Labor tries to undo 130 years of Conservation.

If you needed any more proof that Frank Sartor is scum, try this:
https://www.npansw.org.au/website/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=657&Itemid=495

Labor are trying to open up National parks for developments. What more can be said?

 

Some mothers do have ‘em!

There’s a pigeon nesting in the apple tree in my yard. The pigeon has already laid its eggs – two creamy pink ones. The apple tree hasn’t dropped it’s leaves yet – some are yellow, some are still green. It’s the 7th of July – the middle of winter.

Granted, both species are introduced, and the apple is some bastardised cross-breed grafted Frankenstein, each graft of which seems to bud, fruit and drop leaves at different times (which makes it very difficult to know when to prune it). But the image is pretty bizarre. I reckon the pigeon isn’t going to be happy when the rest of its cover is blown. Not that there are many predators in the suburbs.

Weird world.

 

Population and climate

This is in response to a discussion about population control and climate change on an e-list I’m on. In particular, it’s in response to a line by a mate, Jono:

it’s not the number of people that is important, but rather the power of the argument. Population control arguments need to be challenged wherever they occur, because they turn the climate movement into a war against human rights rather than for human rights.

---

Population control doesn’t have to infringe human rights. Some of the best ways of reducing the rate of population change are PRO-human rights: accessible education, equality in power relations between men and women, access to contraceptives, the aged pension.

Population is inseperable from environmental impact – if the population is low, but consumption per capita is very high, then you have a problem. If you have a really high population with small per-capita footprint, you still have a problem. At the moment, it’s obvious that the current global average per capita footprint is too high for the current population. The UN predicts 9 billion people by 2050, (150% of current population), which means that for us to have the same over all impact by then, we will need to have reduced our average percapita footprint to 2/3 of what it is now. To put this in perspective, current Australian GDP per capita is US$40-50,000, globally it’s about $10,000, so we’d have to reduce our footprints to about 15% of what it is now. That sounds doable, but that doesn’t take into account that we have to REDUCE our over-all impact, not keep it steady. (I realise I’m only talking about averages, but I think median figures would likely show even greater disparity).

There’s no reason why population control has to happen in the third world. It doesn’t matter where it happens. In fact, it’s probably better that it happens in the rich minority world, ’cause one less person here is heaps more impact reduction than the same person in the minority world. And that could potentially mean we have more room for refugees (not that population is the barrier now).

Ultimately, it’s about how you do it. Of course there’s plenty of fucked up ways to control populations. But the same can be said for any problem (Green Dictatorship, anyone?). We definitely shouldn’t be supporting any kind of punishment/penalties for people who feel the need to have more kids, but we should definitely encourage any positive measures that would help to slow down population rates, and oppose those that do the opposite (like Costello’s ” one for Mum, one for Dad, and one for the Country” – ugh… how would you feel to find out you were the one for the country?)

Seems to me that reducing populations and rates of change should definitely be a part of any broad climate campaign. We just have to make it abundantly clear how we mean to go about it – ethically and compassionately.

 

Politics

Terry Pratchett notes in one of his discworld books that politics is fundamentally about the running of the city. Politics – from Aristotle’s ta politika “affairs of state,”, from the Ancient Greek polis – the city state.

Something – perhaps Greg Combet’s assertion that “[it is] very widely agreed throughout domestic politics and international politics that an emissions trading scheme which fixes a carbon price by a market mechanism is the best way of getting a carbon price into the economy.” – tells me that politics just doesn’t cut it any more. Politics really does still deal on this level, the level of the ciity state. everything is one big race between competing countries, to get the best deal in the fastest time.

We need a way of dealing with systems bigger than the city state. We need ta geotika. Affairs of the Earth. A global politics – geotics.

 

CFMEU keeping the bastards honest.

CFMEU rejects carbon trading job claims – ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Electrical Union (CFMEU) says the release of figures warning that emissions trading will cost thousands of jobs is part of a scare campaign.

The Minerals Council says emissions trading will cost 23,000 jobs in the next decade .

But the CFMEU’s Tony Maher says the Minerals Council is using the figures irresponsibly.

“Even on their own shonky report there’s a very significant growth in employment,” he said.

It’s nice, really nice, to see Tony Maher from the CFMEU being honest. The Minerals Council are spinning this for all it’s worth, even though they’re getting more than they asked for in the CPRS. The CFMEU has run spin campaigns with the Minerals Coucil before, but obviously they aren’t as conjoined as it previously seemed.

Also worth noting that on Stateline tonight (I’ll link to the transcript when it goes up), solar researchers are planning to start a PV cell manufacturing industry, which they estimate will provide 70 construction, and 120 jobs. They also estimated that such an industry could eventually end up providing 40,000 jobs (if I remember the figure correctly).

That’s what I call an offset.

 

Rudd targets: 13% increase

That’s right, Rudd’s targets of 5% by 2020, from 2000 levels mean almost nothing.

According to the UN⁽¹⁾, Australia’s 1990 emissions totalled 416.2Mt. In 2000 it was 495.2Mt – an increase of ~19%.

A 5% cut from 2000 levels is approximately a 13% increase from 1990 levels. Even a 15% cut from 2000 levels is a 1% increase on 1990 levels.

We need to be dramatically cutting our emissions, not increasing them.

The targets the government has announced fall within Garnaut’s 550ppm range, even though the IPCC and other scientific reports are saying that even a 450ppm target will fall short of saving the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu, and result in eventual melting of a large percentage of the world’s ice caps and glaciers.

Rudd and Co, in the lead up to the election, promised swift action on climate change. So far, apart from some loose symbolic gestures, Labor hasn’t done anything that the Liberal Party wouldn’t have been forced to do anyway. Weak.

Some Rising Tide crew slammed Rudd during his speech, shouting “NO!” as soon as he announced the target, and then continuing to interrupt him until they were dragged out. Some Brisbaners stages an office occupation of Rudd’s Brisbane office during the speech too.

At least there was some decent media – nearly everyone slamming the government, even the Oz, in an online opinion piece. SBS had decent coverage of the protests. Congratulations on NBN (NineMSNs version wasn’t quite as good) TV News in Newcastle too, for some really good pieces on the announcement. TV news reporting is rarely as balanced as that.

(1) http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2008/sbi/eng/12.pdf (p. 16)

 

Solar power rebate

I don’t usually like spruiking for the corporate media, but channel 7 is doing something good with their Sunrise solar panel petition. I don’t make any comment on the rest of what channel 7 does – I usually avoid it like the plague.

But they’re right, a means test on the solar rebate scheme is bloody stupid. There are lots of people out there who want solar panels, but for the rebate, you have to have the money upfront. Not many people on a median wage (~$25,000/annum) have thousands of dollars just lying around. If they have a mortgage, neither do people on an average wage (~$57,000/annum). So means testing the rebate has already meant a massive drop in household solar installations⁽¹⁾.

But a means test could be a good thing. If the government wants to do something that has a real impact, and is actually equitable for people of all socio-economic classes, it should means test. But don’t means test down, means test up. For the rich, leave it as it is, or perhaps leave it at $8000 for households on $100k/annum or what ever other arbitrary measure you want, and reduce it in small increments as wages go up. For everyone else, offer an increasing rebate as wages go down, and a low-interest (0%, inflation adjusted) loan>here was a loan something like this in the budget this year (not sure how “low interest”), but only for solar hot-water, and only for a couple of hundred thousand homes⁽²⁾. Expand this to include all homes and photovoltaics, and by all means means-test the loan.

A good idea might be to cap the loan at a calculated value – say enough to buy a system that could power a small family house – and then offer normal, or slightly lower than normal interest rates for any money needed over that cap. That would allow even mcmansions to go solar, but without encouraging excess energy consumption.

Obviously this solution wouldn’t be perfect, but it would sure be better than what’s currently on offer. The main thing at this stage is to wean ourselves off fossil fuels at quickly as possible. And that means spending big now – it won’t seem like much of a cost later, especially when it pays itself off in a few years anyway.

1. Rethink solar rebate, industry urges Govt. (2008, May 17).ABC News. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/17/2247721.htm.
2. Simon, D. (2008, May 14). “Green” budget passed and pasted in Australia. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://de.indymedia.org/2008/05/217318.shtml.

 

A Short History of Progress

I just read “A Short History of Progress”, by Ronald Wright(1). Pretty gloomy, if you need any impetus to become either an activist, or completely depressed, this is it. Wright maps the rise an fall of numerous civilisations, and points out that our current technological and social trajectories are pretty similar really. The only real difference between us and the romans, outside of size of the supporting ecosystem, is that we’ve got evidence of collapse happening before. Well worth reading, especially if you know one of those people who irrationally believe that technology will save us. Now all I need is something to pick me back up.

Where’s Wallace Hartley when you need him? Oh, that reminds me – Chumbawamba have a new album out.

1. Wright, R. (2005). A Short History of Progress (p. 224). Da Capo Press. ISBN: 0786715472

 

Carbon capture and storage in Australia

There’s a useful new article on envirowiki on CCS and Clean Coal: Carbon Capture and Storage in Australia.

The article covers all the projects planned in Australia. If you find any more info on each of these, feel free to add more detail on the pages, it’s a wiki after all.

If you don’t feel like editing it yourself, feedback would be most welcome here on my contributions, or on the discussion page for the article.

 

Climate camp video

Video to promote Climate Camp Australia.

This video was made with Kdenlive. I have to say, I’d never enjoyed using a program that crashes every 5 minutes (including system crashes) before using Kdenlive. It’s easy to use, and intuitive. Can’t wait for version 1.0.