Bushfire!

A look at the bush in New South Wales.
A look at the bush in New South Wales.

A helicopter heading north flew over the house on a lovely afternoon in late December. Within minutes, the phone rang. A neighbor was calling to ask if Maureen or her partner, Stephen, had heard about a fire. They hadn’t. Today of all days, Maureen had forgotten to check for a fire ban, something she normally did first thing in the morning during the summer. Quickly she booted her computer and sure enough, a total ban had been declared hours earlier. According to reports, the bush had exploded in an area not far away.

I looked to the sky, but saw no smoke, nothing to suggest an ominous force of nature was headed our way. But we were strangers to this part of the world, my husband and I having been there for only about a week as WWOOFers with Willing Workers On Organic Farms.

Maureen and Stephen informed us they planned to stay. They said because of fire’s erratic movements, choosing not to evacuate was the safest choice. Stephen added that most people killed in bushfires die in car crashes because of panic. I believed them even though instinct told me to run.

Not knowing how big a fire we faced, Maureen and Stephen assumed the worst and we began the mitigation process.

Maureen watered the gardens near the house while we checked water levels in 10-gallon jugs spaced several feet apart, in rows across the property. If fire came, the jugs would burst, dousing the flames. As I looked at them, the jugs took on new meaning. They were our first line of defense, short squat soldiers poised to perish in order to save the house.

I turned to see Stephen climbing quickly up a ladder leaning against a barn-like building that housed his artist studio. He yelled for us to turn on the garden hose and hand it up to him. As he worked, he explained he was plugging the rain gutters and filling them with water because flying embers were the primary way buildings catch fire. After we were done with that, he sent us off to do the same to his house. On our way, we passed a sprinkler rotating back and forth, sending jets of water into nearby trees and shrubs. How many times as a child had I jumped through an identical sprinkler? This symbol of childhood and lazy summer days took on a dreadful new meaning. The image stayed with me, haunting my thoughts.

I’m not afraid of heights, but as I climbed the ladder leaning against Stephen’s modest two-story home, my stomach tightened and I hoped lugging the hose up with me wouldn’t push the ladder away from the building. I hadn’t dreamed I would be caught in the middle of something like this and didn’t want to think about what might happen.

We shuttered the windows and placed buckets of water and mops in front of them. When the time came, they would be used to wet down the shutters. Finally, we filled every available bucket with water and placed them around the house perimeter for use in dousing flames.

With our help, Maureen and Stephen did their part to protect their home that December afternoon, but many of their neighbors had not. They, like most Americans, expected to evacuate. Maureen and Stephen were on their own, following their motto: The only way to save your house is to stand your ground.

Fortunately for us, the fire that day proved to be small and was extinguished without much fuss. But it offered us a taste of what people living in Australia’s bush live with every summer.

Maureen, who has owned the property for some 20 years, admits she has grown weary of the threat. As she looks to retirement she’ll consider relocating to a smaller place closer in, out of the bush and its fast-moving companion, bushfire.

Human scale habitat

Australian wine country needs a lot of oil and coal to stay in business.
Australian wine country needs a lot of oil and coal to stay in business.
By Steven Saint Thomas

Everyone in Australia’s Hunter Valley seems to make a living in one of two ways: they’re either running the family vineyard or ranch, or they’re employed by one of the giant coal mining corporations.

The families work the valley while the corporations strip the hills. The two lifestyles clash when the corporations drill for what Aussie’s call “coal seam gas” next to family farms.

There’s a lot of economic pressure for the little guys to sell and leave the valley to the industrial extractors. It’s all a matter of scale, and huge business enterprises get the advantage of economies of scale.

What about human scale? Permaculturists ask themselves some pretty tough questions: Can we really depend on fossil-fuel driven supply chains owned by huge corporations? Is it possible to sustain ourselves with the land and resources we have? Have we bitten off more perpetual-growth paradigm than we can chew?

As economist E.F. Schumacher proposed in 1973, small is beautiful. We need to explore a future that is not unlike the past – a way of life that is sustained by human effort rather than fossil fuel.

Take, for example, one of the largest organic vineyards in Australian wine country. One middle-aged couple with hopes of retiring in the next decade are managing 80 acres of grapes. That’s enough produce to yield more than 100,000 bottles of wine.

They are trying to do all this with one full-time farmhand, a part-time assistant and a handful of young adults traveling the continent through Willing Workers on Organic Farms (WWOOF).

Throw in a hundred head of sheep, a small orchard and two vegetable gardens and you’ve got some burned-out family farmers shopping for a condo on the coast.

They need a lot of fossil fuel, both petroleum for tractors and other vehicles, and electricity from burning some of that coal being mined over the ridge. Irrigating 80 acres takes a fair amount of pumping. Delivering wine to Sydney is expensive.

A permaculturist would ask: is this sustainable? Is 80 acres of mono-crop a wise idea? Could a smaller vineyard produce a decent amount of wine for people around the valley – while the rest of the land is used to cultivate food?

Perhaps a smaller vineyard could be harvested by hand instead of a special tractor. Grass and hay around the farm might be sufficient feedstock for a smaller herd of sheep. Maybe people in the Hunter Valley would have plenty of work creating a self-reliant region, and they wouldn’t need to mine coal for sale to Asia.

Size does matter, but permaculture turns the paradigm upside-down in favor of small solutions. It says the Hunter Valley vineyard needs to be scaled back or perhaps run by a community of people who can all make a living together.

If a tractor is absolutely necessary to aid the harvest, maybe some acreage could be planted with a feedstock for biodiesel.

In the United States, most households have enough expenses to require two breadwinners. Two adults must work full time to earn enough cash for housing, food, water, energy, healthcare, childcare, vehicles, insurance and whatever amount of stuff we choose to accumulate (not to mention renting storage units in which to store the stuff). And everything we need and want will come from all around the world through a fossil-fuel driven global economic system.

Dinosaur Economics, I’d say! Why not consider life on a single income? If every American household had only one breadwinner (or two part-time earners), the country would enjoy full employment and lots of people would be free to garden, produce food, make their own clothes, ride bicycles and even entertain each other.

Who knows – one day we might not need corporations because we’re working for each other, whether it’s in rural Australia or suburban America. Why not consider a parallel economy where you or someone in your local area produce the things you eat, drink, wear and use in everyday life? Because the truth is, we need each other now, and in the future.