Being from the West, I feel like I have an appropriate respect for forest fires. Granted, places like California tend to have more devastating fires than we do in Wyoming. Recently, I read an article in the October 26th edition of The New Yorker about the 2009 wildfires in Australia. In "The Inferno," Christine Kenneally writes about how Australians approach fires differently from how we do in the United States. In the U.S., people are evacuated from their homes and communities early if there is the possibility of fire. In Australia, people are given the option to leave early, or stay and fight the fire. This completely blows my mind, and as Kenneally describes what is involved for those who stay, I do not think I could do it.
Australians have individualized fire plans that address removing flammable items from the house and storing water. Houses act as a heat shield, and if people take proper precautions, they can save their homes. When I started reading the article, I thought I would definitely be on board for something like that. Isn't that akin to the Western lifestyle: protect what is yours?
On the other hand, staying to fight the fire is indeed a fight. Constant vigilance is required in order to staunch any burning embers that may land on the house. All that stands between a person and a fire with temperatures than can reach twenty-two hundred (!) degrees is the house. Try and picture looking out your window and only seeing flames. Would you stay or go?
No comments:
Post a Comment