Btw, let’s revisit the chart you posted:
I realized that the catastrophic fires of 2018 seemed to be missing, and then realized the chart only went to 2016. Oh well. Not that important. But let’s take a closer look, shall we? The scale to the right only goes to 600,000 hectares, which makes sense given that all figures presented are below 500,000 ha. But the catastrophic fires of 2018 razed some 1.8 million hectares, so three times the entire scale of that graph. If the greatest area ever recommended to burn off was below 5 hundred thousand, forest fires clearing off 1.8 million hectares ought to have had at least some effect on clearing off shrubs. Sure, maybe not in the right places, but seriously, it’s pretty reasonable to believe at least some of the fires occurred where shrubbery posed a fire hazard and ought to be burned off, right? I mean, fire hazards tend to increase the risk of fire, so it is logical to assume at least some correlation.
So anyway, in 2018 more than three times the highest number ever of hectares recommended to be burnt off burned. Shouldn’t that then logically decrease the risk of fires for the next few years?
But so far this winter more than 6.3 million hectares, more than ten times the scale of your chart, more than twelve times the highest number presented in it, have burned in Australia, and the fire season, which peaks from january to february, has barely begun.
If you bring the chart up to scale, so the fires of this season could be included, the lines already in it would basically become two flat lines right at the bottom of the chart.
By posting that chart, and by claiming it has some sort of relevance to the hell and brimstone scenario taking place in Australia right now, it kind of seems you haven’t really grasped the scale of the disaster.