Australia’s fiery trial

For Australia and its American eco-twin, California, a realization is dawning. A warming world requires new thinking – or, perhaps, very old thinking.

Andrew Kelly/Reuters
Farmer Jeff McCole sits in front of his family home, which was destroyed in a bushfire in Buchan, Australia, Jan. 23, 2020.

History tells us that when Europeans first arrived in Australia, they were shocked by the indigenous people’s relationship with fire. Back in 18th-century England, fire was for hearths and forges, for heat and industry, but it was in many ways a power to be feared. Yet in this place, it was used to guide the landscape. Through a process that came to be known as “fire-stick farming,” indigenous communities had freed fire beyond its traditional European confines, delicately reshaping ecosystems to make them more resilient and productive.

For generations, such practices have been largely ignored or even discouraged. But for Australia and its American eco-twin, California, a new realization is dawning. A warming world requires new thinking. Or, in this case, perhaps, very old thinking.    

In this week’s cover story, our Martin Kuz shares two insights from his reporting in Australia – the stress placed on the country’s legendary volunteer firefighting force, and the reemergence of fire-stick practices to combat wildfires before they start.

The fact is, both Australia and the American West have taken a largely European view of fire during the past two centuries, and particularly in more recent decades. Put simply, this is the idea that the best fire resiliency is built through human invention – a fortress mentality.

Following devastating Australian wildfires in 1939, “we had somehow felt that we had learnt how to survive fire, we’d built better homes, we were a more advanced technological society, and that we could just bunker down ... in an ordinary home and defend it and survive,” Tom Griffiths, a professor emeritus of history at the Australian National University in Canberra, told Australia’s ABC News recently. “And that clearly didn’t happen.”

The tale is just as true in California, if not more so. The California dream of 1950s-era Gov. Pat Brown was quite literally built on bending the landscape to human will, from water projects of spectacular audacity to the birth of modern suburbia. Prosperity was wrung from the land like a sponge.

So it has been no small irony that Mr. Brown’s son, Jerry, spent much of his two terms as governor in the 2010s seeking a new balance amid water shortages and historic wildfires. Indeed, Martin says his first, overpowering impression when stepping out of the airport in Sydney several weeks ago was that he was back in California in 2018. That was the year he covered the tragic Paradise fire.   

The changing climate is forcing this new reckoning. Communities that have long been able to cope using a bunkered “European” view of fire are now under unprecedented strain, wondering how to address extremes that seem to be part of a new normal. Prescribed burns have been part of the firefighting toolkit for decades, but indigenous Australia offers the option of a deeper rethinking about how we approach fire. Can fire truly be embraced as a means of care rather than feared as only destructive? The answer is not likely a total solution. But it is possibly one of the ways forward.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.