans, whether indigenous, farmers, or hikers.

