According to the financial press today the fires in Australia will have no impact on their overall economic performance.
A slight fall (0.1% GDP estimate) will be counteracted by a growth in infrastructure investment as people re-build.
28 people lost (I don't have figures for those injured), 2 billion wild animals and some small communities.
But the fires were almost exclusively in "economically inactive land".
Given the media attention to this fire can the consequences be so small?
Reports suggest the fires have added 400 to 450m tonnes of CO2, about the same as the annual release of CO2 coal from Australias mines.
We can do something about coal burning, but not bush fires, it seems.
Food for thought.
Last edited by Peter J; 20/01/20 10:37 AM. Reason: Addition of Data
