The incentives are already there, the cost of these services and the clean up already falls largely on the government in all but workers (volunteers) and insurance.

Governments aren’t going to act on climate change if their parliamentarians are voted in on the basis that they don’t care about it as an issue. If they do care about it, they are already taking action, but big boats don’t turn quickly, and Aussie energy usage is a very big boat.

The ‘system’ doesn’t need to change, it needs fixing and support. As I said, if you introduce the system of exchange, ie money, there can be undesirable effects. The idea you present is a great example. “get paid a lucrative amount” is exactly what you don’t want.

Lights and sirens is already enough to attract some people, who often join fire services, to light fires themselves. By the lucrative pay idea, you add an extra incentive for unscrupulous firefighters to go light a fire.

“Exploiting the goodwill of a few”, I think you’d struggle to find many volunteer firies who feel exploited, in the pejorative sense.

A volunteer system arises where there is need in the community for the community. In this situation it is ‘each to the best of their abilities, in the situation they find themselves in’.

An exchange system (money), or hierarchical system (military), can be cumbersome. But a community working together with the right tools and training (our current system), is able to tackle a problem quicker and more effectively, local knowledge is also a big advantage. The community under fire risk has the highest incentive as an entity to protect themselves.

“Very much government driven” I’d argue its wealth driven. The wealthier someone is in a current system the less likely they’ll want change.

“Tax on industries” Labor tried it a decade ago, (after all a tax is simply a cost increase for reason X). It showed signs it was working. Abbott axed it. No ones gone there since. It is still the most cost effective way to tackle climate change.

Sorry for the essay.