Climate change is a war that we must fight

From The Age

We now face nothing less than a global emergency. We must rapidly reduce carbon emissions and encourage alternative energy sources, far faster than either government or opposition are prepared to acknowledge, and begin preparations for a global oil shortage.

This is not an extreme view; the extremists are those in government and business who have been in denial for the past decade, and in the process have frittered away our ability to plan a timely response. Our Government, and the Bush Administration, have done more to subvert serious action on climate change, and to endanger energy security, than anyone else on the planet.

They continually regurgitate the mantra that technology is the answer. It is undoubtedly critical, particularly the renewable energy technologies that have been deliberately suppressed, but technology alone is not enough. There must be a major change in our values.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Dr Guy Pearse on Howard the denier and destructor

27th Oct 07


From Kim Bax - Mum and Environment compaigner.

Dr Guy Pearce, author of HIGH & DRY speaks at the I2th annual Sunshine Coast Environment Awards

27th Oct 07

Howard tells us:

• We’re told we will meet our Kyoto target, but not that it is an emissions increase target which, thanks mainly to land clearing cuts, enables us to increase emissions 27%;
  
• We’re told there’s $3.5 billion being spent on climate change but not that, on an annual basis, twice as much is being spent on government advertising; more than a million dollars a day. And, on day one of this election campaign he spent ten times as much as his entire climate change budget in just one round of tax cuts.
  
• We’re told banning incandescent light bulbs leads the world but just how world-leading is it given we need over 800 measures on that scale to cut our projected emissions in half by mid century?;
  
• We’re told Australia is being prepared for the impacts of climate change but not that eleven times as much is being spent on the war in Iraq as on Howard’s entire greenhouse adaptation program?;
  
• The Prime Minister says we’re on track to be an energy superpower but on his watch Australia actually started paying more for energy imports than we make from energy exports;
  
• We’re told uranium and LNG are saving the global climate but this looks decidedly shaky when you factor in the far greater emissions caused by our coal exports which are projected to double by 2030;
  
• We hear the Asia Pacific Partnership is a superior alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, but it rings hollow when you consider the AP6 requires no emission cuts of any country this century;
  
• We’re told clean coal is just around the corner but not that coal-fired electricity providers reckon they don’t expect it to be commercially viable on any meaningful scale until at least 2020?
  
• We’re told nuclear is the clean green saviour but not that John Howard’s own inquiry into its potential, found that even with a dozen nuclear power stations our emissions would still be 90% above I990 levels by 2050?
  

I joined the Liberal Party in I989, I remain a member and I never imagined campaigning for the defeat of my own party. But a continuation of John Howard’s response to climate change is also unimaginable and it’s something I can’t support. My politics haven’t changed a great deal since I989 but the Liberal Party’s greenhouse policy sure has.

In I990, the Liberal Party led by Andrew Peacock had a policy to reduce Australia’s greenhouse pollution by at least 20% by the year 2000. It was promising bigger cuts sooner than the Labor Party and was proud of the fact that it embraced national emission reduction targets first. That 20% emission reduction target was a commitment John Hewson retained as leader of the party in the early I990s. John Howard has taken a very different and dangerous direction. But before I get into that, a bit about my background.

I spent most of my career either working in or around the Liberal Party. Since about I994, I’ve also been immersed in environment policy, especially climate change; writing speeches for the first Howard government Environment minister, consulting to the Australian Greenhouse Office, lobbying for various industries, and as a PhD researcher.

With a political career in mind I hoped these were good career steps; environment policy specialists are thin on the ground in Liberal ranks. Instead, I found myself unable to ignore my party’s shifting response to climate change, the industry lobbying behind that push and the way we were deceiving the public about the consequences.

Much of this was revealed through my PhD research the conclusions of which were very unwelcome to me as a Liberal Party member. I raised my concerns with various senior Howard government people but to no avail and ultimately I made the fateful decision that it was unethical to self-sensor my research for political reasons.

Plan A, right up until mid 2005, had been to move my young family back to Queensland and more specifically to the Sunshine Coast hinterland, where I had the strong support of senior Queensland Liberals to run for federal parliament. But Plan A was finished as soon as I decided against self-censoring my PhD. In early 2006, some of my findings were aired on the Greenhouse Mafia episode of Four Corners. From then on, it was clear my party was complicit rather than oblivious. As expected, the shutters came down on me and any prospect of a political career.

So I decided to write High & Dry. If the party didn’t want to know that our greenhouse policy was being high-jacked, let alone the implications, then the whole story of how John Howard came to confuse the national interest with polluter interests needed telling.

Of course, if you believe John Howard, it’s a story that needs no telling because Australia ‘leads the world on climate change.’ But behind the smokescreen, the reality is very different:

• We’re told we will meet our Kyoto target, but not that it is an emissions increase target which, thanks mainly to land clearing cuts, enables us to increase emissions 27%;
  
• We’re told there’s $3.5 billion being spent on climate change but not that, on an annual basis, twice as much is being spent on government advertising; more than a million dollars a day. And, on day one of this election campaign he spent ten times as much as his entire climate change budget in just one round of tax cuts.
  
• We’re told banning incandescent light bulbs leads the world but just how world-leading is it given we need over 800 measures on that scale to cut our projected emissions in half by mid century?;
  
• We’re told Australia is being prepared for the impacts of climate change but not that eleven times as much is being spent on the war in Iraq as on Howard’s entire greenhouse adaptation program?;
  
• The Prime Minister says we’re on track to be an energy superpower but on his watch Australia actually started paying more for energy imports than we make from energy exports;
  
• We’re told uranium and LNG are saving the global climate but this looks decidedly shaky when you factor in the far greater emissions caused by our coal exports which are projected to double by 2030;
  
• We hear the Asia Pacific Partnership is a superior alternative to the Kyoto Protocol, but it rings hollow when you consider the AP6 requires no emission cuts of any country this century;
  
• We’re told clean coal is just around the corner but not that coal-fired electricity providers reckon they don’t expect it to be commercially viable on any meaningful scale until at least 2020?
  
• We’re told nuclear is the clean green saviour but not that John Howard’s own inquiry into its potential, found that even with a dozen nuclear power stations our emissions would still be 90% above I990 levels by 2050?
  

And we’re told renewable energy can’t replace baseload power when it is already doing that elsewhere in the world.

Once you strip away the spin, the truth emerges; the cumulative impact of Howard’s policies after eleven years is that our emissions are on track to rise 70% by mid century. While he loudly claims that by slowing emissions growth he is doing the equivalent of taking fourteen million cars off our roads, the emissions growth he is allowing have us on track to add the equivalent of at least seventy million cars by 2050.

It’s been all about moving money and people between the carbon lobby and Howard’s circle of trust. When you look at who funds the economic advice produced by the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE) you find our worst polluting industries bought their way onto committees overseeing some of this as recently as last year. Some of the same industries pay hundreds of thousands to hire ABARE (not based on independent assumptions but on the paying client’s own assumptions), some even donate money to ABARE’s overall research program, all of which helps ABARE meet an external funding requirement.

Look behind the scientific advice produced by sections of the CSIRO, and the CRSs who have been in John Howard’s ear on clean coal and you find polluter funding.

Look at who funds the think tanks and front groups denying the science and warning of doomsday, were we to cut emissions, and you find the carbon lobby writing more big checks. And it’s the same with the hired guns; the economists, lobbyists and other policy gurus who have had the ear of the Prime Minister.

Look at who funds he Liberal Party itself and you find millions of dollars from the same polluter interests, being channeled from our worst greenhouse polluters, much of it through the back and side doors to avoid public scrutiny. And the career paths follow a similar trail as the money. A constant rotation of personnel between carbon intensive industry, federal bureaucracy and the Liberal Party builds careers for quarry visionaries and ensures they have the inside running. And it has thoroughly corrupted my party’s response to climate change.

Taking care of much of this day to day is a small group of Canberra based lobbyists working together under the banner of the Australian Industry Greenhouse Network- otherwise known as the ’greenhouse mafia’.

We’re in this position because John Howard was sold what I call a ‘quarry vision’ of Australia’s future. A flawed belief that cheap fossil fuel and the mining, metals and fossil energy sectors are not just the key to our current prosperity but the key to our economic future and protecting them at all costs is the underlying goal of our greenhouse policy.

Meanwhile as is so apparent in a place like the Sunshine Coast, 90% of GDP, and 95% of jobs in our economy are not generated by these ‘quarry industries’. John Howard might talk up carbon capture as the way to clean up coal but it is he who has been captured by the carbon lobby and their quarry vision for Australia.

So how did they sell that vision to John Howard? To find out, we need to go inside John Howard’s Greenhouse policy ’circle of trust’, a concept many of you will be familiar with from the movie Meet the Fockers. It is only a shame Robert De Niro was not there with the polygraph in this case too.
When you look closely at the Howard government’s greenhouse policy - how it evolved, where the arguments originate - you find that he has consistently listened to relatively few sources. They are key political allies inside the Liberal Party; the Bush administration; a few government departments and a few agencies like ABARE; Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation(ANSTO), the chief scientist, and sections of CSIRO focused on clean coal technology.

He’s listened to; a small group of conservative commentators; a few conservative think’ tanks; the work of a small group of innocuous sounding lobbyists and economists; firms like ACIL Tasman, CRA International, and ITS Global. He’s heard the top end of town mainly through an equally innocuous sounding lobby group called the AustralianIndustry Greenhouse Network.

When you listen closely to these sources, you hear a complementary mix of denial and delay. Deny the scientific basis for action and/or delay emission cuts by Australia. What I found over a decade of work was that denial and delay were two sides of the same coin and the coin was coming from the same source as most of the pollution.

The AIGN represents about a dozen industry associations and a similar number of multinationals, mostly foreign owned. They account for Australia’s most carbon intensive industries: Coal, oil, aluminium, steel, cement, carmakers, and a few others.

In my PhD research I interviewed over a dozen senior past and present AIGN executives. They referred to themselves as the ‘greenhouse mafia’ and it was soon clear why. They run the country’s greenhouse policy remotely on behalf of the few industries they represent. They explained, in great detail, how they fixed the game time and again.

They said they’reverse-managed’the greenhouse ministerial committee; to stop emissions trading, to prevent Australia ratifying Kyoto, to avoid greenhouse emissions triggering federal environmental approval processes and to water down the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target.

They told how they reverse managed the broader business community into towing the line of the biggest polluters and how they got included in Australia’s official delegation to international greenhouse negotiations. They even told, on tape, how they were able to get inside the bureaucracy and help write cabinet submissions and ministerial briefings and costings on greenhouse policy.

Before they joined the greenhouse mafia, most of the lobbyists were once Branch Heads, Assistant Secretaries or Ministerial Advisers in the industry portfolio. Their former underlings now ran the relevant sections of the bureaucracy. So, if the public servant looked forward to a well paid industry job later on, it made good sense to go along with the greenhouse mafia bosses.

This dynamic operates right across Howard’s trusted circle; a blurred line between public, private and partisan; a shared belief that the interests of the nation are the same as the interests of carbon intensive industries.

It’s tempting perhaps to think that the PM is a victim in all of this, that he has been unwittingly captured by nefarious vested interests. That was my hope for quite a while. However, the evidence suggests otherwise. John Howard’s greenhouse scepticism goes way back. He said of the UN climate change convention: "We should never have got on this particular truck in Rio in the first place."

Since about I999 Howard started to take control of greenhouse policy because polluters felt his environment ministers were too green. He took over as chairman of the Cabinet committee overseeing greenhouse policy, unilaterally announced Australia would not ratify Kyoto, blocked emissions trading in cabinet twice - once effectively rolling half a dozen of his ministers after consulting a group of high polluting industry executives hand-picked by him. And his 2004 Energy White Paper ticked off the carbon lobby’s entire list.

He let a greenhouse sceptic run his backbench environment committee. He intervened in preselections to keep greenhouse sceptics in parliament. He appointed a coal industry executive as chief scientist, even allowing him to keep working three days a week at Rio Tinto. He hired the same consultants as the carbon lobby to advise him on greenhouse without any open tender and, when he decided emissions trading was unavoidable, he let our Australia’s worst polluting industries design one to their liking, even seconding the head of the AIGN to his department.

Time and again, he goes out of his way to give Australia’s ‘carbon club’ their way.

And one of the real problems has been the people around John Howard.

• His Finance minister is an avowed sceptic and has publicly defended mining industry executives who have denied the science.
  
• His Industry minister is another sceptic. When AI Gore visited Australia in 2006, this minister dismissed Gore’s documentary as incorrect and as nothing more than entertainment.
  
• His Forestry minister is on record saying weeds are much more serious than the problem climate change may or may not be.
  
• The Foreign minister hired as his speechwriter a conservative columnist who still denies humans have anything to do with climate change.
  
• His Vocational Education minister, reckons the science is unproven, the warming we’re seeing mostly natural. He dismisses climate change as a trendy cause for lefties, seized since the fall of communism.
  
• His Tourism minister who seriously suggested shade cloth as a way to save the Barrier Reef from climate change now says wind power is a fraud that belongs in the northern hemisphere, not here.
  

The Chair of Howard’s environment policy Committee launched a document at Parliament House saying climate change is a ‘scam’ and even suggesting those in charge of the (Intergovernmental Panel on climets Change (IPCC) should be jailed, presumably along with the Nobel Peace Prizes they now share with AI Gore.

So, many of Howard’s closest colleagues don’t believe climate change is a real problem caused mainly by humanity and this response has gone totally unchallenged.

The challenge for John Howard of late has been what to do now that the public has switched on to climate change. He’s had to feign a conversion on climate change while still planning to delay emission cuts in Australia. Let’s run through what’s being hatched right now:

First, he’s trying to appear to embrace the idea of emissions reduction targets when in fact he’s backing three types of target that are distant cousins at best:

1. emission increase targets like Australia’s Kyoto target which is non-binding because Australia hasn’t ratified;
   
   
2. regional or global reduction targets that are non-binding; and
   
   
3. targets which will be met anyway, as with the ‘business as usual’ improvements in energy intensity and forest cover which were dressed up as targets in the APEC Sydney Declaration.
   

Next, Howard is shifting the focus onto individuals with the’Climate Clever’campaign- which really ought to be called ‘Climate Conned.’ The more people can be coaxed into obsessing with their own emissions, the less likely they are to realise that emissions would rise 60% by mid century even if Australians cut residential emissions to zero; or that one million of us could take our cars off the road tomorrow and just one new aluminium smelter would wipe out the emissions saved.

Third, Howard’s giving the appearance of backing renewable energy without doing so. He’s merely bundled up the existing renewable energy mandates; the federal one he refused to increase and the state ones he opposed. Then he’s lumped in existing renewable capacity and broadened the eligibility to make clean coal and nuclear qualify. This is now dressed up as a grand I5% renewable energy target when in fact it’s basically business as usual.

Fourth, he’s giving the appearance of embracing emissions trading but saying nothing about the strength of the scheme. Four years before it starts, he’s calling his ETS the ‘best in the world’ but won’t provide any of the crucial details which will determine whether the scheme will actually result in deep cuts in Australia’s emissions.

He’ll say now that pensioners will be compensated for the impact of a carbon price on energy bills but he’s hiding the reason why pensioners will need compensation and that is that he has allowed our worst polluting industries to carve themselves from the scheme’s impact, which according to ABARE roughly doubles the burden of a carbon price on the rest of the community.

So we have an audacious plan to dress up business as usual as ‘leading the world’ and so keen are many in the media to write the ‘Howard back flip on climate change’ story that most of them have bought it.

So, what about Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party? Are they going to be any better than John Howard and the Coalition? Well, Labor has committed to some of the key steps Australia needs to take to have an effective response to climate change.

They have committed to long term emissions reduction target; a 60% reduction in Australia’s emissions by 2050; Immediate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol; and a substantial increase in the Mandatory Renewable Energy Target.

They’ll establish an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and crucially, one which will be consistent with deep cuts in Australia’s emissions by mid-century (this is important because Howard has not tied his scheme to any emissions reduction target). Labor has also committed to phasing out new electric hot water systems from 20I0.

And they have also commissioned Ross Garnaut to conduct the first ever full investigation of the economics of climate change; finally costing the impacts of climate change, and incorporating the benefits of emissions reduction, not just the costs. So there are some good signs from Labor.

But there are also some areas of concern: The lack of detail about the strength of the ETS and the loopholes it may allow big polluters; the lack of a medium term emissions target; the lack of detail on how much they plan to increase the renewable energy mandate; and no major attention yet to adaptation. As well the ALP has its own sceptics and some of its state governments have been vulnerable to the same sort of carbon capture we have seen with John Howard.

With all that in mind, I’m cautiously optimistic about a Rudd government when it comes to climate change but I’ll be even more optimistic if the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate to keep them on track. Whatever happens, this issue won’t be fixed on election day no matter what the result.

So what has to be done to get us back on track? Well, the first thing is to embrace the idea that Australia has to do to its own emissions what it expects of the rest of the world. We have to lead by example.

So we need to abandon the idea that there is some way around binding emissions reduction targets and timetables. We need a long term emissions reduction target consistent with what is required globally and we need a short-medium term target or target range, knowing that once we ratify Kyoto we will negotiate a new binding target covering the next commitment period.

Then we need to establish an emissions trading scheme that sets a price on emissions sufficient to stay on track with these targets and doesn’t carve out our worst polluting industries.

This needs to be complemented with additional measures for the simple reason that emissions trading is not a fix-all. To ensure that emission cuts are not merely outsourced to other parts of the world, we need a much stronger Renewable Energy mandate and energy efficiency regulation in various sectors, especially transport.

Unless we do this we may find we are merely a donor to the global clean energy transition, rather than part of it. While we’re at it, we need a moratorium on new coal fired power stations and we need to start rethinking our involvement in coal mining because this is an industry which could end up losing the race to become a commercially viable low emissions technology in time and we need to be ready for that possibility as a country.

This all needs to be complemented with a nationally led adaptation policy so that the nation can start preparing for the huge impacts of climate change-some of which are inevitable.

And we shouldn’t fall for the myth that doing the right thing will wreck the economy. Few people understand that when John Howard tells us that if we cut our emissions in half it would cut GDP by I0%, what he actually means is that, according to ABARE’s own projections, in 2050 it would be 246% higher than today rather than 28I % higher. Similarly when Howard says that real wages would be cut bys 20%, what he means is that they would only be 8I % higher.

We should also keep in mind that the path we are on, 70% higher emissions by mid century, is simply not a long term viable option so it’s not a very useful point of comparison.

So where does this leave Australians? What can they do. Well here are three suggestions on how you can be Climate Clever without being Climate Conned into ignoring the big picture.

1. Focus on cutting emissions in ways that save money: I don’t buy the idea that we need to cut back on our quality of life to cut emissions. There is too much evidence to the contrary. If you take up just some of the easy options then spend a few dollars a week on I00% renewable energy, you can easily do at the household level what is required globally and be financially better off. If you go to the long version of this presentation on my website you’ll see lots of specific suggestions;
   
   
2. Start your own adaptation planning: Just because government is abrogating its responsibility doesn’t mean we should too and we need to realize that the impacts of climate change affect all sorts of equations in our own lives from where we live to what careers we choose. Once again, on my website and in the book you’ll find more suggestions on what we can do as individuals.
   
   
3. Use your political clout: Our own efforts are wasted unless we also force change at the political and corporate levels. We have to vote on this issue and judge political parties on whether the cumulative effect of their policy is to cut Australia’s emissions in line with the deep cuts required globally; and whether they are preparing Australia for the inevitable impacts of climate change.
   And don’t think your political clout is confined to the ballot box or to this election. We need to keep pushing by joining and supporting environmental organizations at all levels, writing to politicians at all levels and to business leaders too, raising awareness in the workplace, with community groups, and among family and friends.
   

If enough of us are truly’climate clever’ in these ways and not merely ‘climate conned into ignoring the big picture, we will move the bounds of acceptability for governments and industry and make delay less and less viable for the few interests it serves.

And not wasting one’s political clout seems an appropriate place for me to end.

They say you are supposed to get more and more conservative as you get older and I was not a very radical young man. In fact when I was introduced at a Liberal Party meeting by a Townsville City Alderman in 1989 I was described as ’2I going on 40’.

Well in a couple of weeks I turn 40, and if you’d said to me at the age of 2I that, in 2007, I would be working hand in hand with Greenpeace or giving such a politically seditious speech during an election campaign at an event like this, I would have given you pretty amazing odds.

But such is life and such is the gravity of the challenge presented by climate change to this generation and those who follow us. It is forcing many people already, to challenge conventional or partisan assumptions, and, inevitably, it means doing things we never imagined possible to prevent equally unimaginable harm.

Hopefully my own actions of late will help others to seize that challenge and to confront the many other threats to our environment.

Read More......

Howard: I won't sacrifice economic growth to cut greenhouse gas emissions

October 15, 2007
From TheAge (Aust)

Howard still refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol citing that we'd be at an unfair disadvantage as China and other developing nations aren't included as part of it.
That is true but short-sighted and an excuse for inaction. Specifically:

• Kyoto Protocol is the legal basis for any international co-operation on climate change
  
• Developed countries should face their historical responsibility and their high per-capita emissions
  
• Australia has an 8% INCREASE over 1990 levels included in the Kyoto protocol. It is shameful we haven't even been able to stick to this
  
• These Developing countries were almost nothing (no disrepect!) back in 1996 when the Kyoto Protocol was drawn up. What was the argument back then?
  
• China and India have backed Kyoto and they are already meeting targets anyway!
  
• Bush didn't sign Kyoto and thus a real reason for Howard not to
  
• Howard is a luddite and lives in the past when polluting industries and coal in particular were king. The future is about efficiency and lean processes (minimal waste).
  

Prime Minister John Howard has dashed any hopes that he might end the government's Kyoto Protocol boycott, insisting he won't sacrifice economic growth to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr Howard's first election campaign appearance on internet video site YouTube suggested the coalition would not be veering far from its existing climate change policy.

"The government will very shortly announce detailed plans on many issues including a climate change policy that balances our obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with the need to keep our economy growing," he said.

The prime minister later reiterated his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol on economic grounds, but not necessarily its post-2012 successor.

"The reason I won't ratify the Kyoto treaty is: the existing Kyoto treaty doesn't cover countries like China, and we could be at a competitive disadvantage," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

"We'd be interested in ratifying a new international agreement that includes all of the major emitters because that would not put us at a competitive disadvantage."

Mr Howard's comment came after federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull last week moved closer to accepting the Kyoto position by saying the government might sign an amended version for post-2012.

The independent Climate Institute argues that the necessary greenhouse gas cuts and a switch to clean energy can be made while sustaining economic growth.

"Government and independent groups such as ABARE and CSIRO show that strong economic growth is set to continue even if we substantially reduce emissions," chief executive John Connor said.

Federal Labor Leader Kevin Rudd says that ratifying the greenhouse blueprint would give Australia a greater say in climate change talks and help persuade China to commit on emissions cuts.

Mr Rudd said while the Kyoto treaty expires within five years, endorsing it would give the government a greater role in international climate change policy, starting at a Bali conference in December.

"If you haven't ratified Kyoto, you don't get to vote, that's the problem," he told Southern Cross.

"I want to be an international voice for Australia which is carving out the future arrangements."

Mr Rudd said China's argument for not accepting greenhouse targets had been because developed nations like Australia and the United States had refused to do so.

"Unless we in this country fix the China emissions problem with an international set of rules which bind both economies as well, then frankly our future is deeply compromised."

The Australian Greens have urged more federal investment in public transport as a way of tackling climate change.

Senator Kerry Nettle called on the commonwealth to ensure the states had the funding they needed to improve transport systems.

An environmental network gave both of the major parties low marks for their climate change policies, but put Labor ahead of the government.

Using nine criteria, The Big Switch gave the coalition a grade of 0.8 out of five and Labor 1.8.

National coordinator Tricia Phelan said Labor fell down by supporting the continued use of coal, while the coalition's response so far is "completely inadequate".

Read the article.

Read More......

UN: Now or never to save the planet

25th October 2007
From United Nations Environment Program

The Global Environment Outlook (GEO) is UNEP's flagship assessment process and report series. The fourth report in the series, GEO- provides an overview of the global and regional environmental, social and economic state-and-trends over the past two decades. It highlights the interlinkages, challenges and opportunities which the environment provides for development and human well-being. The report also presents an outlook, using four scenarios to explore plausible futures to the year 2050, as well as policy options to address present and emerging environmental issues.

GEO-4 is produced and published by the Division of Early Warning and Assessment of the United Nations Environment Programme. It is available from www.unep.org/geo/geo/.


Novorivus: This report from the United Nations speaks to me in uncertain terms that the world needs to become one, with all nations united to tackle the environmental problems we are faced with. We need to stop the selfish country-centric thinking that we have become so accustomed to (the one that Howard falls under when he says that we will not sign Kyoto as it would disadvantage us - other countries would take our place in the market).

Its all about peace, love and the desire to live together in harmony. As for the argument that "it is in our nature to fight wars", It is not true - we can either be peacemakers or warmongers. Bonobos and Common Chimpanzees are our nearest ancestors. Chimps fight, Bonobos fornicate (wikipedia/Bonobo Psychological Characteristics. Everything and anyone! They believe in and practice friendship and bonding not possession and fighting.

From: Bonobo Sex and Society under the heading "Female Alliance")

Male chimpanzees fight their own battles, often relying on the support of other males. Furthermore, adult male chimpanzees travel together in same-sex parties, grooming each other frequently. Males form a distinct social hierarchy with high levels of both competition and association. Given the need to stick together against males of neighboring communities, their bonding is not surprising: failure to form a united front might result in the loss of lives and territory. The danger of being male is reflected in the adult sex ratio of chimpanzee populations, with considerably fewer males than females.

Serious conflict between bonobo groups has been witnessed in the field, but it seems quite rare. On the contrary, reports exist of peaceable mingling, including mutual sex and grooming, between what appear to be different communities. If intergroup combat is indeed unusual, it may explain the lower rate of all-male associations. Rather than being male- bonded, bonobo society gives the impression of being female- bonded, with even adult males relying on their mothers instead of on other males. No wonder Kano calls mothers the "core" of bonobo society.

So what should we try and be - a Bonobo or a Chimp?

See this New Scientist article on the topic of Bonobos, Chimps and humans.

Sorry, I diverged from the original UNEP GEO-4 report which I'll return back to.

---

This part of the conclusion in the report is quite striking:

For some of the persistent problems the damage may already be irreversible. GEO-4 warns that tackling the underlying causes of environmental pressures often affects the vested interests of powerful groups able to influence policy decisions. The only way to address these harder problems requires moving the environment from the periphery to the core of decision-making: environment for development, not development to the detriment of environment.

Its now or never kids. Elect governments that are serious and want to make changes by bringing the environment to the core of our policies and immediate concerns.

Planet's Tougher Problems Persist, UN Report Warns

GEO-4 recalls the Brundtland Commission's statement that the world does not face separate crises - the "environmental crisis", "development crisis", and "energy crisis" are all one. This crisis includes not just climate change, extinction rates and hunger, but other problems driven by growing human numbers, the rising consumption of the rich and the desperation of the poor.

Examples are:

• decline of fish stocks;
  
• loss of fertile land through degradation;
  
• unsustainable pressure on resources;
  
• dwindling amount of fresh water available for humans and other creatures to share; and
  
• risk that environmental damage could pass unknown points of no return.
  

GEO-4 says climate change is a "global priority", demanding political will and leadership. Yet it finds "a remarkable lack of urgency", and a "woefully inadequate" global response.

Several highly-polluting countries have refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. GEO-4 says: "... some industrial sectors that were unfavourable to the... Protocol managed successfully to undermine the political will to ratify it." It says: "Fundamental changes in social and economic structures, including lifestyle changes, are crucial if rapid progress is to be achieved."

Among the other critical points it identifies are:

• Water: Irrigation already takes about 70 per cent of available water, yet meeting the Millennium Development Goal on hunger will mean doubling food production by 2050. Fresh water is declining: by 2025, water use is predicted to have risen by 50 per cent in developing countries and by 18 per cent in the developed world. GEO-4 says: "The escalating burden of water demand will become intolerable in water-scarce countries."
  
  Water quality is declining too, polluted by microbial pathogens and excessive nutrients. Globally, contaminated water remains the greatest single cause of human disease and death.
  
  
• Fish: Consumption more than tripled from 1961 to 2001. Catches have stagnated or slowly declined since the 1980s. Subsidies have created excess fishing capacity, estimated at 250 per cent more than is needed to catch the oceans' sustainable production.
  
  
• Biodiversity: Current biodiversity changes are the fastest in human history. Species are becoming extinct a hundred times faster than the rate shown in the fossil record. The Congo Basin's bushmeat trade is thought to be six times the sustainable rate. Of the major vertebrate groups that have been assessed comprehensively, over 30 per cent of amphibians, 23 per cent of mammals and 12 per cent of birds are threatened.
  

...

Read the report.

Read More......

QLD Conservation Council win appeal

12th October 2007

In a unanimous decision today, the QLD Supreme Court set aside a judgement made in the Land and Resources Tribunal (LRT). QCC had sought to have conditions imposed on a mine operated by xstrata Coal, to avoid, reduce or offset a proportion of its greenhouse gas emissions.

‘The Supreme Court has agreed with QCC that this was an unfair judgement by the LRT,’ said Toby Hutcheon, Coordinator of Queensland Conservation (QCC)

‘The decision led to xstrata Coal being given a licence to expand its coal mine without any conditions to avoid, reduce or offset greenhouse emissions,’ said Hutcheon

‘The Supreme Court decision now paves the way for the case to be re-heard. QCC will be pushing for this matter to be progressed as soon as possible’ said Hutcheon

‘We have lost 7 valuable months in the campaign towards stabilising QLD greenhouse gas emissions,’ said Hutcheon

This case illustrates the flaws in government greenhouse gas reduction policy. Whilst ordinary Queenslanders are being asked (quite rightly) to reduce their carbon footprint, big emitters are free from regulation.

‘Its time for the QLD EPA to impose conditions on all major polluters to regulate their greenhouse gas emissions,’said Hutcheon


For more Information: Toby Hutcheon 3221 0188/0419 664 503

Note: QCC took xstrata Coal to the Land and Resources Tribunal in January 2007, seeking to have conditions imposed on its operating licence. According to assessments, the mine and its coal would produce 84MT of CO2 over a 15 year period.

In handing down its decision the LRT President questioned the IPCC 4th Assessment Report and the views of some of Australia’s leading climate experts, including Prof Ian Lowe

Subsequent to this decision, the EPA approved xstrata’s licence without any of the sought conditions on greenhouse reductions. The QLD Government has a climate strategy aimed at reducing emissions by 60% by 2050.

Read More......

Scientists developing giant 'green energy' battery

September 13, 2007
From The Guardian (UK)


Eon UK is developing a giant battery designed to store electricity generated by wind farms and solar panels.

Scientists at the energy group's technology centre in Nottingham aim to build a large-scale prototype that would be able to store one megawatt of electricity for four hours - the equivalent to 10m AA batteries and the same size as four articulated lorry containers.

"Green power is only generated from wind farms when the wind blows and that might not be when the power's needed by customers," said Bob Taylor, managing director of energy wholesale and technology. "By researching and developing this battery we can store the power generated by wind farms any time and then use it when our customers need it the most.

"The storage system will also help the development of localised generation. For example, a school with solar panels can store the power generated at weekends and use it when the kids are back in school."

Eon is already working with small-scale prototypes; it expects the large prototype to be operational by autumn 2009. The project is being supported by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.

"We believe energy storage is a key which will help us unlock a lower-carbon tomorrow and radically change the way we think about energy," Mr Taylor said.

The industry regulator, Ofgem, said the concept was increasingly attractive. "It looked a long way from being deployed but we are seeing good progress here and internationally," said a spokesman.

Read the article.

Read More......

China Plans US$265 Bln Renewables Spending by 2020

September 5, 2007
From Planet Ark

China is able to set targets yet have no immediate obligations under the Kyoto protocol (ofcourse they will have future targets they won't be able to meet if they don't start acting now). This is in difference to Australia and the USA who have refused to join Kyoto so they don't have to set targets but have aspirational goals.

BEIJING - China plans to invest 2 trillion yuan (US$265 billion) in renewable energy by 2020, most of it corporate cash, to wean itself off polluting coal as it aims for cleaner growth, a top energy planner said on Tuesday.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Howard's Kyoto resistance could be costing billion

September 9, 2007
From

THE Howard Government's refusal to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gases is costing Australian businesses about $3.8 billion a year, a study has found.

The report by respected environmental consultant Cambiar said the country was missing out on economic activity because local businesses could not fully participate in the $37.5 billion global carbon market, which last year alone tripled in value.

"This is the first time this analysis has been done and what we have found was that a significant opportunity has been forgone because we are not participating fully in the Kyoto process," Justin Sherrard, one of the report's authors, told The Sunday Age.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Record Resource Consumption Depletes a Warming World

September 14, 2007
From Environmental News Service

Some statistics from the Vital Signs report

• In 2006, the world used 3.9 billion tons of oil. Fossil fuel usage in 2005 produced 7.6 billion tons of carbon emissions, and atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide reached 380 parts per million.
  
  
• More wood was removed from forests in 2005 than ever before.
  
  
• Steel production grew 10 percent to a record 1.24 billion tons in 2006, while primary aluminum output increased to a record 33 million tons. Aluminum production accounted for roughly 3 percent of global electricity use.
  
  
• Meat production hit a record 276 million tons (43 kilograms per person) in 2006.
  
  
• Meat consumption is one of several factors driving rising soybean demand. Rapid expansion of soybean plantations in South America could displace 22 million hectares of tropical forest and savanna in the next 20 years.
  
  
• The rise in global seafood consumption comes even as many fish species become scarcer: in 2004, 156 million tons of seafood was eaten, an average of three times as much seafood per person than in 1950.
  
  
• The warming climate is undermining biodiversity by accelerating habitat loss, altering the timing of animal migrations and plant flowerings, and shifting some species toward the poles and to higher altitudes.
  
  
• The oceans have absorbed about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans in the last 200 years. Climate change is altering fish migration routes, pushing up sea levels, intensifying coastal erosion, raising ocean acidity, and interfering with currents that move vital nutrients upward from the deep sea.
  
  
• Despite a relatively calm U.S. hurricane season in 2006, the world experienced more weather-related disasters than in any of the previous three years. Nearly 100 million people were affected.
  

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Climate Fight Brings Mega Profits to EU Power Firms

August 27, 2007
From Planet Ark



This is an article about how the Cap and Trade system to manage Greenhouse Gases fails to achieve its aims. The reason is because the amount of pollution companies can emit is given to them as these carbon credits. That is the 'cap'. They then trade this by theoretically reducing the amount of polution and selling what they don't use to other companies. So the rort is that they are paid to pollute. There are other issues, not discussed in this article, where teh amount of pollution is not set until some date in the future. So these countries cut ALL their trees down (causing pollution but that doesn't matter in this cap and trade system) and then get paid through carbon credits by planting trees.

This is the sort of crazy shit that capitalism inflicts on this world. Why can't we just live the "common good"?

LONDON - European power companies are making billions of euros in excess profits in the European Union's battle to beat global warming by cutting emissions of carbon gases, and consumers are paying for it, economists say.


The electricity generators are given, free of charge, permits to emit millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide which are currently worth around 20 euros a tonne, but are then charging consumers as if they had been made to pay for the permits.

Michael Grubb, Chief Economist at the Carbon Trust and Director of Climate Strategies, calculates that this practice which he says is economically justifiable gives the industry windfall profits of some 20 billion euros (US$27.14 billion) a year.

"It is free money," he told Reuters. "It's how you'd expect companies to behave, but politically and morally it is going to be hard to justify making so much money out of a scheme designed to reduce emissions -- with consumers footing the bill."

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Howard 'fails to plan for climate security'

September 25, 2007
From News.com.au



THE Federal Government has left Australia unprepared for global turmoil caused by climate change, which the nation's top police officer has called this century's greatest security risk, Labor said today.
Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty said water and food shortages caused by global warming could have disastrous implications, particularly for border security.

Mr Keelty said the world could see a "catastrophic'' decline in the availability of fresh water in populated areas.

"Crops could fail, disease could be rampant and flooding might be so frequent that people en masse would be on the move,'' he said in a speech last night.

"Even if only some, if not all, of this occurs, climate change is going to be the security issue of the 21st century.

"It's not difficult to see the policing implications that might arise in the not-too-distant future.''

Mr Keelty said people in their millions would be attempting to cross oceans and borders to escape their plight.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute in July said the military would find itself involved in more disaster and relief missions because of climate change and spend more time protecting the nation's borders.

Federal Labor said such threats posed critical questions for the nation's strategic and capability planning.

"Yet the Howard Government is still working off a Defence White Paper developed in the late 1990s and released in the year 2000, which takes no account of the implications of climate change,'' defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon said.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Fished Out: European Union Closes Bluefin Tuna Fishery

September 19, 2007
From

Although not directly related to climate change, this story is about mans' greed, selfishness and short term concerns causing a significant problem. Exactly the same as the cause of global warming.

The European Commission today decided to close the 2007 fishery for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean Sea. On the basis of the catch returns received from the seven European Union countries that fish for bluefin, the 2007 EU quota of 16,780 metric tons has been exhausted, the Commission said.

This closure concerns Cyprus, Greece, Malta, Portugal and Spain. The other two member states involved, Italy and France, already closed their own fisheries earlier this summer.

European Commissioner for Fisheries and Maritime Affairs Joe Borg said, "Clearly there are problems both of overfishing a stock already threatened with collapse and of equity between the member states concerned. As is its duty, the Commission will do all it can to address these issues urgently."

The Commission has noted failings in the reporting of catch data necessary to monitor the uptake of the EU quota in real time. Borg said measures against such failings will be put in place in time for the 2008 fishery to prevent the problems experienced this year.

There are two populations of Atlantic bluefin tuna, a smaller western population which spawns in the Gulf of Mexico, and a larger eastern population which returns each May from the all around the North Atlantic Ocean to spawn in the Mediterranean Sea.

Spotter planes and helicopters are waiting for the tuna as they enter the Mediterranean. In an attempt to protect the spawning tuna, the use of spotter aircraft has been illegal in the month of June since 2001. But illegal flights during June have been observed, says WWF Mediterranean, which campaigns for protection of bluefin tuna.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Exaggeration, Climate Change and the economic cost of climate change

Here is a blog about an article by Clive Hamilton.



I was alerted to the article by Professor Sinclair Davidson (Economics Commentator and Collumnist), who was on Difference Of Opinion (http://abc.net.au/tv/differenceofopinion/) Thurs 20th Sept 2007. Professor Sinclair read the quote from Clive Hamilton in the newspaper article so out of context that it totally changed the meaning. Clive's statement went from meaning that there is a lot of exaggeration about Environmental and social matters and often times exaggeration is done for the sake of a strong emotional response. Clive went on to say that with Climate Change, the exaggeration has been by the Australian Federal government about the cost of tackling Climate Change. Sinclair Davidson used the quote "Environmentalists have often overstated the effects of environmental decline." without presenting the rest of Clive's argument.

This of course is typical of a climate change denier. The issue Clive presents about the Howard government is that not only have they failed to address climate change, but that they have purposely encouraged climate change through denial, policy setting and direct action such as "New Kyoto Protocol" (an excuse to try and distract the rest of the world from the true Kyoto Protocol). Guy Pearce discusses this in his book "High and Dry, John Howard, Climate Change and the Selling of Australia's Future" (see http://www.abc.net.au/ rn/latenightlive/ stories/2007/1967488.htm). And by Clive Hamilton in his book "Scorcher" (http://www.theage.com.au/ news/book-reviews/ scorcher-the-dirty-politics-of-climate-change /2007/05/25/1179601645988.html).

This information highlights that if you care about the environment and climate change, then do not believe any of the lies and green washing that the Howard Government is putting forward in their election campaign. They have some positive actions, but they are too little too late.

BTW, the Difference of Opinion program discussed what the Federal Government (post the election) should do with our large 20 billion surplus. Not is all as it seems! (http://www.abc.net.au/ reslib/200709/ r185236_688864.asx).

---

September 09, 2007
From Courier Mail

Article by Clive Hamilton.



In the climate change debate, while the dangers of global warming have been deliberately understated, those opposed to taking action have engaged in absurd exaggeration of the economic costs of cutting emissions.

The Prime Minister, various ministers and the fossil fuel lobby have for years claimed that cutting emissions would be economically ruinous, cause massive job losses and destroy our international competitiveness. None of these claims is backed by credible evidence and can easily be shown to be false.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Carbon Rationing - becoming reality

Monday September 10 2007
From Guardian (UK)

Rationing project tests government plans to make pollution personal

Plans for the world's first personal carbon trading scheme, in which people buy and sell their rights to produce pollution, are unveiled today.

The Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce (RSA) is piloting a project later this year to test whether personal carbon trading could work on a large scale.

The idea, also called carbon rationing, is being considered by the government as a radical way to curb emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide from households and consumers. Matt Prescott, who runs the RSA project, said: "Personal carbon trading is a way to bridge the gap between individual and collective action. It would be a way for the government to give people a sense of purpose in their efforts to reduce their emissions."

Under the initiative, due to start in November, participants will enter details of their energy use into a computer system, which already tracks the emissions of 5,000 RSA volunteers. Each person will be allocated a cap on their carbon dioxide use, and will be forced to buy credits from others if they exceed it.

Within a year, the RSA hopes to link their computer system to the billing procedures of gas and electricity companies, so the energy use of volunteers can be tracked automatically. They are also talking to oil companies about obtaining details of fuel purchases. The society hopes to have tens of thousands of people trading carbon credits for cash within three years.

Officials in the environment department, Defra, are giving carbon rationing serious thought. The RSA project was launched last year by the former environment secretary, David Miliband, who talked of people carrying carbon credit cards to be swiped when they bought fuel or flights. Today's report says the government could introduce compulsory carbon trading by 2013, using the climate change bill to change the law.

Read the article.

Read More......

Faster Climate Change Means Bigger Problems

September 2, 2007
From Science Daily

Science Daily — The debate about what constitutes “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate” has almost exclusively focused on how much the temperature can be allowed to increase. But we have perhaps just as much reason to be concerned about how quickly these changes take place.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

Federal election: Parties Climate Change policies

Here are videos from the various parties discussing their solutions to climate change (or perhaps if they are even doing anything at all).

Greens

Democrats

Labor

A little lacking on real detail to enable a proper assessment of what they are going to do.

These vids are really nice and fluffy. Makes you want to <sigh/>.

Liberals (conservatives)

Too little, too late and in areas that won't make the impacts on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that need to happen. They do not understand the problem. Theoretically maybe, but it isn't in their hearts. Greenwashing essentially.

Read More......

More Walk Against Warming 2007

Walk Against Warming: Brisbane

Walk Against Warming: Brisbane - Waters headed the march at Brisbane's Walk Against Warming....green greens global warming walk against bob brown larissa waters march protest climate change activist brisbane.

Walk Against Warming - Bob Brown Speaks

About Global Warming, the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef and what The Greens will do about it....Bob Brown senator walk against warming Brisbane.

Bob Brown Addresses WAW Brisbane

Senator Bob Brown of the Australian Greens addressing the demonstrators of Walk Against Warming in Brisbane on Saturday 25th of August 07.

Read More......

Pope Urges, Save The Planet Before It's Too Late

From Environmental News Network

Pope Urges, Save The Planet Before It's Too Late - I wonder if this extends to accepting that the over population of our planet is a serious issue. So much so that some contraception is ok.

The Vatican also recently launched their own airline to fly Catholics around the world to visit holy lands.

It is great though that such a significant organisation has come to the realisation that we are ruining this planet and that changes must be made sooner rather than later.

LORETO, Italy (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, leading the Catholic Church's first 'eco-friendly' youth rally, on Sunday told up to half a million people that world leaders must make courageous decisions to save the planet "before it is too late".

"A decisive 'yes' is needed in decisions to safeguard creation as well as a strong commitment to reverse tendencies that risk leading to irreversible situations of degradation," the 80-year-old Pope said.

Wearing green vestments, he spoke to a crowd of mostly young people sprawled over a hillside near the Adriatic city of Loreto on the day Italy's Catholic Church marks it annual Save Creation Day.

More than 300,000 people had slept on blankets and in tents or prayed during the night. Organizers said they were joined by some 200,000 more who arrived from throughout Italy on Sunday.

"New generations will be entrusted with the future of the planet, which bears clear signs of a type of development that has not always protected nature's delicate equilibriums," the Pope said, speaking from a white stage.

In one of his strongest environmental appeals, Benedict said: "Courageous choices that can re-create a strong alliance between man and earth must be made before it is too late."

The Pope closed the rally with a Sunday morning mass.

It was the first environmentally friendly youth rally, a break from gatherings that have left tonnes of garbage.

Participants had backpacks made of recyclable material, flashlights operated by a crank instead of batteries, and color-coded trash bags so personal garbage could be easily recycled. Meals were served on biodegradable plates.

Tens of thousands of prayer books for Sunday's mass were printed on recycled paper and an adequate number of trees will be planted to compensate for the carbon produced at the event, many in areas of southern Italy devastated by recent brushfires.

Under Benedict and his predecessor John Paul, the Vatican has become progressively "green", installing photovoltaic cells on buildings to produce electricity and hosting a scientific conference to discuss global warming and climate change.

Benedict voiced concern about a breakdown of the traditional family and in his Sunday homily told young people to "go against the current" and challenge "seductive" media messages promoting materialism, consumerism and fleeting pleasures.

Loreto is famous in the Catholic world for the "holy house of the Madonna", a small stone structure purported to be where Mary grew up in the Holy Land and where she was told by an angel she would give birth to Jesus although a virgin.

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

Read the article.

Read More......

Arctic sea ice free by 2030, say scientists

20/08/2007
From The Ecologist

Arctic sea ice is melting faster than climate models predicted and there is less sea ice in the Arctic now than at any time since records began, scientists from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) have discovered.

With one month of the summer melt season remaining, the area covered by Arctic sea ice is already only 2.02 million square miles, less than at any time since records began in the 1970s.

‘This is very strong evidence that we are starting to see an effect of greenhouse warming,’ Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the NSIDC, told Associated Press.

At current rates, the Arctic will be sea ice free in summer by 2030. This is faster than some computer climate models predict – they expect that it will be 2070 before Arctic sea ice melts completely during the summer.

Dr Joy Singarayer, a sea ice expert at Bristol University, told the Ecologist:
‘Loss of Arctic sea ice could have consequences for climate and climate variability that are more widespread than the Arctic, as well as for the ecosystems and communities that inhabit the Arctic itself.’

As the sea ice disappears, polar bears face starvation since they depend on sea ice to reach and hunt seals. The Gulf Stream, the current that brings warm water to the west of Europe, could also be affected. It is driven by dense, salty water sinking to the bottom of the ocean near Greenland and, as Arctic sea ice melts and reforms throughout the year, it affects the saltiness of the underlying ocean.

Scientists also believe that declining Arctic sea ice cover could cause decreased rain and snowfall in the American west, and torrential winter rainfall over parts of Europe.

Read the article.

Read More......

Climate Action Network Meetings

Climate action network meetings
6pm, alternate Wednesdays (15/8, 29/8, etc)

School of Arts Building, level 2, 166 Ann St Brisbane

An opportunity for climate action groups to get together, network, share resources and ideas and plan joint activities.

Next meeting is the 29th August.

For further details, contact James 0431 150 928

Read More......

Rally Calls For Climate Change

From Brisbane Times

Scott Casey

More than 1000 people braved the rain in Brisbane today to join politicians and community campaigners in the annual Walk Against Warming rally.

The march was a loud and colourful affair with African drums rumbling along the length of the protest and chants decrying nuclear power and fossil fuels echoing through the city.

Leading the march was Greens Leader Bob Brown and Democrats Queensland Senator Andrew Bartlett, Brisbane City Council's Cr Helen Abrahams along with a host of candidates for the next election from the Greens and Democrats.

The turnout was down on predictions of 5000 people with organisers blaming the weather, while commenting that rain usually is associated with the Walk Against Warming.

"It's a walk that people listen to and it's a walk that gets that message across about more climate action."

The walk aims to increase public awareness of climate change and to encourage people to place pressure on government to undertake more action on a range of climate change related initiatives.

...
Read the article.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2007/08/25/1187462575532.html

Read More......

Walk Against Warming 2007

This was the third annual Walk Against Warming, although today was the unofficial Brisbane (Queensland, Australia) event. The official WAW 2007, which will be held in all major Australian centers is 2 weeks before the Federal Election. This hasn't been called yet so the date has not yet been determined.



There was approximately 3000 people participating in the walk. Most of them made it to the River Stage to listen to speakers and entertainment though didn't seem to stick around till the end.

It was a good day. The guest speakers included:

• Bob Brown - Greens Senator
  
• Andrew Bartlett - Democrats Senator
  
• Don Henry - Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) Executive Director
  
• Claire Moore - Federal Labor Senator
  
• Helen Abrahams - Brisbane City Council (Labor)
  

As expected, the Liberal / National parties (the Coalition) didn't turn up as they know they would have been heckled over the lies they'd have to tell to cover up that they don't have any policies to address climate change in any realistic way.

See the photos on National Enquirer's Flickr site.

Read More......

Gorillas slaughtered

July 27, 2007
From UNESCO

This is not directly about climate change but about the same attitudes that have gone into causing climate change. This is a story about the slaughter of the a dwindling population of Mountain Gorillas. Seven have been killed this year. This is about pure human selfishness

From New Scientist:

The animals were not killed for their meat. Conservationists describe the killings as "executions - bullets to the head". One theory is that the gorillas are victims of a conflict between those locals who see them as the basis for a tourist trade, and others who want them gone so they can use the forests to fuel a booming trade in charcoal.

Sound familiar?

Read the first article.
Read the second article.

Read More......

Media Lens: On corporate journalism on Heathrow's Climate Camp

August 23, 2007
From Media Lens

This is a Media Lens discussion of the Heathrow Climate Camp and Corporate Media. The Heathrow Climate Camp is a group of concerned people camped outside Heathrow to raise awareness of the damage that the expansion of the airport (and corresponding significant increase in aircraft) will cause to the people in surrounding suburbs and to the atmosphere through emissions.

The mainstream media is attacking this as an exclusive club who just cause people to turn away from this message. The Media Lens article attacks mainstream media for their double standards and support of corporations who do this and more including encouraging and causing damage to our planet.

The corporation is one of the most totalitarian organisations imaginable: control is strictly top-down with zero public input and minimal staff input flowing back up the chain of command. As the Canadian lawyer Joel Bakan has noted, the corporate motivation is essentially “psychopathic”: all concerns, values, motivations are subordinated to the bottom line of maximised profits as a matter of legal obligation. That’s what you are part of.

As for being taken seriously, your diatribe against the climate camp tells its own story. When has a corporate journalist ever railed in this manner against the restrictions imposed by the US/UK military in Iraq, against the control freaks of New Labour, against the taboo on discussing their advertisers‘ products and services?

Your piece is a good example of how respect is reserved for the powerful, while the powerless are considered fair game to be patronised and in effect told off with impunity. It’s all part of the great myth of balanced professional journalism. It turns out that ‘balanced’ is that which does not offend powerful interests. You are very much part of the corporate media problem, John. The sooner we all wake up to this, the better.

...

Read the article.

Read More......

130 jobs lost at wind turbine factory - Federal Govt to blame

August 22, 2007
From News.com.au

"The reason why Vestas has been unable to continue its operations in Portland is very squarely and directly as a result of the federal government's refusal to extend its renewable energy scheme to allow the industry to expand," he said on the ABC.

MORE than 130 manufacturing jobs will be lost in southwestern Victoria with a wind turbine blade factory set to close.

Vestas Wind Energy will close its Portland blade factory by the end of the year, saying it is not profitable enough.

"Vestas is regrettably compelled to close down its blade factory in Portland, Australia, effective from the year end," the Danish-based company's website said.

"The factory is not of a sufficient size to ensure satisfactory profitability, and the market outlook for Australia makes it impossible to expand the facility."

Opposition spokesman for regional development Denis Napthine said the factory closure was a bitter blow for the 136 workers and made a mockery of the state Government's promise of wind-energy jobs for country Victoria.

"It's absolutely imperative that the Brumby Government gets off its backside, gets down to Portland, talks to Vestas about keeping the factory open and keeping those jobs in Portland," he said on ABC radio.

"If they need assistance to grow the factory, to make it more efficient, the Government should assist."

Victorian Industry Minister Theo Theophanous has blamed the Commonwealth for failing to invest in renewable energy.

"The reason why Vestas has been unable to continue its operations in Portland is very squarely and directly as a result of the federal government's refusal to extend its renewable energy scheme to allow the industry to expand," he said on the ABC.

AWU state secretary Cesar Melhem also took aim at the Federal Government, citing its lack of vision and support for renewable energy.

"(Prime Minister) John Howard likes to say he is a good friend of the worker, but his Government fails time and time again to actually support the retention of good Aussie jobs," Mr Melhem said.

"Australians would much prefer to have their governments investing in local industries that provide good jobs and products, rather than having jobs sent offshore and poor quality goods imported."

Read the article.

Read More......

Bob Brown's Brilliance

On the recent "scandle" where the Australian Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd (and likely next Prime Minister), got drunk in New York and went to a strip club, Bob Brown, the Australian Green's leader said:

"Four years ago Kevin Rudd got drunk and took himself into a strip club," Senator Brown said.
"Four years ago John Howard, sober, took Australia into the Iraq war.

See News article.

Read More......

The Big Switch

The Big Switch

Turn your thoughts into action with The Big Switch.

The Queensland Conservation Council, along with Australia's other peak non-government environmental organisations, supports the Big Switch.

Our Big Switch team is available to speak with community groups in the Brisbane electorates of Brisbane, Bonner, Bowman, Moreton and Griffith.

We can provide support including print materials and help you communicate with candidates and the media.

We will be actively involved in coordinating the Walk Against Warming (two weeks before the election) and other community events in these five electorates. And we're actively recruiting to our campaign team.

Contact James 0431 150 928

Read More......

Walk Against Warming

Walk Against Warming
12.30pm, Saturday August 25th

Meet at Queens Park (cnr George and Elizabeth Sts). Procession to Riverstage, Botanic Gardens

Walk Against Warming brings together Australians for a community day of action on climate change. It’s been held annually since 2005 when 20,000 people walked in 17 locations nationwide. This quintupled last year with almost 100,000 people taking to the streets in 28 locations across Australia!

This year, this momentum will continue. We’re hoping Brisbane citizens turn out to send a clear message to our political leaders – that the community wants bolder and more effective government action on climate change… and we want it now!

The national Walk Against Warming will be held 2 weeks before the election. Brisbane is having its own Walk Against Warming on Saturday August 25th from 12.30pm at Queens Park. From there, we’ll walk to Riverstage at the Botanic Gardens for entertainment and speakers. We’re inviting people to bring a picnic and message on an umbrella or windmill and stay to hear more about this important issue and learn what you you can do to make a difference.

You can get more information and/or volunteer to help on the day by emailing Dom at info@qccqld.org.au or phoning 07 3221 0188.

Read More......

Discussion: Deforestation and Climate Change

This post comes from a recent email discussion with friends and family about Gunns - Old Growth Forest destroyers and ExxonMobil - the climate change deniers and denier funder.

---

It started when I forwarded a Wilderness Society email asking us to support the discontinuation of land clearing. Michael my brother in law replied and I replied back. Michael seemed to think that the fans at Live Earth who left all their rubbish were far more destructive than Gunns or ExxonMobil. These companies are two of the biggest offenders in environmental damage and this post is a hope that people will see them for what they are and make moves to bring them down. Gunns rule Tasmania (Australia) and all the people and businesses on that island. They are destroying everything and the politicians are letting them.

Michael Linke wrote:
Ahh Brooke....are you going to have kids? Are your friends, colleagues etc etc, so where are all these extra people going to live, get jobs, wear clothes etc etc. consumerism is here to stay because populations will continue to grow.

The worlds pop will be 9 BILLION by 2020. That’s 9 Billion poos a day! 9 Billion pairs of underpants, 9 Billion people who need to eat, it has to come from somewhere.

The only real solution is ZPG, which the catholic church opposes, so where does the real problem lie!!! Ahh an interesting debate at Christmas time I should think!

We cant continue to blame the “conglomerates”, they are simply meeting demand. A kid today has no idea where a carrot comes from, so he wont grow it, he will buy it!

I agree we all need to do something to reduce our footprint, but that is all we can really do, the blame game needs to stop and we as individuals need to change our lives, and not add to it.

Did you see the rubbish let after the live earth concerts, land fill, human garbage, not the Microsoft's and exxon’s, not the Gunns’, but people like you and me, zero respect, zero real understanding of the issue. That who we need to change.

M




Hi Michael,

Thankyou for this opportunity to talk about two of the destructive companies in the world. This is also an opportunity to provide you with perspective.

I'm casting this discussion a bit wider to include the receivers of the original email. It is important not to be defeated which is what you are sounding. Or perhaps you don't see this as your problem but mine and the group of environmentalists I share the same views with. These viewpoints are not from someone, for example who wants independence for their nation - a big and important topic affecting many people but not everyone. This topic of the environmental damage being caused is everyone's problem and we collectively have to do everything we can to stop it.

You say:
The worlds pop will be 9 BILLION by 2020. That’s 9 Billion poos a day! 9 Billion pairs of underpants, 9 Billion people who need to eat, it has to come from somewhere.
...
Did you see the rubbish let after the live earth concerts, land fill, human garbage, not the Microsoft's and exxon’s, not the Gunns’, but people like you and me, zero respect, zero real understanding of the issue. That who we need to change.


The planet *can* support 9 billion + people but not at the current rates of environmental destruction, and yes the attitudes shown are pretty terrible (it happens at every large public gathering). So yes, it is important to change people's attitudes and that can come from both angles - with the companies changing the way they operate to help set a good example, and from the grass roots up. But in comparing the attendees at Live Earth and the two companies mentioned, please consider the following.

Imagine a hillside of Old Growth forest supporting a rich and varied web of life. Trees that have been there for 400 years or more, native animals everywhere, a diverse range of other trees, plants, lichens, moses ... Now see that completely decimated - loggers move in with large equipment and rip out most of the Old Growth trees. Once that is gone the hillside is burnt to the ground to clean up the leftovers, destroying any homes the animals that lived there may have been able to find. Then a monoculture plantation goes down, row after row. 8020 poison is spread by helicopter or light plane to kill any wildlife that comes into the area to feed on the new seedlings. This is what is done in Tasmania at 40 football fields a day (*). Gunns and the "Public" (Govt) Tasmanian Forestry Industry are responsible for this.

(*) - In an email discussion with Michael on 15/2/2006 I provided him with evidence of "40 football fields a day" since he didn't believe it. This came from a direct quote from John Gay (MD of Gunns). That article is now no longer available (how surprising!). I could trawl through their company reports though I'll leave this an exercise for you.

See the following:

http://www.sprol.com/?s=pulping+tasmania
http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/corporate/gunns/whatisgunn/
http://forestrytasmania.com/ - sounds of the forest dying
http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/tasmania/taxpayers_prop/ - taxpayers prop up old growth logging (IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE ANY MONEY!)

http://www.wilderness.org.au/campaigns/forests/ - TWS Forests campaign
http://www.discover-tasmania.com/financial_review.html - has the following quotes which should make you feel pretty sick:


I didn't mean to kill all of them. But that's what I was doing. We had been feeding the animals, mostly wallabies, wombats and possums, the good carrots for two weeks. Then, on the third week, the boss covered the carrots in 1080 and told us to make sure everything was dead when we finished. Everything was dead, all right."
...
It is the only state that has made its corporatised forestry department, Forestry Tasmania, exempt from the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, the Threatened Species Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the state's own Resource Management and Planning System. And, bizarrely, Tasmania is the only state that sets out to poison its native animals.


Deforestation relates heavily to climate change, the biggest threat to our modern civilisation.

http://asia.news.yahoo.com/070323/kyodo/d8o23ef80.html - cost in greenhouse gases of deforestation in indonesia
http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1210-fao.html - deforestation causes 25% of greenhouse gases (GHG)
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/eye/deforestation/effect.html - National Geographic - 80% of earth's forests have been destroyed
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/deforestation.htm - why trees matter

We've put man on the moon, we can get around the need for the causes of deforestation. It just takes political will, which will be led by the people. The companies responsible have to stop immediately. We will all die if this doesn't change. This is not independance for a nation, this is what keeps us alive.

Now onto ExxonMobil, one company most people who have any knowledge about what they have done would like to put in a vat of boiling oil. One of the biggest reasons why the world has not so readily accepted the climate change science is due to the denial that went along with the science. Denial that presented junk science to try to debunk the true science of climate change (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science to understand the difference). Most, if not all denial, was funded by ExxonMobil. Each day that our greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are not reduced below the sustainable level has made it that much harder to reach the target. We should have been making changes 10 years ago when the Kyoto protocol was drawn up. It is companies such as ExxonMobil and governments such as the Bush and Howard governments (I'll send information out on this soon) that may have changed life in the future more than it ever would have had to have been. Specifically looking at Exxon-Mobil:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/19/ethicalliving.g2 - The denial industry
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business - Royal Society tells Exxon: stop funding climate change denial
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf - Union Of Concerned Scientists report on the ExxonMobil tactics in its denial

Gunns and ExxonMobil are only two companies on this planet that should be made to cease and decist. Read around and you'll learn of many others.

To round off your list, you mentioned Microsoft. Despite their bad and possibly society damaging behaviours that we are all accustomed to hearing about, they are nowhere near on my radar compared to the practices of such companies as the ones described above.

People may want to be happy and may think I'm a bit of a downer. No doubt true though we have to face the facts and someone has to say it. Everyone has to do everything they can to change the trends that are driving the world. Things you can do:

• Reduce the amount of fossil fuels you use - drive less (catch public transport, ride a bike or just walk) and reduce your energy consumption. Don't buy it if you don't need it, and turn it off if you don't need it on.
  
• Reduce the amount of paper you use. Use recycled paper if you have to. See the http://www.summitrecycling.org/html/prere.html (precycling) message.
  
• The number one thing is to vote for a political party who are dealing with the
  environmental problems realistically. The coalition government has to date not only denied global warming but has sought to undermine any efforts world wide to make changes. I will send more information about this out soon. They do not understand the problems we face. They haven't even set a true policy - they have not provided targets that we need to meet. They won't do this "until after the federal election". Basically they want to continue doing nothing. Infact, Howard is teaming up with Bush to try to continue to deny the problem and keep doing business as usual. War was not enough for Howard (Bonsai - Little Bush). If you need to see Australia take action about climate change then do not vote for the coalition. This election issue is bigger than industrial relations, interest rates or issues that have been important in the past. No party is so wrong on these things. But the coalitions attitude to the environmental problems which faces us IS WRONG.
  

All feedback and comments welcome.

Cheers,

Brooke

Read More......