Rooted

Nourishing the environmental debate

What would real climate action look like? The Greens’ Safe Climate Bill!

So, what is the goal of legislative climate action?

Is it about trading emissions permits? Is it about technology policy? Surely it’s not about arguing over who can support polluters more! Is it even about reducing emissions, then?

While you can mount arguments for all of these, fundamentally, in my opinion, the goal is none of these.

Fundamentally, the goal must be to make sure we can pass on a safe climate to our children, and our children’s children. If our legislative action doesn’t play a key role  in delivering that safe climate outcome, then it’s not really climate action.

With that in mind, the Greens have spent the last many months putting together a legislative package entitled the Safe Climate Bill which, taken together, would see Australia play its responsible role in delivering a safe climate.

I’m very conscious of not simply using Rooted as an outlet for spruiking the Greens and our initiatives, but given that the mainstream media gave our Safe Climate Bill, which we launched yesterday, diddly squat coverage, it needs every opportunity to get an airing through other media. We need to find some way of holding the Government to account for their climate failure, if the MSM won’t do it (and the Opposition clearly won’t). We need to show Australians that there is an alternative if they want serious, meaningful climate action. Read More »

Chain this guy up

Today in Crikey Bernard Keane suggested that many young Australians were well and truly fed up with the government’s approach on climate change. In fact, he contended, many of them despair of any politicians achieving anything meaningful on the issue:

Don’t underestimate the sense of disillusionment and even anger among some young Australians, who don’t see this as an environmental issue but one of survival. The protests will become less peaceful, the actions more extreme and more disruptive, the longer politicians treat climate change as a playground for intra- and inter-party political games.

Keane pointed to actions to halt production at coal mines in the Illawarra (and we’ve already seen protests like this in Newcastle and the LaTrobe Valley in Victoria) as a sign that things are getting increasingly desperate. But for those of you who are really, truly, genuinely concerned about your future and you’re willing to back your concerns with direct action, there is an alternative available to you that should prove to be much more effective than just blockading a few trucks on the way to the coal mine.

You need to take this man out of the political picture. Read More »

Coal association ads get a makeover

As I was saying in my post a couple of weeks back, the Australian Coal Association have hired the big guns to help them bully the Government into giving them a massive compensation payout through the emissions trading scheme. Neil Lawrence of Kevin 07 fame, has designed the “coalmine09″ campaign which is running in coal electorates.

In terms of return on investment, it makes sense for them to spend a few million on an ad campaign if they stand to avoid paying up $8 – $14 billion in carbon costs (depending on who you believe) over the next decade.

A little bit of fear mongering goes a long way. Which is probably why various creative people have taken it upon themselves to give the ad a good makeover. I’ve seen two crackers so far.

One of them is from the Hungry Beast. The other is a youtube special. Both very funny.

Check em out.

NSW considers new coal

Ever belligerent, it would appear that the NSW Government are determined to build new coal power stations in spite of everything we know about climate change.

The department of planning this week released documents outlining plans for a new coal or gas plant at Mt Piper (near the Blue Mountains) and Bayswater in the Hunter valley.

The option of either coal or gas is still open, however given the cost of gas, and likely future increases in gas prices, it is unlikely that large scale, baseload gas power stations will be built. And the CPRS isn’t going to make enough difference to tip the balance.

Al Gore has been encouraging people to engage in civil disobedience to stop new coal power stations being built. NASA’s James Hansen has supported this view. I reckon a lot of people in this country are feeling the same way too.

With an election in early 2011, the NSW Government might be biting off more than they bargained for.

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.