This pales in comparison to the actual problem, climate change. There are people that deny it is happening while profiting from it, and those people are in positions of power.
A cumulative visualization of the scope of the fires that is being misinterpreted as real time is farting into a hurricane in comparison.
Using misleading images gives climate change deniers justification for their skepticism. One might think that doesn't matter because those people would never believe anyway but there are plenty of people on the fence who are going to see this false information about the scope of the fires as proof that those speaking about climate change are dishonest and have a hidden agenda. Credibility matters.
Priorities also matter, one can't help but notice the BBC put work into this, but not in reporting in the links between drought fires and our climate crisis.
"Alternatively, a national figure can be obtained by aggregating publicly available data on arson that are available from each state and territory police jurisdiction. Based on these figures, there were approximately 14,975 incidents of arson recorded by police in 2011–12. This is likely to be an underestimate owing to the various ways in which different police jurisdictions define arson for statistical purposes, as well as the omission of unreported incidents.
To estimate the number of arson incidents not reported to police, Mayhew (2003a, 2003b) used a multiplier of 3.0. Applying this to the above police recorded crime figure, in 2011–12 there were an estimated 44,925 incidents of arson."
So there are about ~100 cases of arson per day in Australia in a given year. What is different about bush fires this year?
It goes both ways. People are using the "180 arrested for starting fires" as a reason to discredit the impact of climate change on the current situation. Though it's conveniently ignored that only a fraction of those were starting actual forest fires (eg not a BBQ...), and there have been arsonists every year.. they're not a new phenomenon.
>This pales in comparison to the actual problem, climate change
Seems a bit ideological to label climate change as "the actual problem" when 24 arsonists were caught, over the season, deliberately starting forest fires. Forest fires aren't a new thing but people deliberately starting them seems to be.
Arson is certainly a thing that happens but isn't suddenly drastically increasing for no reason.
What is increasing is the rate at which those acts become extensive bushfires. Which is caused by drought drying out the land (increasing fuel). Which is linked to ... yep, climate change.
Assuming "cause a brushfire" means intentional causing, rather than unintentional causing during commission of another arson, that's certainly an alarming trend. I live in a region of Canada that's had seasonal forest fires for as long as I remember and I don't recall any of them being intentionally set. Not good to see this emerge as a crime trend although I'm, in a way, not surprised given I've wondered for awhile why terrorists haven't been using forest fires as a tactic given the potentially low risk to mayhem ratio.
'but isn't suddenly drastically increasing for no reason.' You have data on that?
Given the fanatic stirring caused by Thunberg, enactment of a 'State of Fear' as envisaged in the novel by Michael Crichton is not an unreasonable fear. It's even been encouraged by climatatogist Stephen Schneider who wrote: "...to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change ...we have to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This double ethical bind which we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
If any arsonist did light a fire with this in mind, he or she has certainly been vindicated given the media's reaction.
My argument was narrow: to counter "seems to be a new thing". The argument of "the scale of these fires is unusual, but if there is an unusual cause, it's an unusual amount of arson, not unusual climate conditions".
If a single act of Arson was the only fire started then it still wouldn't make sense to attribute the fires to arson alone, because arson can start a fire but for it to grow it needs dry fuel. Which is created by drought. Which is linked to climate change.
And of course arson trails behind legal and illegal burning off and lightning as starter of fires anyway [1].
I mean like sure if we were able to somehow eliminate arson and burning off we would probably have less bushfires.
That doesn't change that the scale of these fires is straightforwardly linked to climate change. Fixating on these miscellaneous factors distracts from the broader, more critical issue.
None of the fires in Victoria have been confirmed to be deliberately lit. Police have charged one man in Victoria with _attempting_ to light a fire.
Deliberate arson is not new in Australia, don't make out that it's the reason for the scale of these particular fires. "Conditions, not ignitions".
Fire chiefs had anticipated and warned of the likelihood of these fires, and they are clear in asserting that climate change is a factor. Australia just had its hottest day ever broken multiple times over a series of days.
Arson has always been around in Australia. But climate change exacerbates the impact. Less time for safely going hazard reduction burns, and drier forests, and less rain makes a big impact.
A cumulative visualization of the scope of the fires that is being misinterpreted as real time is farting into a hurricane in comparison.