Rooted

Nourishing the environmental debate

Violence against cyclists – Australia should say no

Through the wonders of Facebook, this little vid of Magda Szubanski going off about cyclists on Good News Week the other day has been brought to my attention:

Magda Szubanski being stupid about cyclists

Now, I know this is hardly the worst rant ever, and it is even somewhat funny in parts. But I do find it extremely disturbing, as does another blogger over at OzSoapbox, that Szubanski’s call out to people at the end of her rant to run down cyclists or open car doors on them was greeted by whoops and cheers from the audience.

In terms of serious advocacy of violence towards cyclists, it certainly doesn’t rate against this column in the London Times which caused a tremendous furore in the UK and in cycling communities around the world. Matthew Parris, a former Tory MP, opened his column with the following:

A festive custom we could do worse than foster would be stringing piano wire across country lanes to decapitate cyclists.

Charming.

I am not going to defend littering by cyclists. I think it’s abominable. And neither am I going to defend ugly lycra – it’s perfectly fine to ride in shorts and t-shirts, folks. But advocating violence against a set of people because you find them annoying is absolutely beyond the pale. I find right wing columnists bloody annoying, but I don’t say we should lynch them!

This light-heartedness, however, masks what is a very serious underlying issue. As someone who rides to and from work every day, trailing 2 kids behind me in one direction, I have noticed a disturbing increase in aggressive behaviour on the part of drivers towards cyclists.

On one occasion recently, having had a driver accelerate towards me on an empty stretch of road (this is Canberra – we have very wide, empty roads!), honk loudly and shout abuse out of his window at me for no apparent reason, I posted a comment about it to my twitter and Facebook. Within minutes it had been widely re-tweeted and I had a stream of comments on my Facebook with people recounting similar experiences. One friend in Melbourne had even had a dickhead deliberately reverse into her on a Melbourne street – looking her in the eye while doing so.

Cyclists have a right to be on the road as much as drivers and pedestrians. Yes, some cyclists abuse that right by riding aggressively, and I won’t defend that. But many more drivers drive dangerously and we don’t demonise all drivers for the sins of the few. We certainly don’t advocate lynchings because we don’t like the look of their cars (even though their cars are capable of killing us, and are polluting the planet needlessly).

This is a growing issue and we need to be very vigilant to make sure we don’t let it grow. I’d be interested to hear if others have also noticed this trend.

Update: Szubanski has apologised. Good on her!

From Kevin 07 to Coalmine 09

The front page of the Oz revealed today that advertising guru Neil Lawrence has moved seamlessly from Kev to coal. The architect of the Kevin07 campaign is going to be lending his creative services to the coal industry in their attempts to extract even more public subsidies from the Government in order to avoid having to do anything about climate change.

The coal industry can afford to buy the best in the business – if their swindle comes off they stand to gain up to $10 billion in extra handouts over the next decade, in addition to the public subsidies they already receive. A few ads in marginal seats is a small price to pay to get that kind of windfall.  No wonder Kev is nervous about anything that will impact big coal – regardless of the cost on the community and the climate. Money talks – and it leads to dirty deals. Check out www.dirtykev.org

Advertising guru Neil Lawrence moves seamlessly from Kev to Coal.

Advertising guru Neil Lawrence moves seamlessly from Kev to Coal.

Qantas Spoof Ad for Youth Decide

Youth are Deciding… and debating tactics!

“The YOUthdecide campaign was met with anticipation and excitement by the majority of young people – but is a campaign that has fundamentally betrayed the hopes and dreams of a generation.” - Young Liberal, in a Facebook note.

“The world I choose is one where people like you are thrown into an active volcano” - email to the Youth Decide organisers yesterday

“Armchair activism – press a couple buttons maybe some politicians will be updated by their staffers over their morning tea.” – Facebook status

The Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s latest campaign, in partnership with World Vision Australia, is to hold a national youth vote where young people aged 12 – 29 vote on what world we wish to inherit. It’s called Youth Decide.

We’ve had well over 15,000 votes in the first two days – which is a pretty amazing voting turnout so far. Many of these people cast their votes at local voting events – over 300 are taking place this week in high schools, Universities, TAFEs, libraries and other places.

The youth climate movement has grown exponentially since the Power Shift summit just 2 months ago brought together 1,500 of the most committed youth climate activists in the country.

Of course, the world of climate change activism is always a big debate over tactics, strategy and effectiveness. A campaign like Youth Decide is fraught with questions about the best way to make an impact – and also with organisational considerations, when it’s a partnership between two very different NGOs.

Several issues have been debated hotly in the blogosphere and on Facebook, to which I thought I’d write a reply (in my personal capacity, not on behalf of AYCC, World Vision or the Youth Decide organising team).

Youth Decide allows young people to get together to call for stronger action on climate change. Individual youth voices can get drowned out amongst the powerful government, business, environmental and industry leaders all competing to be heard on this important debate – yet it is today’s youth who will be most affected by these decisions and so need a platform from which to be heard.

Young people have a choice. They can choose to vote or not to vote, they can choose to support current policy being proposed by the Australian government, or they can choose to vote for stronger emission reduction targets.

Here are a few of the following criticisms we have received on Facebook and blogs, and my response to them.

Is it really an accurate poll of youth? Does it really represent youth opinion?

Youth Decide doesn’t purport to be an accurate poll of youth opinion, like you would get from an AC Neilson or Ray Morgan poll.

It’s a campaign aimed at mobilising youth, not representing them. It provides a powerful platform for young people who are starting to engage with the issue of climate change. We never claim to be “the” voice for our generation – but we can be “a” voice for our generation, providing a creative and unique campaign for young people who do want to engage with the issue of climate change to express their views and have them heard by politicians.

Read More »

Like Housing? Like Sustainability?

Just found out about this day that’s happening this weekend – so in case any of you are building or renovating or living in a house – you can get more information on how to do it sustainably. It’s this Sunday and houses across Australia are opened to show you how to live more sustainably. You can see a list of houses in your area here:

www.sustainablehouseday.com

Where to now on the CPRS?

There’s a lot of burn-out in the climate movement right now. A lot of tired people, a lot of grumpy people. I know – I am one!

I can completely understand why – we’ve had a year of not only hard campaigning, but also a particularly distressing one. Dashed hopes aren’t easy to bear, a split movement is difficult to deal with, and too much of the year has been spent campaigning ‘against’ something instead of ‘for’ something else.

But, hard though it may be, Id argue that now is the time when we need to pull out all stops and start campaigning stronger, louder and better!

The CPRS has gone down once, but it’ll be back soon, followed swiftly by the Copenhagen Conference.

We all agree (even the Government) that the CPRS is not good enough to seriously deal with the climate crisis, but the voices saying that it is “better than nothing” are growing louder. And, disturbingly, there seems to be a feeling almost of resignation growing in parts of the rest of the movement – a feeling that this is going to happen and we might as well not try to stop it. But for all those who argue that it should (or might as well) be “passed now and improved later”, I have one critical question:

How?

We cannot sit back now and assume that, if the CPRS passes in its current form, we’ll simply be able to improve it further down the track. If we agree it is not good enough, we must lay the groundwork now to improve it later. We need a strategy, not just a vague hope.

As part of the effort to find a way forward – the best path for us, as a movement, to ensure that we get strong, ambitious, science-based climate policy – here are the options as I see them for what may conceivably happen in the Senate in the coming months:

  • The CPRS fails again because all non-Labor Senators oppose it, leading to a possible early election;
  • The CPRS becomes law with the Government working closely with the Greens to make it environmentally effective and economically efficient, securing Senate support through bringing to bear their moral authority with a bill that matches the scale of the challenge;
  • The CPRS becomes law with the Government browning it down even further with the Liberal Party, and the Greens supporting it because it is better than nothing;
  • The CPRS becomes law with the Government browning it down even further with the Liberal Party, but opposed by the Nationals and Greens for different reasons.

Let’s take these one by one, looking at the implications for any campaign to achieve ambitious action.

In the extremely unlikely event that we face an early election on climate change and the CPRS, the implication for us all is clear: we need to be ready to run a powerful campaign calling for the strongest possible action from the next Parliament. We need to make it abundantly clear that there is an appetite in the Australian community for meaningful government action on the climate crisis, and that the community will not accept the CPRS or anything worse. If we fail to deliver a mandate for strong action and a rebuke to the CPRS, we cannot believe that we will see anything stronger than the CPRS actually implemented.

On the second option, if you don’t believe that the Government has no intention of working with the Greens to green up the scheme (and I can tell you from personal experience that they don’t have any such intention), you will at least acknowledge that the Government has no political reason to do so in the absence of a strong public campaign calling for them to do so. It is just imaginable that, if such a campaign were to build this month and grow to a crescendo by November, the pressure on the Government would be such that they would at least consider their options in the Senate. With silence and division in the climate movement, it is absolutely guaranteed that they will not do so.

Taking the third and fourth options together, it seems pretty clear to me that, once the CPRS passes, the heat will very swiftly go out of climate debate in Australia. Mainstream opinion will be that something is being done. It will be incredibly difficult for us to bring the issue back to the boil in time to deliver a safe climate.

If the Greens, and the climate movement more broadly, fall silent now, or, worse, support the CPRS now as ‘better than nothing’, I believe that it will be simply impossible to rescue the situation and strengthen Australia’s climate response in the little time we have left. We will have allowed the Government to frame the CPRS as action on climate change, the best that can be achieved at this time, and we will have given away the only thing we have: the fact that we are right.

However, if we campaign hard against the CPRS now, highlight its flaws and promote a positive alternative, it may just be possible to continue and build on the frame that this is a polluters’ paradise that must be swiftly replaced with something meaningful. The stronger our opposition now, the more clearly articulated our alternative, the more likely it becomes that we can succeed down the track.

The clear lesson from this analysis is that we must strengthen our resolve and work now to build the strongest possible campaign for ambitious climate action. Now is the time to provide a counterweight to the continued and accelerating rent-seeking of the polluters. We need to throw everything we have at this – from details critiques and analyses to NDAs and other protests, from continuing letters to editors and calls to talkback to doorknocking campaigns.

We can debate for months (as we have already) whether the CPRS is better than nothing or worse than useless, but one thing is clear: if the CPRS passes and is not rapidly strengthened, it will legislatively ensure that Australia’s emissions cannot and will not start heading downwards until 2013.

I am convinced that, if we reject that bill to lock in failure, we will be able to achieve faster emissions cuts sooner than the CPRS could ever deliver.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri endorses 350 ppm target

pachauri-350Chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Dr Rajendra Rachauri, said today in an interview with Agence France Presse reporter Marlowe Hood:

“As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations,” said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm).

“But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target.”

To see the article click here.


Cairnsgate

Ok, sorry about the tabloid title, but this is a pretty disturbing story. Following my earlier post about the Pacific Island Forum, here is the analysis of the PIF from Shirley Atatagi – climate political advisor for Greenpeace in the Pacific.

International climate negotiations just got dirty, even if the final stage hasn’t started. Australia and New Zealand’s corrupt and underhanded means of getting their way inside the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) carries the stench of colonialism. It is no secret that in this fora they continue to use their small contributions to our poor countries as a means of ensuring absolute power in the region. I am reminded of the phrase Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely

I knew from the moment we started talking to delegates in Cairns that something nasty was about to go down. What I underestimated was Australia’s ability to pull the rug from under our feet for its own gain.

The structure of the meetings changed this year. Usually a Forum Officials Committee (FOC) is held a day before the Leaders Retreat, so that the experts can thrash out all the issues and meeting papers and Leaders are briefed accordingly and given draft conclusions. This year, there was no FOC meeting, everything was just dumped on the Leaders plates (Trade, Climate Change etc)

Meeting papers for Cairns arrived in delegates email inboxes on Sunday night and Monday morning. Some didn’t get them at all. The meeting papers were for the Leaders only and contained draft declarations on technical issues like climate change. There were no climate change experts from the Pacific in Cairns.

We were told by an official that at the Small Islands States (SIS) caucus meeting on Tuesday a suggestion was made by a senior member of the Secretariat to ‘tone down the language’ when the delegates were discussing emission reduction targets. The member of the Secretariat who made the suggestion was a Pacific Islander. Absurd? Not if you consider that two thirds of the Secretariat is funded by Australia and NZ.

The SIS meeting concluded at lunchtime on Tuesday and the outcomes were announced at a press conference. The SIS reiterated the call to industrialised countries for a global reduction average of 45% below 1990 levels by 2020. The SIS Communiqué, as per tradition, was expected to come out that same day. To date, it still has not been released. Why is this a big deal? Every year, the SIS communiqué is the first outcome of these meetings and is released before the main PIF communiqué is compiled. The SIS caucus consist of the world’s most vulnerable countries (Kiribati, Tuvalu, Marshall Islands etc) so the SIS communiqué is traditionally more ambitious, sounds more urgent and is more genuine in its climate change resolutions.

Every year it sets a benchmark for climate change resolutions that the PIF communiqué usually fails to achieve. There was no way the Rudd Government were going to allow this year on their soil, for fear it would give ammunition to the many Australians who want their government to take a stronger position on climate change.

A Climate Change side event was organised and slots were offered to Greenpeace and AOSIS Chairwoman Ambassador Dr. Dessima Williams among others. It was bad enough that the side event was deliberately scheduled to happen on the morning that the Leaders were away on their retreat (so that they wont hear the messages) but media were also banned. The explanation given by the Secretariat was that they wanted to prevent “mixed messages” being sent out. And what is that mixed message you might ask: AOSIS calling strongly for global efforts to ensure any temperature rise is kept well below 1.5 degrees C. Greenpeace supporting the call by AOSIS for more than 45% reductions in global emissions by 2020, Australia pours more money to increase its coal production. (Yes, coal! Get the picture?) The positions of AOSIS (Pacific are a part of AOSIS) are far more ambitious that what Australia and New Zealand are prepared to do so it seems the strategy was control what gets out and hoodwink Pacific Prime Minister into endorsing 2 degrees C as a way of undermining their own negotiators in AOSIS. Well done Australia and NZ!

The PIF Communiqué 2009 contains a document (now attached as Annex A) that was only given to the Leaders in Cairns. Our Leaders should have been given time to seek the advice of their Environment Ministries/Climate Change experts. The Australia and New Zealand governments are well aware of the Pacific’s negotiating positions on climate change. As part of AOSIS, the Pacific is calling for temperature rise to be limited to 1.5 degrees C (NOT 2 degrees C), aggregate emission reductions from industrialised nations of 95% by 2050 (NOT 50% by 2050)

Due to the lack of capacity in these countries, not all arms of government are thoroughly briefed on the negotiations all the time. Often Prime Ministers only have a limited knowledge of these issues due to having too much to deal with. The Australian government as the host country who introduced the “Pacific Call for Action on Climate Change” (yes the Annex A document was all them!) at the Leaders level, should have suggested in good faith, that Leaders bring with them Climate Change experts to advise on this document. But it was too convenient to be courteous and fair!

The world should know that the Pacific Islands Forum has today ceased to become relevant to the people of the Pacific and to the issues that really matter. Climate Change is the biggest security threat facing the region right now and the scientific projections are dire. Yet the former colonial powers have succeeded in manipulating the science-based positions of our government while exploiting the low level of technical understanding that our Leaders have on this issue. This is scandalous at most. Getting our Leaders to endorse 2 degrees as the limit in global temperature increases is a death sentence for small island countries like Tuvalu and Kiribati that the PIF supposedly serves.

Cairnsgate is a sign that neo-colonialism is an uglier and indiscriminate form of domination.

Shirley Atatagi is from Samoa and is Greenpeace’s Pacific Political Advisor.

Rudd’s dilemma at PIF

Pacific leaders are meeting in Cairns today for the Pacific Island Forum. In recent years the agenda has been dominated by issues of regional stability including the intervention in the Solomons and more recently the troubling political events in Fiji. But with the forum happening in Australia for the first time in over a decade, and climate change at the top of the international political agenda, other issues are set to dominate.

Pacific Islands are literally on the front line of climate change. The Prime Minister of Tuvalu has raised the prospect of having to relocate their entire country because of rising sea levels and other climate impacts. The Association of Small Island States (AOSIS), which includes the Pacific Islands, has become the moral conscience of the international climate negotiations, set to conclude in Copenhagen in December. Their calls for developed countries such as Australia to cut emissions by over 40% within the next decade put Australia’s low and highly conditional target (5-25%) into stark relief.

Australia too is vulnerable to climate change, but it is expected that Kevin Rudd will carefully manage relations during the Forum to keep any strong climate statements out of the Forum Communiqué. There will be some heavy diplomatic manoeuvrings going on behind the scenes to keep climate of the agenda and real emission cuts off the table.

Australia’s growing coal exports coupled with low emissions targets and the relentless push for loopholes and exemptions in the international climate negotiations put the Rudd Government’s climate position on a collision course with the Pacific. While our neighbours are fighting for their survival, Australia is rapidly doubling our coal export capacity and entrenching our position as the world’s biggest coal pusher.

Despite all of the wrangling and economic fear mongering over the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, any reductions in greenhouse pollution through even a 25% target (the very top end of the Government’s proposal) will be undone many times over by the increased coal exports from NSW and Queensland.

Climate change remains confusing so long as the debate continues to be fixed on numbers, statistics and complex economic instruments. But when you come back to the bottom line, it’s really quite simple. We need to stop putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. To do this we need to stop digging up and burning fossil fuels – and coal is the biggest problem. If we are burning more coal (regardless of where it is burnt), we are making climate change worse.

Having grown up in Central Queensland, I understand the role that coal plays in Queensland and indeed in the national psyche. My father spent his entire working life in the coal industry and as a graduate engineer I spent my first few years out of university building equipment for coal mines. But time moves on. Computers replaced the abacus, mobile phones replaced carrier pidgeons, and renewable energy will replace coal.

It will take a serious effort to make the transition from coal to clean energy in a way that supports coal dependent communities and workers, but the economic impact of moving away from coal will be far less than most people imagine. In Queensland, tourism employs far more people than the entire mining sector and will be hard hit by climate change. But perhaps the biggest surprise is the royalty payments.

This year, the Queensland Government received around $1.5 billion in royalty payments from the coal industry. In the same breath, $1.3 billion of public money was spent on coal infrastructure – 90% of the total royalty payments. So much for private enterprise. And if you factor in the costs of the negative health and environmental impacts of coal mining the net economic contribution of the industry starts to look even less appealing.

We need to choose whether we want to continue to be a quarry economy, or if we are ready to move into the twenty first century and embrace the renewable energy revolution that is slowly but surely building momentum. At the moment, Rudd and Bligh are still backing the coal industry, with only a token hedge on renewables.

Climate politics in Australia is a struggle over vested interests. For their part, Pacific countries do not have a domestic fossil fuel lobby running full-page ads in national newspapers threatening job losses if we take serious action on climate change. They don’t have a greenhouse mafia whose web of influence entraps politicians at all levels of Government. It means that they can speak the truth about climate change, and call for what is actually required to protect both their future and ours.

In the absence of real honesty or leadership from our own political leaders, the Pacific are our moral conscience on climate change.

Dear Mr Ferguson,

Dear Martin,

Thanks for your brilliant treatise in the Australian this morning. It is inspiring to see that one with so much responsibility is blessed with such vision.

The rigour with which you swept away ideology and ‘green faith’ with cold hard facts revealed your own unswerving commitment to rational analysis and objectivity. It was a shame that you didn’t mention anything about the costs or impracticality of carbon capture and storage, but perhaps you hadn’t yet seen the new study from Harvard that shows just how expensive CCS is likely to be.

But is great that you are so practical and understand the cold hard reality of CCS.

And I loved it how you subtly revealed your profound humanity through your concern for the most vulnerable communities in developing countries. No doubt your compassions for the poor in Bangladesh will continue to be on display when they are seeking asylum here in Australia as a result of rising sea levels (although perhaps you will no longer be in Government then?).

Thanks Martin, you are an inspiration to us all.

John