I've tried that, but they keep bugging me about killing the ants...

I concur. All you need for an argument against this a the same calibre is "Americans are stupid, so they should hand it over."
I'm not flaming, Americans are great people and all. I'm just saying stupid generalised arguments call for stupid generalised arguments.

Control burns aim to get rid of the stuff that will burn quickly in a bushfire. Dead leaves, dry grass, etc. all allow a fire to spread fast, and also jump via embers blown several k's away from the fire. Trees burn slowly and don't catch alight as easily. Thus to make a bushfire more manageable, you get rid of that which helps it get out of control.

Consider this scenario:

I live in Sydney, most of my family lives in Melbourne. Let's say that in a completely green society I wish to visit said family.
Currently there are no green alternatives for powering a commercial jet... can't fly.
The electric car with the longest range goes less than 400km - so I'll need to stop and recharge for 3hrs twice on my journey. The trip time becomes 18hrs... that's puts it firmly in the realm of a two day road trip. No longer can I just pop down and visit over a long weekend, let alone just a normal weekend.

And this will seriously isolate Perth and Darwin, both of which have have gaps of > 500km between towns no matter which way you take trying to get there. It's a little more than inconvenient.

I'm all for moving to renewable energy sources; but let's not rush into something we're not ready for.

Yeah, trouble is both are possible explanations...