The ignition source is really not relevant, that's the final step in a long chain and will happen naturally at some point. We should just disregard the arson narrative entirely (not that it shouldn't be punished, just that it's not an independent variable to be discussed).
back
4 comments
>The ignition source is really not relevant, that's the final step in a long chain and will happen naturally at some point.
I feel like it is relevant because even if Arson is responsible for 2% of the fires, it would be advantageous to mitigate things that are within our control. You can't control lightning, but ideally with proper education people will no longer want to start fires or you hold those accountable who do to such an extent it ideally prevents copy cats.
I feel the best way to stop something isn't applying the band-aid afterwards, but to try to stop it before it starts.
Personally I think that would be like saying, "How you get cancer is not really important, that's the final step in a long chain and will happen naturally at some point."
One of the arsonists caught was a firefighter, who's presumably plenty educated on the risks of starting a fire.
The problem with arsonists starting fires isn't education, it's crazy people, and you'll never completely get rid of crazy people.
>One of the arsonists caught was a firefighter, who's presumably plenty educated on the risks of starting a fire.
It is my personal belief that this person intended to start the fire and managed to become a firefighter in order to try to not get caught and wasn't a firefighter for 10 years and all of a sudden decided to go rogue.
I could very well be wrong, and I do not disagree with you, society will always have crazy/evil people who want to do harm for whatever reasons and education will do nothing for those people. However I think a lot of the 'arson' wasn't intentional but was people camping, smoking or doing other things which education can help prevent.
> However I think a lot of the 'arson' wasn't intentional but was people camping, smoking or doing other things which education can help prevent.
Yes, most of the 180 arrests number that's going around are from these sorts of scenarios instead of arson.
That said, Australians get plenty of education already on the dangers of fire. Fire bans and high risk days are very much publicized. My grandparents nearly lost a house to Hobart's fires in 1967. It just takes one person out of Australia's 20M to dispose improperly of a cigarette, and there are plenty of natural ignition sources to add onto that.
Just look at an Aussie fire sign, which you'll see all over: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-13/bushfire-danger-ratin...
"Low/Moderate, High, Very High, Severe, Extreme, and Catastrophic"
Haven't we had fires caused by people driving their vehicle through dry grass and the cat is hot enough to ignite it?
Cigarette, lightning strike, shitheads with fireworks, foolish campers, once the bomb is primed it doesn't really matter who pushes the button. When it goes off, watch out.
Why?
Because arson isn't a key factor in the overall problem; it's basically background noise. If you used a time machine to remove the arsonists from the timeline, Australia would still be in a horrible fire season this year.
because ...
.The ignition source is really not relevant, that's the final step in a long chain and will happen naturally at some point.
"Climate change is going to start fires eventually, so let's just ignore what happened and claim that what happened isn't what happened but what's gonna happen happened."
You missed the point.
The ignition source is irrelevant. If an arson tries to start a fire during a wet winter the fire won't start or spread very far. However, we are in a difficult drought with very hot and dry conditions even in late spring. The problem is that once a fire gets started, by any means, it can spread very easily.
"You missed the point."
Back at ya, matey.
Perhaps I didn't understand what you meant by your post. Maybe you can explain?
But climate change doesn't start fires...