... the extent of the devastation this time out is the direct result of conservationist efforts to save the planet. There would have been far more fire breaks to curb it's spread were it not for their government funded nonsense.
I'd argue — or wonder — if Australia is a nation of arsonists?

And whatever the cause, these effects were forecast a decade ago as a result of global warming.
But the picture is never quite as black-and-white as we'd like, and it's a pity that well-meaning ignorance often carries so much clout, as sometimes, it seems to me, it's a case of '(middle-class liberal) urban utopia v rural reality' — so I can sympathise with Aussie's position.
I recall the devastation to woodland in the wake of the 'Great Storm' of 87. The media turned out in force to broadcast the 'irreparable damage' to our ancient and, to the affluent urban middle-classes, near-sacred woodlands. In the middle of it all, one forester was talking with a wry smile: "Well a lot of good will come out of this. it gives us a chance to perform some much needed forest management in areas where the woodlands have suffered under the 'hands off' policies ..."
Those 'sacred groves' had, of course, been coppiced ever since the Bronze Age; it's only recently that 'preservation' means 'do not touch under any circumstance' which is precisely the wrong policy.
On the other hand, the rural voice champions fox-hunting with dogs as an acceptable means of pest control ('the foxes love it,' one spokeperson informed us) and badger-culling as a means of preventing bovine TB (which so far it has failed to do).
Hey ho ... so it goes ....