By Anthony McIntosh
The events of Black Saturday can easily be described as catastrophic – the tragic events of that day left a trail of devastation around Victoria.
While one can understand some of the motivations for the new fire warning coding system, it has to be decided whether the use of the word ‘catastrophic’ is necessarily the most appropriate terminology to describe potential danger.
As an extremely emotive and evocative word, catastrophic is generally associated with an outcome rather than a descriptor of conditions or a predictor of risk.
This has been pointed out in NSW by their former fire chief Phil Koperberg.
For example, in the United States, following the events of 11 September 2001, the US Government set a new Security Threat Condition system to describe potential homeland security risk in order to warn its citizens.
While the events of 11 September can easily be described as catastrophic, the Security Threat Condition system developed classified risk as low, guarded, elevated, high or severe. These terms highlight the level of risk but are more measured in their use of language which may be considered emotive.
It has to be considered that words like disaster or catastrophic may create unnecessary or heightened emotion-based panic, more so than calculated, risk-based assessment of a situation. In times of extreme fire danger, the second is the response we need.
To this end, I believe that the term ‘Code Red’ or ‘Greatest Risk’ is much preferred. It highlights the risk without the emotion attached to a term like ‘catastrophic’.
What are your thoughts on this term? Is catastrophic more effective in highlighting the fire danger, or simply more emotive?
[...] this year we featured a piece about the inadequacies of the new Fire Danger Ratings introduced in the summer of [...]
I completely concur with Mr McIntosh. The “catastrophic” terminology is inaccurate and over dramatic. The consequences of the Government response to the last few years of high fire danger has been predictably bureaucratic and driven largely by urban people whose weltanschuen is urban.
A classic example was last week on the Upper Goulburn River. A “code red” was called (don’t I remember that from Toy Story?) The valley is still green and verdant from great spring and summer rainfall. DCE and the police went up and down the river clearing out the campers and closing all the camp sites. Hundreds of holiday makers with their trailers fully packed departed the area not to return – all because of a northerly wind. When I quizzed one of the local policemen, his response was – “Well, it saves me having to go and rescue the b…s”. Another overreaction.
The bureaucrats mantra now is “Damned if we do and damned if we don’t”. I think they are in a situation entirely of their own making, and it is just another glowing example of why people should be allowed to be responsible for their own actions instead of being wards of the Nanny State.
I also support the perspective that the word ‘catastrophic’ is very unhelpful & inappropriate. It’s “pre-emptive” in fact! The central issues at stake are ones of safety (and support) and the need to embed shared response-ibility between individuals, communities, service providers and government in the face of uncertainty.
Anything that perpetuates fear and panic can only diminish peoples’ capacity to remain resilient, maintain hope & be strengthened in the face of such uncertainty.
I prefer the words “Greatest Risk” rather than Code Red. It is clearer in its intention.
Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this blog.
Mr McIntosh quite rightly highlights the impact on tourism of the bushfire issue which is far more important than is reflected in the media’s coverage of the issue. Many, if not most, of the towns and regions effected by the Black Saturday fires (and are vulnerable again in the current bushfire season) are regional tourism centres. The resuscitation of these local tourism industries will be essential for the recovery of affected communities.
However, the use of the word ‘catastrophic’ as a label for a degree of bushfire danger is really a product of unresolved issues about the ‘stay or go’ policy following Black Saturday and highlighted at the Bushfire Royal Commission.
Authorities clearly hope that the ‘catastrophic’ tag will scare residents sufficiently so that they evacuate their properties sooner rather than later. Which is all good, but surely it is a better outcome for Victoria if the government bites the bullet and sinks it’s teeth into resolving issues like the ‘stay or go’ policy rather than attaching increasingly alarming tags to everthing.
As Mr McIntosh implies, using ‘catastrophic’ could be not only a disaster but also a nightmare!