Long term investing and climate change

youve completely bypassed the argument there. The argument is the climate change gurus are not walking their talk.
But anyway; so, it's ok then if you are wealthy enough.
Tim Flannery isn't in that league. What about his purchase?
No climate emergency.

 

I think you are confusing hazard reduction and prescribed burns with back burning. Back burning is done as a last resort, lighting a fire along a narrow break such as road, or bulldozed ploughed or mowed strip on the windward side of a fire to burn back into a fire front. Backburning in controlling bushfires to prevent spreading | ClearlyExplained.com

 

Often the terms are intertwined by many.
Ultimately, they produce the same result. Less fuel to exacerbate the intensity. I think a lot of the attempts to conduct them are thwarted by policy. Doesn't help.
Investing in established suburban areas with less likelihood of fires is the way to go, I'd say.

 

I was actually referring to this post in my discussions, but you are correct I was meaning hazard reduction burns that are done in the cooler months to reduce the fuel load.

Many prescribed burns that were done 20-30 years ago , would never be given the go-ahead these days due to previous burns getting out of control and destroying property and the findings that came out of the reports or inquiry.
Then there is the higher incidence of more high risk days now commonly occurring in spring, when many prescribed burns were done.

And without stating the obvious to fight a fire you need large quantities of water, which is in very short supply in many areas of N.S.W, and disappearing at a phenomenal rate.
I am under the impression that water that is used to refill tankers and helicopters from private property is replaced free of charge.
That water (potable) ??? has to come from somewhere .

Many have mentioned that one of the main drivers of Sydney prices is immigration.
Will people keep on going there if the smoke issues persist for a long period of time , especially for people with underlying health issues like asthma and other respiratory diseases.
Its already getting a lot of bad publicity in the U.K and Europe , and pictures of Sydney shrouded in bushfire smoke certainly dont help , due to the harmful particles that makes their way into the lungs if exposed long term .
Many people come to Australia for the outdoor lifestyle , not the pollution , there trying to escape that and the cold weather.

 

once a fire ends, the smoke disappears into the atmosphere after a few hours or days - depends on size of fire and wind - as has done for millions of years.
I don't think smoke will be an issue for anyone thinking of immigrating to Australia.

 

Even going back to the 1994 bushfires that affected Sydney, how much has the population changed since then.
A lot more people are living in bushfire prone areas.
The internet hardly existing then , so there was less coverage.
And unfortunately the overseas media tend to over report of " Sydney on Fire" and a "State of Emergency ".
Many from overseas also have a higher awareness of knowledge regarding climate change and how events thousands of km away can effect the current problems facing N.S.W in 3 different ways but all inter-linked..

 

Maybe invest in ski resort apartments again?
Coldest maximum summer temperature on record at Thredbo - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

People are concerned about the rising sea levels. Use sea water for fire dumping issues, at least in coastal regions.

 

Maybe we can start to build dams again?
Or, fire up the desal plants and build more of them?

 

I know this is off-topic, and my post will probably get deleted - but you mentioned it here - and that is a subject that the proponents of climate change never address. Back in 2007, Tim Flannery screamed how "the dams will never fill again" (and then they did, and to this day he has never been called out for it) but exactly none of these people ever link water requirements and the concern over diminishing water supplies with population growth - they are usually in favour of endless population growth. The equation simply cannot work.
I've been ranting on for years how the two beliefs cannot work - you can't have endless population growth, while at the same time stopping all dams and other measures to harness and store water for the population (and farming) requirements.

 

Lightning strikes are completely beyond our control, and have been occurring since Earth was formed, and are the the main cause of bushfires all over the Planet until humans came along. That won't change - there are simply more people in the way of that natural process. And now, whenever there is a major fire where plots of human constructed things are destroyed, the level of destruction is immediately equated with an increase in the intensity and severity of the fires. It is misrepresenting the facts at best.
Yes, the recent fires have been enormous, but they have happened before, as has been (attempted to be) shown.
Two men, including volunteer firefighter, charged with deliberately starting multiple blazes in NSW – myGC.com.au

 

I agree with you, to a degree - politicians never do anything that would waste money, right?
But; as we saw; "the rain will never fill the dams again", so this old cynical head is not prone to listen too closely on these matters.
On dams; I would have thought (I'm no expert though) we now have enormous technological and mechanical resources to create dams out of existing rivers and waterways without impacting too much on the river flows;
For example; building/digging a dam area adjacent to an existing river instead of directly across it. Then, once it is all formed and ready to go, dig across to the existing river to allow the water to flow sideways into the new dam.
Naturally; there would be an initial drop in water level as the dam filled up. But, if the timing of the link up was directly before and during the usual wet period of the year, this would be minimal and short-term impact on the river levels.
Mind you; in my lifetime I have seen the Murray river go from overflowing, then to "almost walking across it" depth, to overflowing - twice, so I dont subscribe to the argument that dropping water levels is fatal for a river.

Plus; back to the desal plants (and I dont want to make this an Aide post or thread); send less Aide elsewhere - I think we provide waaay too much - start spending more money at home, and use some of it to build more desal plants - and get them operational asap. More jobs and so forth.
Or; give Private Companies (Aus-owned only, of course) incentives and ongoing operational Contracts to do it.
And finally; (I've said this many times in my life before); there are trillions of gallons of rainfall each year in the North of Aus during the wet season, which flow straight out to sea. It's time all of our hot-air, self-serving Politicians started to formulate plans and budgets to set up extensive pipelines (to new dams) East, West and South. Again; possibly offer incentives and Contracts to the Private Sector (only Aus-owned Companies) to help build and operate them.
I have never heard a single Politician from any Party even murmur anything along these lines - too busy trying to push water back up hill to make more electricity.
All of the above would also make the prospect of investing near these emerging projects attractive.

 

If water security is potentially a massive issue into the future, and we are facing more extreme weather events including droughts, wouldn't it make sense to curb population growth?
Not too good for any investor (anywhere) if we don't have adequate water.