Evidence: too hot to handle?

Americans (chiefly those in the states bordering the Gulf of Mexico) face hurricanes. New Zealanders and the Japanese worry about earthquakes. And in much of Australia, we worry about bushfires. Without wishing to make light of the tragic toll they can inflict, natural disasters are part of the world we inhabit. But as inevitable as they are, we still try everything we can to stop them — or at least to minimise the impacts they have on us.

As Philip Gibbons notes, while many can offer up their own ‘solutions’ to mitigate risks, few bother to check the evidence to see if they work. In the case of bushfires, Gibbons concludes that many of the options commonly touted don’t have much merit. For instance, the Black Saturday bushfires of three years ago would not have been substantially lessened by more ‘prescribed burning’ (ostensibly to eliminate potential fuel for fires, but often too far away from where they would make a real difference). By contrast, greater clearing of vegetation surrounding homes would have offered significant protection. But this strategy puts a large onus on individual homeowners to safeguard themselves — less appealing than expecting the government to do the job for you. Furthermore, people move in to the bush often because they want to be surrounded by nature. That aspiration is kind of spoiled when you clear out all the nature.

And that’s at the core of the problem: for all the beauty of the environment, there is plenty of danger too. Those who live in the bush can’t take the good without the bad.