Or maybe there's just never enough?

Those warning we failed to heed | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog

I've already expressed skepticism about the immediate round of "not enough controlled burning" and "not enough fuel reduction" claims being made as soon as the destruction of last Saturday was finished.

Andrew Bolt has a column today on the topic in which he argues that the current Labor government in Victoria has been one of the worst for ignoring calls for such action from fire chiefs and the like.

He may be right for all I know from this distance.

However, I reckon he inadvertantly weakens the case when he goes and quotes the same line from a 1939 royal commission, and again in 1984.

Look, if after every major bushfire, every investigation says there was not enough fuel reduction in the disaster, it suggests that it is just always going to be one of the reasons for a bushfire. I suppose it is logical in a way.

Certainly, by giving us examples from well before the political influence of Greenies, Andrew is weakening the case against them now.

I remain very skeptical that, given the weather conditions for the whole month of January in Victoria, the never-likely-to-achieved "perfect" scheme of fuel reduction would have actually prevented major fires. I even doubt that different planning laws regarding the siting of houses may have made too much difference, given the distance ahead of the fire front that 100 kph gusts could send embers.

My intuition is that, if people like to live within a hundred meters or two of the edge of a forest (and fair enough if they do), then design standards of the house (including the enforced inclusion of a bushfire shelter) is more likely the answer.