What will it take to get action on Climate Change

A friend has pointed this newsletter out to me which is an enormous source of information on environmental issues - particularly climate change.

In the latest issue, it states that yet another report on climate change reveals our dire future. Consider the following:

[The report] further projects the following outcomes:

• Temperatures may rise by 3.5 degrees if industrial emissions output continues at the current rate
• Rates of sea level rising may increase rapidly, owing to the sudden loss of ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica
• Alpine zones will be drastically affected, inducing a steep drop in snowfall
• World hunger and human displacement will continue at an unprecedented rate as sea levels rise, an additional 200 to 600 million people will be suffering from malnutrition.
• By 2080, between 1.1 billion and 3.2 billion people will be suffering from water scarcity problems.

The newsletter mentions the specific references to Australia:

The report also contains a chapter on Australia, detailing the expected occurrence of coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef on a large scale by 2030. Additionally, the draft IPCC report estimates the cost to agriculture in the Murray Darling Basin at $780 million to $1.17 billion as salinity continues to wreak havoc on the agricultural industry.

Yes I know, yet another report. Many of us are aware of impending disaster, even if we didn't know the detail.

What has been the response? Well take this laughable response from NSW Premier Iemma: lets call a summit! Another summit is just another excuse for the State and Federal Governments to create a media stunt to show they are trying to do something. We don't need summits we need political strength to make immediate policy decisions, announce them and implement them.

Political cowards on water

On the day the the Queensland Premier announced his backflip on recycled water, I was listening to Richard Glover on 702 ABC yesterday afternoon and he made a very valid point about the issue. Glover wanted to make the point, in response to those who are squeemish over treated recycled water, that the water supply doesn't just fall on to the damn but the vast bulk of the water is run-off from catchment areas.

Thats right, the water falls on to near-by land areas where animals go to the toilet. That water then trickles through mud and muck to a stream full of more muck and fish-poo and then trickles into our dams. That water is then treated and tested and then sent into our water supply. This happens already! Shock horror! One could say that, partially, our water supply is treated animal effluent!

However, I am starting to believe that the mainstream are starting to come to terms with the fact that we need to move to recycled water for all of our water needs. Yet who are the main opponents to recycled water? No its not John Howard (surprisingly) but both the Labor NSW State Government and the Liberal opposition lead by Peter Debnam who are ruling out recycled water for drinking purposes. Not only this but Debnam is advocating another useless and environmentally destructive dam for the Hunter region.

Let me assure you that the Greens are the only major party in this upcoming NSW state election that has a comprehensive strategy for using safe recycled water to secure our water supply. The NSW Greens Ian Cohen has a media release statement on it here.

This election is building up to be an election based on all of the party's environmental credentials. It is now clear, as it has been for a long time now, that the Labor and Liberal Party do not have the political will to secure the states future needs. This latest failure of political will on water is one more reason why we must vote Green this election.

Schools back!

Well school is back today and I started my first day on the job. Sure it was only a staff development day but still an important day for me. I start teaching classes tomorrow. I am a social science teacher mainly teaching Business Studies and Geography in a public school (western suburbs).

Not only is school back, but education more broadly was back on the agenda today for a number papers.

Schools

This article reported that:

MORE than 70 per cent of principals say their school is in need of a serious maintenance overhaul.

Well I am sure that this is not reporting anything we didn't already know. Anyone with some contact with our highschools know that they are being slowly degraded. Taking it from first hand experience I can definitely say that our schools, or at least our public ones, have been starved of the necessary resources for years. That is not to say no money at all has gone into it, what is clear is that a lot more needs to be quickly funnelled into the state system. it should come to no surprise given the State Government's unnecessary fervor to reduce the state deficit (at the expense of our public services like schools).

Universities

Another issue also hit the bulletins regarding foreign students at universities. The thrust of the piece is:

MORE than a third of overseas students are completing their degrees at Australian universities with English so poor that they should not have been admitted to tertiary study in the first place.

The first thought that ran into my mind was to ask was this another xenophobic piece to kick foreigners in the guts. However, after thinking about the issue a little more I realised that it was an important issue that needed to be dealt with. The underlying issue in this story is not about foreigners stealing degrees from Australians but rather that Universities are being placed into a position where they are now dependent on the income generated from foraign students.

This is not a race issue, this is a funding of universities issue. The Howard Government has endeavoured to turn these fine public instutions into commercial ones where they need to turn generate substantial revenue to survive. Without these pressures their would be no need to rely on foreign students or even bend the rules (lower standards) to keep foreign students at the university.

Our education system in this country has been torn to shreds by economic rationalists who are turning education into a product; whether it is private education in the secondary system or the commercialisation of our tertiary system.

Abbott: the modern day radical prophet

One of the more interesting but somewhat unnecessary and distracting battles that will occur in the lead up to the federal election is the battle of the christian vote. Kevin Rudd has maintained for a long time that he is a strong christian and even a 'christian socialist'. He seems to have taken it upon himself to try and wrestle the christian vote away from the conservatives.

Well let the battle begin with this upcoming response from Tony Abbott reported by the Weekend Australian. In an upcoming speech Tony Abbott says the following:

Reluctantly perhaps, a Christian could conclude that sending extra troops to Iraq, for instance, might make more sense than leaving the sectarians to their own murderous devices.

Correct me if I am wrong Tony but I don't ever seem to remember in any part of the bible it said that Jesus supported Jewish troops against Romans. I always thought that Jesus was a passivist in the most extreme.

Oh and another quote from Abbott:

From a Christian perspective, indeed, from a commonsense one, the test of fairness should not be whether workplace conditions are set by unions, industrial commissions or contract, but whether they produce more jobs, higher pay and fewer strikes.

Well I always thought it was a stretch that Rudd link christian values to industrial relations. However, Abbott's quote here is utter nonsense let alone commonsense or even christian. My impression of Jesus' teachings is that it is primarily about concern for the welfare of all humans, to be treated with dignity irrespective of their wealth or job.

Abbott seems to be considering himself a prophet of some kind if he is trying to rework the teachings of Jesus and God in this modern age. If so, Abbott must be considered a radical one because he has gone against the teachings of even his own church (the Catholic church criticised the IR laws).

Do us all a favour Rudd and Abbott, leave religion out of politics. It is a distraction from us all independently making informed decisions about your stances on issues.

The flood of water plans

Well well well. The Howard Government seem to have gone green this week with a number of important announcements that relate to water and climate change.

First was the cabinet reshuffle with some notable losers and winners. Amanda Vanstone has been dumped from immigration and Malcolm Turnbull has been promoted to Environment and Water. There is an interesting piece in the Australian on Turnbull and how it is an obvious counter to Peter Garrett's promotion.

Second, the Australian of the year is Tim Flannery, a climate change activist and environmental scientist. The Australian of the year is ultimately chosen by Howard himself. An interesting choice given that Flannery has been critical of the Government and will no doubt continue to be critical. On the other hand, Flannery is a supporter of nuclear energy.

Third, and this is the big one, the Howard Government has announced a $10bn plan fo water with the bulk to be focused on the Murray Daling Basin. I will not go into too much detail here except to provide some links to some of the information:

• Howard's column in the SMH today outlining his vision.
• Rudd's response
• Some analysis of how far reaching and 'radical' the plan is

I have the Greens response but have yet to find the Greens response published anywhere. Here is the underlying theme:

"I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister is finally taking the issue of the nation's water security seriously, promising resources at an appropriate scale to address the problem, reluctantly recognising the impacts of climate change and acknowledging that a long-term approach is eeded," said Senator Rachel Siewert today.

"It is a pity that it has taken an election year and a battering in the polls to force his hand, and a shame this could not have happened much sooner."

"Unfortunately he has made the success of the plan contingent on States capitulating their control of water resources, making delays inevitable and success uncertain," said Senator Siewert.

"The Prime Minister failed to address a key point in announcing his water management plan today when he failed to specify a target for returning environmental water flows to the Murray."

It seems to me that Howard has done something that he can easily go to the polls and say he is doing something about water. It's a real shame that its purely politically motivated. We need a Government who is will to be elected to govern for the right reasons, not simply to govern to be elected.

Law & Order Auctions

With every state election comes the inevitable Law & Order Auction. No, I am not referring to the TV show, I am referring to the policy announcements made by the major parties overpolice numbers and how they are going to be tough on crime. Bob Carr had a memorable TV ad campaign playing on peoples fears about crime and then the Liberals copied the format of the ad to poke wholes in the Labor Government's law and order record.

They keep doing it, they've started to in this campaign (see SMH here) so it must be successful to some extent but I don't understand why. It is important and needs to be discussed but whenever I talk to someone about the state issues they are concerned about, law and order is never mentioned. It seems to be only raised by politicians during election campaigns! Seems to be a very easy dog whistle for the major parties.

Is crime so wide spread? In some areas it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. You can check to see if your area has a high crime rate at the is Lawlink site. Does your are rank poorly?

A quick look at the Hawkesbury LGA for a couple of statistics shows that crime in this area is very low. For example, for Robberies:

In 2005 the recorded rate of Robbery in HAWKESBURY Local Government Area was ranked 85 out of the 143 Local Government Areas that have populations greater than 3000. 37 Local Government Areas had no recorded incidents of Robbery in 2005 and as such were ranked equal last.

And for sexual offenses:

In 2005 the recorded rate of Sexual Offences in HAWKESBURY Local Government Area was ranked 80 out of the 143 Local Government Areas that have populations greater than 3000. 3 Local Government Areas had no recorded incidents of Sexual Offences in 2005 and as such were ranked equal last.

In other words, the higher the number the better it is in comparison to other areas. The Hawkesbury fairs pretty well with most of the offenses ranking well above 80.

There are a number of things I would like to say about this issue. First, simply considering only to raise police numbers will not solve the issue in the long run. Second, the Hawkesbury fairs pretty well in terms of crime rates when compared to other areas in the state. This doesn't mean things can't be improved but simply raising police numbers is not the only answer. Third, and this is something the Greens want to push, we would love to have an auction on teacher or nurse numbers, instead of just police.

Will he stay or will he go?

A new poll came out today with Labor streaks ahead of the Howard Government (two party preferred was 55-45 to Labor). This is a substantial, election losing trend that the Government is experiencing. Is this simply Rudd's honeymoon? Personally, and hopefully, I don't think so. I think everyone has accepted Rudd as leader and it is now business as usual. The Howard Government is starting to look tired and old. Shades of 1995...

This trend has sparked the author of mumble to suggest that Howard will leave before the next election. Again, personally and hopefully, I can't see him doing it. He has to be made accountable for his actions. I wonder what the people at this site feel about the prospect of Howard cutting and running.

So what do you think? Will Howard stay or will he go?

Londonderry Website

My "offical" homepage for my candidacy can be found here. As of writing this blog post there is nothing there. I have submitted my profile and photo etc to be placed on the site and it will be posted up there shortly. Feel free to bookmark!

Key NSW Election Theme 3: Water

From talking to many people from my local area, the issue that seems to be on the minds of all of them, above any other issue it seems, is the current water crisis. Well I don't blame them for being concerned when you consider the following graph and statistics from iliveinsydney.com.

Graph 1 - Dam capacity since 2002

Graph 2: Dam capacity for January 2007

• Sydneys current water storage is less than 36% capacity (as seen in above graph).
• At the overall rate of water loss in the past week in the dams, our supply will last 474 days, less than 2 years and run out on 2008-5-6 .

And this is all after a reasonably wet Christmas! If the above information doesn't scare you to bits than I do not know what will. I have heard a rumour (would be nice if someone could confirm) that if water storage falls below 20% then evacuation procedures need to be set in place for the city.

Salt Water has turned this Government Crazy

Something needs to be done. So what is our Labor Government doing to prevent this imminent disaster less than two years away? Very little it seems. To solve the water crisis the NSW State Government proposed a desalination plant that would suck water out of the ocean, take away the salt to make it drinkable. It has been rejected as stupid idea by the public and is a vote loser for the NSW Labor Government. Further, the NSW Labor Government’s plans to squander $1.4 million dollars of taxpayers money on advertising its energy guzzling desalination plant. What an appalling indictment of its incompetence on water issues!

This issue is obviously linked to climate change where weather patterns are changing. Indeed, NSW is moving more towards a desert weather climate it seems. Not only that but a 500 million litre desalination plant would emit greenhouse gasses as much as 1.25 million tonnes, or the same as 250,000 new cars on Sydney’s roads each year. The Labor Premier's response has been that the power used by the plant would come from Green energy. I am sorry Morris but Green energy should be being used to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, not to merely offset a greenhouse belching desalination plant.

The obvious and sensible Greens alternative: Recycling

Desalination has been rejected by the public because they know that a more sensible solution is viable given political will: recycling. the Greens have been championing recycling and re-use for Sydney.Figures given to the Government in 2004 showed water saving initiatives would save 58 billion litres of water a year by 2029 – more than a desalination plant creates.

The $2 billion cost of a desalination plant could be used to fund rebates for households to install greywater (from showers, laundry etc.) recycling units, saving a family of 4 more than 204,000 litres of water per year and hundreds of dollars in bills. Thats right, recycling would save family money, unlike a desalination plant that would cost family's more.

Finally, more resources for fixing leaks in Sydney’s water pipes would save 22 billion litres of water going to waste each year.

The Hawkesbury River An issue close to the heart of people in the Londonderry and Hawkesbury electorates is the state of our water supply coming from the Hawkesbury River. The Hawkesbury is the source of a large chunk of the districts water supply and yet the river is in my opinion slowly dying. The only thing that is keeping it alive is the fact that treated effluent is pumped into the river, thereby maintaining some sort of flow. For those who didn't just make that link, the Hawkesbury drinks water that is primarily treated sewage.

I have no problems with drinking recycled water as long as it is properly tested on a very regular basis. In addition, it is absolutely necessary that the Government do what it can to maintain the river and restore environmental flows. I both accounts the Government has failed. Consider the picture below from a few years ago:

Yes, that is not a football field, that is the Hawkesbury River covered in dangerous weeds. Because the river doesn't get enough normal environmental flows and gets a lot of nutrients from agricultural runoff, the river suffers from weed infestations. All the Government can do is pay for a harvester to chew up the weeds. Talk about a a band-aid solution! Perhaps Sydney Water could use some of its $250 million profit to find real solutions to this problem. This is where recycling of water from home tanks can be used to help fix the river. Less water would be taken out of the river thereby increasing natural flows.

Key NSW Election Theme 2: Public Services and Infrastructure

NSW public services and infrastructure are suffering. I challenge anyone to argue against that statement. To help prove my point, i want you to think about the last time you went to a public hospital in NSW, perhaps even for an emergency. How long were you stuck in the waiting room before a nurse even saw you? How long did it take for a doctor to then see you? The time it takes has blown out dramatically under this government. And its not just hospitals. Our schools are degrading, and our transport system has been designed with profits in mind and not to supply needed services.

Let me indulge in to the public transport issue for a moment for I believe public transport is a key issue in the seat of Londonderry. Pollution promoting and money grabbing motorways, tollways and tunnels are being built at the expense of funding decent public transport (did anyone say cross-city tunnel?). Consider the following, NSW Government has:

• Failed to invest in thenew heavy rail projects to the Hawkesbury and Penrith.
  
• Closed rural branch lines, reduced passenger services and reducing greenhouse gas haulage.
• Stalled the expansion of new urban light rail projects and delayed essential works on Sydney's heavy rail network.
• Reduced the frequency of bus services, indeed the Hawkesbury has little or no public bus network at all.
• Slowed the trains! And just so to make it look like they come on time.
  
• Cut bike and pedestrian funding by nearly two-thirds in the last financial year and abolished the position of General Manager Bicycles and Pedestrian Branch of the RTA.

The fault can be squarely laid at the feet of the Carr and Iemma Governments. NSW Treasurer Michael Costa and his predecessor Michael Egan made themselves heroes of the financial sector by eliminating the NSW budget deficit. They were able to "achieve" this by starving the public sector of needed funds required to meet the needs of the state while also privatising essential services. Indeed, the shortfall in funding of the public sector is at least $1 billion dollars a year.

What is the Greens alternative?

For public services and infrastructure more generally, the Greens will ensure that quality public services will be provided and sufficiently funded to meet the needs of the community. The Greens support borrowing to finance publicly-owned infrastructure that adds value to this state. In addition, to help fund the current shortfall the Greens would redirect wasteful and damaging spending such as public funding of the wealthiest private schools, tax rorts for large corporations and extravagant government advertising.

Public transport has to be the key to NSW's transport future. The Greens propose that we encourage (read it, it says encourage not force) public transport, cycling and walking over private transport. A key point is to address the transport equity issues by extending public transport options for Western Sydney. Public transport is also key to fighting climate change. Greenhouse emissions from cars can be curbed by promoting public transport.

Sydney and US Presidential Primaries Heat Up

I woke up (a sleep-in I'll admit. It's Sunday!) at 9am this morning to a whopping 37 degrees. I must say that I can't ever remember waking up to heat that high so early. Welcome to climate change...

The other big news is that Hillary Clinton (above left) has finally announced that she will be running for the US Presidantial election in 2008. The presidential primaries (the preselection process for the Democrats and Republicans) is going to be a star studded affair with some very big names throwing their hat in the ring including The New York Mayor during 9/11 Rudy Giuliani (pictured below) for the Republicans and high profile African American Barrack Obama (pictured above right) for the Democrats. Read who else here.The attractiveness of a Clinton/Obama ticket must surely win. However, their preselection process is long and drawn out with many twists. It is surely one story to watch out for.

Key NSW Election Theme 1: Climate Change

The NSW State election is now 2 months away. It is time that I start focusing some attention both as an interested observer of politics but also as a Greens candidate for Londonderry. So I will start today looking at the key issue that has to dominate this election (and the federal election later this year) - climate change. The following will be the run down on this issue.


Climate change is refering to the variations in the globes climate over time. Overwhelming evidence shows that the globes climate is changing at a rapid pace and has been doing so since the industrial revolution. Further evidence has shown that human action is the result of this change largely from the production and emission of Carbon Dioxide. How? CO2 helps to create a greenhouse effect in the atmosphere that traps heat in. See the image below.


What impact will this have on the earth and humans?

Essentially climate change will heat up the atmosphere. Indeed, we are already locked in for an increase in average temperatures by approximately 2 degrees celsius. Without action I have heard predicitions of avergae temperatures rising by more that 6 degrees. This would have a devastating impact on the environment with risks to our food and water supplies, rising oceans and chaotic weather patterns. The Stern Review meakly predicted that the cost economically could be as high as 20% of global economy.

What do we have to do?

We have to cut down dramatically the levels of CO2 emissions before the climate changes in such a way that it will cause devastation for the entire world.

Do the Greens have a comprehensive strategy?

Yes the Greens do have a comprehensive strategy to fight climate change from an Australian and NSW point of view. To see our full policy visit our website. Or in summary:

First thing that NSW and Australia must do is set ambitious but achievable targets:

• Aim for 80% reduction of total emissions by 2050
• Set renewable energy targets: 20% by 2012 and 50% by 2015.
• Set mandatory energy efficiency standards to curb waste: reduce energy consumption by 10% by 2011 and 15% by 2015.

To achieve these aims, governments at every level must lead the way by example and through its enormous legislative and budgetary power. The government must secure a low carbon supply of energy by regulating emissions and imposing efficiency standards on industry, commerce and residential building and appliances.

The government must also phase out the coal industry by not building any new coal energy stations and guide the market towards a jobs rich renewable energy industry that includes wind, solar, geothermal and biomass enrgy production.

The state government, which regulates the energy industry in NSW, should also encourage the decentralisation of energy supply. in ther words, encourge residents to install solar panels on rooftops as a major source of energy for the family home.

The government, both state and federal, must put a price on pollution. There are two schemes available, which I have talked about in an earlier post, a carbon tax and a second best solution of a well designed carbon trading scheme.

Are there any alternative proposals?

I have het to see a comprehensive strategy from any Liberal opposition or from the federal government. If the Liberal Party want to win the NSW election that have to convince the community that they have a comprehensive strategy in mind for this most important issue. At the moment I have not seen anything and would love readers to provide some information if possible.

As for the ALP, the State Government in NSW has yet to provide a compreensive strategy that is consistent with their federal counterparts. The NSW government has been one of the biggest supporters of coal (and therefore pollution) in the country. On the other hand, the federal opposition (ALP) have provided some renewable and emissions targets that are substandard to the Greens. The ALP will have to show the Greens that they have climate change on their agenda if they want our preferences.

I don't want to be an armchair general but...

... wow sending 20,000 more troops into Iraq sounds like the stupidest idea ever that will not win them anything and only endanger the lives of more soldiers. It is quite clear that the US army have not learnt the lessons from Vietnam: that a sophisticated opposition using guerilla warfare in an environment they are expert in is almost impossible to pacify.

Bush has hung himself politically. The Republicans were dealt a siginificant blow losing both houses of parliament in the mid-term elections and the message was crystal clear: get out of Iraq. It is a recklass and dangerous President who is willing to go against the wishes of its constituents and put more soldiers lives at risk.

I am reminded of a theory I learnt in a first year international politics course. A theorist named GIlpin theorised the causes of 'maladaptability' of hegemonic states such as the British in the 19th century and the US in the 2oth century. 'Maladaptabilities' are factors that undermine a state's international or hegemonic dominance. For example, one was that the cost of maintaining its military hegemony through its foreign policy (being the world cop) would exceed domestic revenues. In such a case the military would inevitably be curbed at the expense of international power. It supposedly happened to the British.

I feel that this is happening to the US right now. The Bush Administration has overextended the US in being the world police to the point that it is no longer economically viable for the state. Indeed, the US' debt is becoming astronomical and unsustainable. Either economic downturn or a change in government to the Democrats who recognises these economic issues is the inevitable outcome.

But how many lives will be lost until that happens?

Individual Carbon Credit Schemes

Some people in the Greens are doing some research on the appropriate response to Climate Change. The Government has proposed a dodgy 'Global Trading Scheme', of which the Greens reject as unworkable.

Essentially, two proposals are been suggested around the world. The first is a carbon tax on polluters. The second is an individual carbon credit scheme. For more information on these proposals see here.

To summarise:

1. Carbon Tax:

The carbon tax essentially places a cost on polluters in industry thereby raising the price of those goods to consumers. The effect would be that consumers would start looking for cheaper alternatives from non-polluting products. It is also assumed that the money raised from the Carbon Tax would be used to offset the inequities of the tax or further encourage non-polluting industries.

2. Individual Carbon Credit Schemes:

This is scheme is both impressive in its scope and sophistication. An independent board is set up to determine what the safest level of pollution is for the country. This total is then split between individuals and industry. For individuals, each adult is given an equal share (per capita) of credit they can pollute (from the purchasing of energy, petrol, air travel etc). Not everyone will use the exact amount of credits that they pollute. Those who have leftover (surplus) credits can sell their credits on the market to those who use more credits than they are allocated (deficit). This systm is similar to the fly-buys system we have up and running at the moment.

Industry have to buy their credits in an auction style system from the government. This therefore become like a tax on those who feel the need to pollute.


Obviously there is a lot more detail to both these systems. There are two reasons why I like the second option. Unlike the carbon tax, the Credit Scheme sets the limit on what a country pollutes, giving us certainty to deal with climate change. Second, the credit scheme more effectively uses the market on the demand (consumer) side of the issue. People can actually make money from not polluting, now thats incentive.

2007: Climate Change Crucible

Happy New Years!

I hope every one had a great year. Looking back on 2006 I see it personally as a tough year where I got my teaching qualifications as my greatest achievement of the year.

Looking ahead, at least personally, 2007 will be a very difficult year where I will be starting teaching while contributing to (most likely) two elections.

Politically, 2007 will be known as the year we as a community decide to take climate change seriously. We must vote in governments who are sincere about their concern for the consequences of climate change rather than governments who have their own selfish agenda.