Bushfires 2019/2020!

[Flying mermaid]

Bit of rain in Canberra now and tomorrow is cooler with not much in the way of winds which should calm down the fire here.

 

[Quickstatus]

Today the AEMO (electricity market operator) declared a loss of reserve condition . NSW was short by nearly 1000kWh reserve capacity. In the hot afternoon there was only 500MW reserve capacity. Luckily nothing happened. NSW Govt put out a message asking residential customers to loadshed - aircons to 26deg etc

And Snowy Hydro pumped more into grid making heaps of peak pricing $$$ It is still pumping 2gigaWatts into the Grid at 2230hrs. There was a risk of lightning at the Bulli transmission lines which also did not help with reserve capacity

Projected demand a little lower tomorrow

 

[juddles]

Regarding the Red Cross, I am perhaps a tad astounded at some of the naivety here - something less-than-common in AFF, as a rule.

The Red Cross does many many good things - I have been a beneficiary of their work in some conflict areas. But they are also a professional entity - far probably from the perceived thing that they are a bunch of volunteers doing pure altruistic work.

Their costs are not just "admin' - they are a huge entity of many paid workers. They have forecasts and budgets and cost centres and all the other things, like any company. They may not technically be "for profit', but quite a few people do ok out of it - and please let me again state, I understand what they are and they do very good work.

But to enlighten, as just one example, the CEO of the Red Cross in the USA earns a salary of about $1,000,000 AUD per year. I doubt many people know that.... And here we were thinking Alan Joyce is overpaid....

 

[juddles]

This quote from NSW MP Andrew Constance is spot on: "“The money is needed now, not sitting in a Red Cross bank account earning interest so they can map out their next three years and do their marketing."

 

[Flying mermaid]

Regarding the Red Cross, I am perhaps a tad astounded at some of the naivety here - something less-than-common in AFF, as a rule.

The Red Cross does many many good things - I have been a beneficiary of their work in some conflict areas. But they are also a professional entity - far probably from the perceived thing that they are a bunch of volunteers doing pure altruistic work.

Their costs are not just "admin' - they are a huge entity of many paid workers. They have forecasts and budgets and cost centres and all the other things, like any company. They may not technically be "for profit', but quite a few people do ok out of it - and please let me again state, I understand what they are and they do very good work.

But to enlighten, as just one example, the CEO of the Red Cross in the USA earns a salary of about $1,000,000 AUD per year. I doubt many people know that.... And here we were thinking Alan Joyce is overpaid.... s

One of the things I dislike about charities now is that they employ professional fund raisers. So before the charity dollar even gets eroded by the charities costs, some is siphoned off in commissions to the person raising the money and to the organisation employing the fund raisers.

I think, unlike a business where the necessity to be accountable for profit can (not always) lead to a trimmer organisation, charities tend to have a level of feather bedding in their staffing.

of course charities need to employ staff - apart from admin, finance etc etc, there are also people carrying out the work of the charity - doctors, social workers - it’s not just handing out money.

While I do donate to charities with big overheads I also am quite keen to avoid them and have donated to a number of small projects where I know overheads are kept as low as possible.

 

[juddles]

To those who think their donation should be 100% without costs of managing that donation should volunteer their time and help.

I agree that there has to be costs, but the Red Cross is as guilty as any corporation about using misleading figures.

Essentially there are 3 ways donations are spread - the first is the "overhead" - the cost of the entity running itself. The second is the money delivered to a zone of need. But it is the third cost, the cost of delivering such welfare, where things become very grey.

The Red Cross often claims it only spends about 10% on overhead - which may be true, if you understand "overhead" to be head office/corporate. . But it then says that the other 90% goes to delivering aid,etc. Again, this may be true, but this % includes all their operational and staff costs. They do not say how much of that "90%" actually gos to the victims of whatever disaster/need they are assisting.

As a simple example, if someone donated $10,000 to an appeal for X emergency, the Red Cross says that $1000 will go to overhead/admin, and $9,000 to help the needy of situation X. What they do not say is that of that $9,000, maybe up to $8,000 may be spent in salaries and logistics, etc of the program, to deliver $1000 on the ground.

Yes there are many unpaid volunteers that do much leg work in COLLECTING funds. They are fantastic. But it all feeds to a central body. Somehow reminds me of the Catholic church....

 

[get me outta here]

There are a few ‘maybes’ in there, maybe this and maybe that. We can all say that and raise questions and doubts. But, it seems supposition.

I agree that there has to be costs, but the Red Cross is as guilty as any corporation about using misleading figures.

Essentially there are 3 wayse are donations are spread - the first is the "overhead" - the cost of the entity running itself. The second is the money delivered to a zone of need. But it is the third cost, the cost of delivering such welfare, where things become very grey.

All these The Red Cross often claims it only spends about 10% on overhead - which may be true, if you understand "overhead" to be head office/corporate. . But it then says that the other 90% goes to delivering aid,etc. Again, this may be true, but this % includes all their operational and staff costs. They do not say how much of that "90%" actually gos to the victims of whatever disaster/need they are assisting.

As a simple example, if someone donated $10,000 to an appeal for X emergency, the Red Cross says that $1000 will go to overhead/admin, and $9,000 to help the needy of situation X. What they do not say is that of that $9,000, maybe up to $8,000 may be spent in salaries and logistics, etc of the program, to deliver $1000 on the ground.

Yes there are many unpaid volunteers that do much leg work in COLLECTING funds. They are fantastic. But it all feeds to a central body. Somehow reminds me of the Catholic church....

 

[juddles]

There are a few ‘maybes’ in there, maybe this and maybe that. We can all say that and raise questions and doubts. But, it seems supposition.

I think that if anyone wants to know, the info is all out there via the internet - just look.....

 

[get me outta here]

Ah yes, that highly reliable source not quoted. In no way do I support holding donations back from the desperately needy. But the charities need to be careful not to be caught by people turning up fraudulently claiming to be victims.
Perhaps straight from the horses mouth interview :

“ Red Cross Scandal”. No hype there then for people who go off half coughed based on some media after money and a story.

Then read the comments underneath where it seems as if people couldn’t actually understand what the answers were denying the claims of holding back money and stockpiling and all the other accusations.

I think that if anyone wants to know, the info is all out there via the internet - just look.....

 

[Quickstatus]

As a simple example, if someone donated $10,000 to an appeal for X emergency, the Red Cross says that $1000 will go to overhead/admin, and $9,000 to help the needy of situation X. What they do not say is that of that $9,000, maybe up to $8,000 may be spent in salaries and logistics, etc of the program, to deliver $1000 on the ground.

Lets look at it another way:

Lets say the RedCross keeps 10% for direct admin costs.

So $11000 donated becomes $10000 disbursable funds. Lets say the RC and others give out that $10K in cash directly to the victims.
What happens to that cash?. The value of that cash only occurs if it is spent buying goods and services from various providers. Some of that spent cash goes towards the costs of the providers in providing goods and services and some of that goes as profit for the providers. So does the victim end up with $10000?

Should the RC give out cash and likely on an ongoing basis to victims to spend as they see fit?. Most would say that is a very bad idea. Much better to disburse the money in a prudent way, into programs that work, and assistance that is meaningful. That may mean that the victims don't get all of the $10000 in their hands.

IMO the worst thing that can happen is fraud. People have already been arrested stealing from bushfire victims and their properties. Situations like this brings out opportunists and corruption. Imagine the RC later in an audit saying that some of that money was stolen. ,And I can guarantee that prices will go up as people cash in on the largesse. Money is the root.......

 

[OATEK]

I stopped sending donations to the Red Cross after a previous emergency (I think the Tsunami event) when I discovered that they do keep back funds for after the initial on the ground work, and were vague about how the funds were accounted for at an end point (as there was no obvious end-point for RC delivering crisis support following that event). Its not like the RC, or some similar bodies, come back in 5 years and publish an accounting of there the millions contributed for a specific event were disbursed. Nothing I have heard in the last few days, including the interview above, makes it any clearer for me.

 

[get me outta here]

Understand, but does anyone report back and if not this charity/govt collector/etc, which ones do?

I stopped sending donations to the Red Cross after a previous emergency (I think the Tsunami event) when I discovered that they do keep back funds for after the initial on the ground work, and were vague about how the funds were accounted for at an end point (as there was no obvious end-point for RC delivering crisis support following that event). Its not like the RC, or some similar bodies, come back in 5 years and publish an accounting of there the millions contributed for a specific event were disbursed. Nothing I have heard in the last few days, including the interview above, makes it any clearer for me.

 

[Moody]

I will admit to discovering this topic late and haven't read it all, but regarding the charity donations and disbursements ..... it seems to me that the way charities operate is not materially different to the government. You know - take sums of money from the people, consume a proportion of it themselves collecting it and deciding where to spend it, try their best to do so, and spend the last remaining amounts on reviewing what a great/cough job they have done.

If people are uncomfortable with the performance of charities in the current bushfire crisis, then maybe an alternative would be to elect governments who will do the job properly in the first place.

 

[RooFlyer]

You know - take sums of money from the people, consume a proportion of it themselves collecting it and deciding where to spend it,

Not sure how seriously you propose the analogy , but in the case of charities and the bushfires, people are giving for a specific purpose, for an immediate crisis. For government, its all 'consolidated revenue'.

As for 'doing the job' - well, hazard reduction is a job of government, but there seems to be an awful amount of tape of various colours getting in the way of that, no matter who is in government. Hopefully at the end of this crisis we'll see some change in that.

 

[straitman]

If people are uncomfortable with the performance of charities in the current bushfire crisis, then maybe an alternative would be to elect governments who will do the job properly in the first place.

People can only vote for whomever offers themselves for election. Virtually no one offered qualifies for your suggestion. Certainly non of the big players.

 

[Quickstatus]

The C130 LAT that crashed was bombing an area NE of Cooma.

The 'Two thumbs wildlife trust Kalandan Koala sanctuary was located nearby but was unable to be saved with numerous koalas perishing.

Kalandan - Humane Society International (HSI)

A dedicated wildlife sanctuary and wildlife release site and a brumby camp for at risk youth.

www.wildlifelandtrust.org.au

 

[get me outta here]

Oh no, so many untold tragedies.



Comps to Canberra Times. (See the detail in the fire retardant).

The C130 LAT that crashed was bombing an area NE of Cooma.

The 'Two thumbs wildlife trust Kalandan Koala sanctuary was located nearby but was unable to be saved with numerous koalas perishing.

Kalandan - Humane Society International (HSI)

A dedicated wildlife sanctuary and wildlife release site and a brumby camp for at risk youth.

www.wildlifelandtrust.org.au

 

[Moody]

Not sure how seriously you propose the analogy , but in the case of charities and the bushfires, people are giving for a specific purpose, for an immediate crisis. For government, its all 'consolidated revenue'.

As for 'doing the job' - well, hazard reduction is a job of government, but there seems to be an awful amount of tape of various colours getting in the way of that, no matter who is in government. Hopefully at the end of this crisis we'll see some change in that.

Why shouldn't the government support people in a time of immediate crisis? How does it make any sense to say - "Don't you worry ... the charities will help you out because these bushfires weren't in the forward estimates."?

And let's not start with the politicisation of the hazard reduction argument, 'ços this is the AFF and everybody here knows that the Greens are to blame ... for everything.

 

[drron]

Except that hazard reduction shouldn't be political because every one of the 80 Inquiries into severe bushfires has recommended hazard reduction as the main priority to reduce the severity of bushfires.Only once did a Government do as well a job as was recommended-the WA Government after fatal fires in 1961.result more than 30 years of reduced area burnt and no severe fires.

A 60C day can not produce the temperatures that severe fires get to.This year one at 660C,2009 in Victoria over 1000C.The laws of physics says it is impossible.

A different theory of physics explains how mass can become energy.Ie it is the fuel that creates the fire intensity.this was shown by the CSIRO Bushfire research unit over 50 years ago.Twice the fuel load produces a fire that moves twice as fast with 4 times the intensity-temperature.3 times the fuel load has the fire moving 3 times as fast at 9 times the intensity.

Scientists in California have calculated the potential energy in various fuels of fires there.They found the Tasmanian blue gum to be the fuel producing most heat.As it is the USA they still use the old Imperial measures.So 1 pound of the blue gums detritus when ignited produced 10,000 BTUs of heat.A BTU is the amount of heat needed to heat 1 pound of water by 1F.
The Blue gum as well as producing the most heat is one of the easiest to ignite and produces more detritus than other species.

How Flammable Is a Eucalyptus Tree?

Twenty-five years after the Oakland Hills fire, people still disagree about whether blue gum eucalyptus is a fire threat in the East Bay Hills

baynature.org

And in California they are moving to more hazard reduction.Florida already has more hazard reduction going on than australian states.

California Today: Fighting Fire With Fire (Published 2016)

Welcome to California Today, a morning update on the stories that matter to Californians (and anyone else interested in the state).

www.nytimes.com

Sorry but anyone denying the important role of hazard reduction is really denying the science.

 

[Quickstatus]

Bushfires are started by:

Arson - deliberate (about half of all bushfires are deilberate or suspicious)
Burning off - ignoring a fire ban (occured in Kalkite in Snowy mountaim this year
Train - rail sparks
campfires -embers
equipment - angle grinders, chainsaws, welding equipment, lawn mowers (lawn mower sunshine coast)
Children - turramurra 2019
Lightning - positive rather than negative lightning. positive lightning originates from the top of clouds and are much more powerful than negative ones which originate from the bottom of clouds
Power lines, electric fencing - sparking

Myth1: spontaneous combustion. Its so hot the bush starts burning
Myth 2: the glass sunlight concentration from a discarded bottle causing the bush to burn.

Bushfires are propogated and intensified by:
Low humidity
High temperatures
Dry fuel
Winds

Bushfires are controlled by:
Eliminating as much as possible the factors that START a bushfire
Reducing the fuel load - which no one is doing properly.
The NSW RFS says it has exceeded the target and therefore fuel is not to blame - esseentially saying no more could have been done in that department. But the target is an arbitrary number. At the same time, Australia has met its carbon reduction treaty obligations but yet the climate people we have to do more.

Climate change people say fix the climate so the temperatures are lower and there is more rain. But that neither stops the factors that start it nor the dry fuel issue. And even before the industrial age when CO2 started rising there has been massive bushfires.

Climate change people say that increasing CO2 is resulting in more extreme weather. Ok
But they cant also prove the opposite - that a reduction in CO2 causes less extreme weather.
And the Problem is that you only need one extreme weather season to cause a massive bushfire. There will always be extremes in weather. Nothing fixes that.


Climate change does not start bushfires

Myth3: When 2 or more bushfires join it does not make it a megablaze. The burnt out areas join up and the firefronts join up and the combined length of the firefronts is shortened.