Peter Campbell's blog on the state of the planet

A wild and woolly Christmas, a tornado and Boxing Day

2011-12-27T10:22:00.001+11:00

Chistmas Day in Australia was eventful. Storm clouds were brewing up during the morning, then late in the afternoon the skies opened up. High intensity thunderstorm cells dumped very heavy rain at some locations, and hail that broke the windows of parked cars.

Section of train line were badly damaged near Hurstbridge when floodwater washed away the track ballast.

A tornado was even forecast for western Melbourne. It duly arrived at Fiskville and Keilor Downs where it caused some local damage to properties. This is the only actual tornado in Melbourne that I can recall.

There was some rain early Boxing Day but the storms had subsided. Lena, Chloe and I did a family to the National Art Gallery of Victoria (curious name!) and visited Picasso's Weeping Woman among many other fine paintings.

We stopped at Waffle On for a nice waffle and a chat with Marc. Then we visited Myer's famous Christmas windows, which were fun and not too crowded, before heading home on the train.

Chloe asked "why is it called Boxing Day?". I wasn't too sure so I looked it up. It turned out to be a good question.

The exact etymology of Boxing Day is unclear. There are several competing theories. The tradition has long included giving money and other gifts to those who were needy and in service positions. The European tradition has been dated to the Middle Ages, but the exact origin is unknown and there are some claims that it goes back to the late Roman/early Christian era; metal boxes placed outside churches were used to collect special offerings tied to the Feast of Saint Stephen.

In the United Kingdom, it was a custom for tradesmen to collect "Christmas boxes" of money or presents on the first weekday after Christmas as thanks for good service throughout the year. This custom is linked to an older English tradition: wealthy landowners allowed their servants were allowed to take the 26th off to visit their families. The employers gave each servant a box containing gifts and bonuses, and sometimes leftover food.

In many Western countries, Boxing Day has become synonymous with consumption, where many line up at department stores in search of bargains at "Boxing Day sales". Many products are bought for their reduced price rather than for real need.

There is an opportunity for us to rediscover the traditional roots of Boxing Day and give a gift to someone who may need it. Using up leftovers from the Christmas Day dinner is also a good practice.

All the best for the New Year.

Photo slideshow

External links

Boxing Day, Greenlivingpedia
Storm toll sparks rail safety fear, The Age
Tornado, hail as storms lash Melbourne, The Age

The Baillieu government must stop logging Victorian rainforest

2011-12-14T17:33:00.001+11:00

Local conservationists have yet again had to take court action and use blockades to stop VicForests, the Victorian Government's logging business, from logging protected rainforest in East Gippsland.

VicForests have form. They were found guilty of breaking the law relating the protection of endangered species in Brown Mountain's forest in the Supreme Court in August 2010. Over a year later, despite a court order, they are yet to pay the court costs awarded against them to Environment East Gippsland.

In July this year, VicForests started logging forest near Sylvia Creek that is home to Leadbeaters Possum. They were stopped by another court order following legal action initiated by local environment group MyEnvironment. This court case, scheduled to be heard early next year, is again about VicForests ignoring the laws concerned with protecting endangered species.

The Baillieu government's response to VicForest's illegal and unethical practices is to reward them with 20 year contracts for logging our remaining native forests, indemnify their contracts, allow them to determine the amount of forest they can log and allow them to log forests in reserves, parks and water catchments.

The Baillieu government has also announced an intention to change the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act to that a bureaucrat can exempt VicForests from complying with it, thereby allowing them to log forests that are and should be protected.

There is a whiff of cronyism and corruption about VicForests too. Graeme Stoney, Premier Ted Baillieu's brother in law, has been recently appointed to the VicForests board by the government. Stoney has also recently been active behind the scenes coordinating the return of cattle to graze in the Alpine National Park under the bogus pretext of "research into the role of cattle in bushfire mitigation".

The native forest logging industry is in terminal decline. Regional Forests Agreements have failed. The global market for woodchips, the major "product" that comes from out native forests, has collapsed. Despite accelerating logging, jobs continue to decline. The industry is largely automated now.

In addition, the wholesale conversion of native forests into plantations by continued logging and burning is simply not sustainable, as scientists such as Professor David Lindenmeyer have stated.

There is enough plantation resource available in Victoria right now to supply our timber and pulp needs. The Victorian government should get out of the logging business, get rid of VicForests, and support our sustainable plantation-based timber and wood products industries.

Our native forests should be protected for the carbon they store, their biodiversity, their function as water catchments and because they are wonderful places to visit.

Links

Timber gets long-term commitment, The Age, 14 December 2011
MEDIA RELEASE: Supreme Court orders stop to logging East Gippsland rainforest, 14 December 2011
MEDIA RELEASE Legal injunction to stop Victorian rainforest logging, 14 December 2011
MEDIA RELEASE: Police move in to evict protest at unlawful logging coupe, 12 December 2011
MEDIA RELEASE: Conservationists Halt Logging Across Victoria, 5 December 2011
Silvia Creek forest - Greenlivingpedia
Brown Mountain old growth forest - Greenlivingpedia

Durban Climate Change Conference fails miserably with a whimper

2011-12-12T20:33:00.001+11:00

After three decades of scientific evidence - and warnings - that we are now experiencing dangerous climate change, I had some hope that the Durban Climate Change Conference (COP17) would at last result in some real global action to tackle carbon emissions - and endorse forest protection.

Unfortunately, this has not happened.

After several days of fraught "negotiations" the outcome (curiously described by some as a "breakthrough") seems to be

"a commitment to develop a agreement between all countries by 2015, that will take effect in 2020".

This quite obviously means no real action on reducing carbon emissions, protecting forests, or addressing the chronic imbalance between First World and Third World economies.

Unfortunately, this is yet another pointer that the end of the world as we know it is looming.

This outcome fails the following key tests:

Are global emissions going down? No.
When will emissions go down and atmospheric CO2 be stabilised or decline? Don't know.

It appears that for all the rhetoric, the bottom line is that First World countries really don't want to stop excessive emissions and some Developing Nations don't want to give up their "right" to increase them.

So if Governments, nations and the United Nations can't take action on climate change, it looks like you and I have to.

LETTER: Please maintain New York state ban on fracking and criminalize the practice

2011-12-09T10:17:00.000+11:00

Dear Governor Cuomo,

I am writing to demand that you permanently maintain New York State’s fracking ban. Fracking is a completely unacceptable practice that destroys water, land, air and people. It should be criminal.

It is very wrong to blow up Earth, destroying scarce water, for limited fossil fuel energy with no climate benefits as claimed. New York State must not allow ecosystems to be destroyed. The best path is to transition from unsustainable energy use to 100% renewable energy, along with dramatic energy efficiency and energy conservation improvements.

The DEC public comment process has been a deeply flawed sham – asking for public opinion while the decision has already been made to start fracking. The revised draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (rdSGEIS) is little more than greenwash, as it would allow fracking in 85% of New York's Marcellus Shale, injecting hundreds of billions of gallons of toxic fluid that will never be recovered, and will find their way into New York state's water.

Most importantly, it fails to provide long-term protection of drinking water sources. It does not analyze fracking’s health impacts, doesn’t ban the use of known carcinogens, provides no specific plans for disposal of hazardous fracking wastes and may impede local governments from banning this deadly practice.

The practice of fracking will never be environmentally acceptable, much less sustainable, and the temporary ban must become permanent. Failure on your part to do so will make you personally responsible for vast water contamination that will poison the New York citizens you have sworn to serve. It would also certainly have major repercussions for your re-election prospects.

The world is watching – do what is right for the people, water, sustainable livelihoods, and ecology – not the energy oligarchy.

With grave concern,

Peter Campbell

NOTE: You can send your own email on this important issue here: Don’t Frack with Our Water: Support New York State Residents in Maintaining the Ban

Submission on the proposed Basin Plan

2011-12-06T23:58:00.000+11:00

TO: Murray Darling Basin Authority
DATE: 6 December 2011

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I have visited the Murray Darling basin on many occasions, from the headwaters of the Murray River at Cowambat Flat all the way to the lower lakes of the Murray mouth and the Coorong.

The river system is remarkable. Its natural systems are unique in Australia and irreplaceable.

It has been obvious for decades that too much water was being drawn from the system, mainly for agricultural use. I studied Agricultural Science at Latrobe university, during which I learnt that much of the irrigation infrastructure was very wasteful of water, including open channels, flood irrigation of dairy pastures, sprinkler irrigation systems and even rice cultivation.

South Australia has born the brunt of the problems with drastic depletion of the river flow in its lower reaches and serious pollution of the water by heavy salt burdens and agricultural chemicals. Adelaide still sources the majority of its drinking wate from the Murray River.

The drastic impacts on the lower Murray, its lakes and the Coorong during the recent 10 year drought were unacceptable. Some lakes drained, exposed soils became acidified and toxic, and sea water threatened to invade the freshwater system and severly impact its freshwater ecosystem.

Regular flushing of the river system - as used to happen during regular floods - is essential for its health.

Appropriate regular ecological flows are essential for preserving the integrity and life of the Murray Darling system. I understand that scientists have recommended a minimum of 4000 gigalitres.

Reducing ecological flows in response to political campaigns and pressure from industries that continue to demand unsustainable quantities of water from the system will damage and even kill the system. When this happens, the industries will be forced to reduce their water use - they cannot use water that is not there.

The 2750GL now recommended by the Authority is not enough to save the system.

In addition, the doubling of extraction from groundwater resources is also likely to deplete aquifers.

The low environmental water flow and more extraction of groundwater will put ecosystems, communities and industries at risk.

The Plan must halt the decline of waterbirds, fish, red gums, flora and fauna, reduce blue-green algae outbreaks and improve water quality. A minimum of 4000 gigalitres is necessary to achieve this.

Peter Campbell

Information about how to make a submission is here: Murray-Darling Basin Authority

Hays Paddock Plan and Pavilion - please conduct proper community consultation

2011-11-29T11:38:00.001+11:00

Open letter to Boroondara Councillors

Boroondara Councillors,

I provided input to the Hays Paddock Plan that open space should be maintained and development of the pavilion should comply with Council's Sustainable Building Policy and retain its current footprint.

The pavilion should cater for all park users rather than being focused on sporting clubs. I also support improved cycling access to and through the park to make it easier for residents to visit without using a car.

Boroondara Council has ignored the community input to the plan and that of the Steering Committee and is proceeding with expanding the pavilion to accommodate only the interests of the Old Xaverians soccer club. This will reduce the open space in the park and is quite inappropriate. Any development of the Pavilion must surely also comply with the Sustainable Building Policy.

I ask the Council to conduct proper community consultation and establish an Advisory Committee that represents all park users, noting that Hays Paddock is not a sports reserve and the majority of usage is walking, dog walking, enjoying the quiet bushland setting, visiting the playground with children and meeting with and relaxing with friends.

I received an information leaflet and feedback form today from Council on the Draft Boroondara Open Space Strategy. My preliminary and immediate feedback is "please preserve the open space in Hays Paddock that is currently mostly used for nature conservation and passive outdoor enjoyment".

Yours faithfully,

Peter Campbell

Maling Ward resident

The Tarkine wilderness deserves World Heritage Protection now

2011-11-28T18:10:00.000+11:00

Dear Minister Burke,

I am writing to ask you to immediately place the Tarkine on the National Heritage List, to ensure that any impacts to national heritage values from the mining proposals currently are properly assessed.

I visited the Tarkine for an extended bushwalk in 2003. The natural heritage values were obvious and very signficant, including remote coast line, aboriginal relics and massive sand dunes. Unfortunately, degradation was occuring right in front of our with four wheel drive and all terrain vehicles and trail bikes traversing the highest sand dunes and frequently driving over aboriginal middens. Cattle grazing was having a signficant impact too. Their excrement was contaminating creeks, they were causing severe erosion along much of the coast line and they were spreading noxious weeds such as thistles.

You can view photos of our trip here: http://bit.ly/sdnCIc

As you know, the Tarkine has been under consideration for heritage listing since 2004, and while the Australian Heritage Council is finalising its advice to you, the priceless values of the Tarkine may be lost forever unless you grant it an emergency heritage listing.

If you do not list the Tarkine, only potential impacts to federally listed threatened species will be considered, and there will be no assessment or protection for the Tarkine’s renowned wilderness, geological, cultural, flora and fauna diversity and natural history values. None of these matters will be assessed by the state government.

The Tarkine is the last disease-free refuge for the endangered Tasmanian Devil. Because the Tarkine is not on the National Heritage List, damage as a result of mining exploration, including extensive roading and clearing for test drill sites has not been subject to any environmental impact assessment - yet your government has previously recognized that roading poses a significant threat to the Tasmanian Devil, and granted emergency heritage listing for this reason. Why won’t you do so now?

I call upon you as Environment Minister to use the powers available to you to ensure that the Tarkine and the Tasmanian Devil are afforded the highest level of protection. Please place the Tarkine on the National Heritage List, or provide me with the reasons why you as Environment Minister are placing the interests of mining ahead of conservation.

Peter Campbell

Tarkine photos

Victoria must keep the 20% emissions reduction target

2011-11-28T16:30:00.000+11:00

Dear Premier Baillieu and Dr Lynne Williams,

CC: Hon Michael O’Brien, Minister for Energy and Resources
Hon Ryan Smith, Minister for Environment and Climate Change
Hon Peter Ryan, Deputy Premier
Hon Kim Wells, Treasurer

Re: Review of Climate Change Act

I support the Victorian Climate Change Act and would be deeply disappointed if Victoria’s target to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 percent by 2020 was abandoned.

I note that the Climate Change Act 2010 passed both Parliamentary chambers unopposed. The Coalition participated in the Parliamentary debates at length and stated publicly on numerous occasions that it accepted the 20 percent emissions reduction target.

I understand that the current review is a legislative requirement as outlined in the Climate Change Act due to the introduction of a price on carbon. I’m calling on your government to ensure this review strengthens, rather than weakens our state government action on climate change.

I support the Act, and encourage the Baillieu Government to ensure Victoria takes leading action on climate change in addition to the national price on carbon because:

The 20 percent target will attract investment in clean energy jobs and industries in Victoria;
There will still be market failures under a price on carbon. We will still need to support energy efficiency measures, remove fossil fuel subsidies, support public good research and development and overcome barriers to clean energy deployment.
The price on carbon does not cover all sectors of the economy. In particular we need state policies to address emissions from transport and agriculture;
Victoria’s 20 percent target is stronger than Australia’s national target and therefore represents a bridge between where we are now on emissions nationally and where the science tells us we need to be;

I am deeply disappointed by the series of actions the Baillieu Government has taken to dismantle Victorian climate policy since being elected. I call on the Government to take this opportunity to change direction on the environment and climate change. I trust that this review is about developing a policy agenda that faces up to the challenge of climate change and this government’s responsibility to act, rather than shirking our responsibilities to current and future generations.

I have previously provided submissions to the Victorian Government about the urgent need for strong emission reduction targets and am very disappointed to see Victoria is now moving backwards on this.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Campbell

A network of safe cycling routes is needed across Melbourne.

2011-11-26T10:07:00.001+11:00

The tragic death of James Cross while cycling (Age 26/11) highlights the urgent need for a safe cycling network across Melbourne.

Improved driver education and a statutory one-metre distance between cars and bikes would help reduce "dooring" and other car-bicycle impacts.

However, many people don't use bikes for local trips and travelling to the city because they don't feel safe on our roads, even if they have rudimentary bike lanes on them.

Building dedicated cycling routes and separating bicycle lanes from cars would encourage many people to cycle who otherwise wouldn't and would greatly improve safety for those who already do.

We need a network of bicycle routes across Melbourne with safe separation between bicycles and cars.

We also need "strict liability" - an automatic assumption in law that responsibility rests with the less vulnerable road user. This is widely implemented in Europe, and means that responsibility for road accidents cascades down the chain from trucks to pedestrians. E.g. trucks -> cars -> bicyles -> pedestrians.

Links

Cyclist's death a catalyst for change, The Age
Boroondara BUG

Peter Slipper "sinks the slipper"

2011-11-24T21:48:00.000+11:00

Today was an interesting day in Australian politics. I was out and about when I noticed some tweets coming through about Harry Jenkins resigning as the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Australia's national parliament.

He made an interesting speech which you can read here: Harry Jenkins' resignation speech

He started with a heartfelt acknowledgement of the Ngunnawal people as the indigenous traditional owners of the land where Canberra is located.

He cited a desire to be able to participate in policy and parliamentary debate as his main reason for resigning. He thanked his staff, his wife and his family for their support. Finishing with:

I go placidly with my humour intact. I wish you all well.

The political interest came about when Peter Slipper, a Liberal MP, was voted in as his replacement, thereby increasing the numbers of the Labor Government by one (with Harry Jenkins rejoining active duties) and the Coalition losing one (with Peter Slipper leaving the Coalition and not having a vote as Speaker).

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott apparently didn't see this coming and proceeded to do what he always does - attack the Labor Government and Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I don't agree his interpretation of his role "to provide an alternative government and to criticise the current government". He and all his fellow opposition member's primary role is to represent their electorates, not keep endlessly carping about the government.

It will be interesting to see how this pans outs. The Labor government cannot now be held over a barrel by any one of the cross benchers - Windsor, Wilkie, Oakeshott, Katter or Bandt. They can still collectively influence voting on legislation, but individually they now can't.

Personally, I would like to poker machine restrictions proceed - either mandatory pre-commitment or a $1 maximum bet - as problem gambling is a major concern that government and the gambling industry has been unwilling to address properly to date.

The entire First World financial system is a ponzy scheme

2011-11-18T18:34:00.003+11:00

Today, "contagion fears sliced $23b off the Australian stock market". Australian shares have been up and down tens of billions numerous times over the last year, in fact since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.

Why should debt concerns in Greece, Italy, Spain or Portugal have such effect on Australia when we are in the middle of a resources boom supplying China's economic growth?

It seems to be all about perception. If some nations default in Europe then the first world's tangled web of loans and dodgy investments begins to unravel. Then we get a run on banks and mass "withdrawal of participation" in the financial system, with trust broken. This could end up in a 1930s style depression.

So the First World's financial system is a giant interconnected ponzy scheme teetering on the brink of collapse. Last ones out lose all their money. Banks close their doors. Countries go broke. Currencies collapse.

After largesse by various governments and politicians over decades, with unregulated dodgy financial trickery rampant, the solution is "austerity measures" on the hapless populations that pay the taxes.

Another solution is "Quantitative Easing" - which the United States is doing - which effectively means printing more money without producing, making or growing anything.

It seems to we need to redesign our financial system to eliminate speculation, waste, corruption and the endless fixation on endless growth.

In essence, this is a core concern of the Occupy Movement.

Here is a good video from The Guardian that explains some details about wealth and income distribution changes in the United States

Jon Faine vs Robert Doyle on Radio 774 8 Nov

2011-11-08T15:29:00.000+11:00

I listened to Lord Mayor Robert Doyle’s interview with Jon Faine on Radio 774 this morning and was very surprised to hear that Robert Doyle does not support an independent inquiry into the Occupy Melbourne eviction and the methods used.

He seemed to get quite angry at Jon Faine’s observations about the eviction of Occupy Melbourne protesters from the Melbourne City Square and was evasive when asked about the violence that occurred.

He was strongly opposed to an independent inquiry into the decisions and events surrounding the the eviction yet he stated that the correct actions were taken by him and the Police and that were “issues of public safety, malcontents, people looking for trouble, elements of professional protest, and people posing a risk to public safety”.

If that is the case, then what does Robert Doyle have to fear from an independent inquiry? I am left wondering if he has something to hide. The information I have seen to date does not back Robert Doyle claims.

Doyle even cautioned Jon Faine that he “must be careful about what he says and not over react”

I have seen many images and videos of violence during the eviction. I think an independent inquiry is essential to determine exactly what happened. Violence against passive protesters is not acceptable in our society.

External links

Occupy Melbourne - Greenlivingpedia
Doyle vs Faine - ABC Victoria - Radio 774 (podcast available)

Australia's carbon price arrives

2011-11-08T13:41:00.002+11:00

Today, the Australian Senate voted on and passed the suite of Clean Energy Bills that have been a long time coming, and are primarily the work of the Multiparty Climate Change Committee.

This is wonderful news. It is a shame it has taken so long for us to finally price pollution and provide leadership and and incentives for a clean energy future.

Well done Julia Gillard, The Labor Government, the MPCCC, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott, all the Greens in the senate - particularly Christine Milne and Bob Brown and their advisors - and Adam Bandt in the House of Representatives.

Hard work by all concerned, and a proud and momentous day for Australia.

It was interesting that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott chose to be absent from Australia on this day, despite his vocal and trenchant opposition to pricing pollution. It was also interesting that Malcolm Turnbull chose to vote against the legislation in the House of Representatives, despite his support of emissions trading and putting a price on carbon.

What our parliamentarians say doesn't matter nearly as much as how they vote.

Links

Carbon tax passes Senate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Finally, carbon tax becomes law - The Age
And It Passed! Australia Sets A Price On Pollution - Newmatilda

Occupy Melbourne protest removed with Police force

2011-10-21T22:37:00.002+11:00

The Occupy Melbourne protest that has been running for a week in Melbourne's City Square was broken up today when Police forceably evicted protesters after Lord Mayor Robert Doyle issued an eviction notice.

The protest, largely against corporate greed, had been running in a peaceful and non-violent way for a week.

Interestingly, Melbourne City Square is itself a victim of corporate greed - half of it was sold by Melbourne City Council years ago to developers who built a hotel and shop complex on it, leaving a much smaller portion of it for the public.

Our elected leaders are out of touch with the people. Violence does not solve problems, it creates them. I think the increasing concentration of wealth in our society does not bode well for the future. I also think that the banks who caused the GFC through dodgy and illegal practices were rewarded by taxpayer funded bail-outs provided by politicians - and are continuing on with similar practices.

Things need to change. Protests such as those held by the Occupy movement are valid and part of a vibrant democracy. Quashing them with force is counterproductive and illustrates which politicians and governments are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Links

Occupy Melbourne - Greenlivingpedia
Occupy Melbourne: eviction - Overland literary journal
Occupy London protesters set up tent city in the City - CNN.com

Australia finally gets a price on carbon

2011-10-12T14:04:00.002+11:00

The minority government in Australia has delivered a reform that no "majority" government (Labor or Coalition) could or would deliver. This is a good day for those who want some action on climate change rather than endless political bickering and even denial.

The impetus for the carbon price legislation has been provided by many over a long period. There have been several "Walk against warming" events over the last decade which demonstrated public support for real action on climate change.

The Australian Climate Action Summit in 2009 called for Labor's fatally compromised CPRS to be ditched, and for investment to be directed towards 100% renewable energy. Both these objectives have now been met:

The Greens opposed the CRPS and it was voted down.
The Clean Energy Future package that has just been voted for is greatly superior to it, and includes significant funds for investing in clean energy.

Here is an interesting quote from Crikey:

Pretty much all the innovations in the package are Greens ideas, the fundamental one being targets recommended by the Climate Change Authority and the big renewables funds with independent boards determining how the money should be spent. And the expanded Productivity Commission role in immediately reviewing compensation to emissions intensive trade-exposed industries. And the Australian Energy Market Operator will include scenario planning for 100% renewable energy. Four key advisers - Milne policy adviser Oliver Woldring, Bandt spinner Damien Lawson, powerful Bob Brown chief-of-staff Ben Oquist and Milne media adviser Tim Hollo - were at the centre of the negotiations.

This would not have happened but for the people in Melbourne who voted Green for Adam Bandt and for the Greens in the Senate in 2010.

And this would not have happened without broad public support and a long history of community pressure to steer us away from a fossil fuel-addicted economy towards a clean green renewable energy-based economy. So lets celebrate!

But this is only one step. The next one should be to immediately protect Australia's native forests from logging and allow them to restore their carbon stocks. This alone could reduce Australia’s emissions by 5%.

The benefits of a minority government will be further demonstrated when Labor's ridiculous, inhumane and very expensive legislation for offshore processing of asylum seekers will be voted down later this week.

External links

Gillard, Rudd celebrate as carbon bills pass - ABC News

A 4 week nightmare with Telstra

2011-09-01T20:53:00.001+10:00

I was convinced by a door-to-door salesman about a month ago to move our home phone and Internet to Telstra after 10 years on Optus.

He assured me the cable Internet was very fast and very reliable. Unfortunately, Telstra and their cable Internet are not.

If you are thinking of moving to Telstra, I recommend you don't.

If they don't sort their mess out, they will lose most of their customer base and the business will continue to decline. Let's hope they wake up before end-game.

Below is a summary of a letter I sent the David Thodey, the Telstra CEO, advising him of our tales of woe.

=====================
David Thodey
Chief Executive Officer
Telstra Corporation Ltd
242 Exhibition Street Melbourne VIC 3000

Dear Mr Thodey,

I wish to express my extreme dissatisfaction with my recent dealings with Telstra. I recently moved back to Telstra on a "cap bundle" after 10 years on Optus.

Over the last 4 weeks I have spent more time on the phone (over 10 hours) to Telstra than I spent with Optus over 10 years.

Connection

Major issues getting Internet service provided. It took over 12 days and several telephone calls to get it connected, even though it was part of a "bundle".
I rang the Complaints Department and lodged a complaint that I was without the Internet for a 10 day period, and that scheduled commitments were not met.
The Internet connection was the booked for next door, which a required another phone call to Telstra and further rescheduling.

Ongoing dropouts not resolved

Over the next week, we experienced several drop outs, and spent hours on the phone talking to various people in the Call Centres
A couple of time I was able to restore the service, but it was running very slow with DNS timeouts, then dropping out again.
Several more phone calls, then technicians came twice and said "there was no signal in the street", then it started working. But they did not log a problem with the network department.
I lodged another complaint, then got another modem. The problems appeared to be fixed.

More service disruption

The Internet then functioned OK for about a week and was OK, but still not fast.
Working from home, the Internet dropped out again. I couldn't restore it by resetting the modem.
Further lengthy calls to Telstra, more diagnostics (turn modem off, reset it, reboot PC etc) which did not fix the problem. I lodged another complaint about the service and lack of problem resolution.

Backup Telstra Wifi Modem failed and not replaced.

The Telstra Wifi Modem I had for backup Internet also failed - I could not connect to it via wifi. After more diagnosis over the phone they told me what I told them - that the wifi connection was not working.
Telstra Camberwell said they had no technician there so they couldn't do anything. I told them I had been advised by the call centre that the modem would be replaced. They said they would have send it to Sydney to get it looked at, and they could not give me a replacement until this happened. They gave me a loan USB modem, which does not work.

Service restored, but widespread problems apparent in suburb

Another Service Stream technical came and after fiddling with the modem as able to get it working again.
He said there was (still) a weak signal in the street, and the network people would need to look at it (apparently the same problem I reported about 2 weeks ago). He said the there were also problems impacting Surrey Hills, Canterbury and Camberwell.
Telstra complaints told me that may complaint yesterday was "not recorded as a complaint" despite my specific request for it to be.
I advised the previous complaints manager that I was completely frustrated by Telstra's appalling customer service, inability to provide a basic Internet connection service, and inability to resolve problems, and that I was changing to another provider for the phone and Internet. Telstra them offered to not change us exit or cancellation fees.

Network techs visit for the first time

Advised me that "the readings were too high and the hub in the street was out of alignment and needed adjustment, and once that was done the service would be restored". And it was. Hallelujah. They had only just been notified of a problem!
The next day another Network tech came and replaced the box/plate in the street outside are residence, and the speed improved. He was capable and friendly.
I was contacted by a new Case Manager who apologised for all the delays and hassles and said that David Thodey and received my letter and that steps would be taken to resolve the service and escalation problems I had encountered.
I advised that we have decided to move to another phone and Internet provider (iiNet) as we have little faith that Telstra will be able to provide ongoing reliable Internet or resolve any future problems.

Telstra must be spending an excessive amount on foreign Call Centres and complaints staff to deal with ongoing occurrence and escalation of service issues that are not resolved.

As a Telstra shareholder, I consider this to be gross mismanagement of the company. Telstra has been unable to provide me with a basic functional Internet service, and the customer service has been extremely poor.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Campbell.

Politics and right-wing Tea Party holds United States and the world hostage

2011-08-02T10:35:00.000+10:00

The budget negotiations just about to conclude in the United States is another example on how Western democracies are failing.

Essentially, the right wing Tea Party faction of the Republicans adopted an ideological position and refused to support any increase in the debt ceiling for the United States government. They locked the entire Republican party into a position where they were basically not negotiating.

In doing so, the held a metaphorical gun at President Obama, the United States economy and the global economy. This was a very dangerous game of brinkmanship with potentially very serious consequences.

Who were they "democratically representing" with their actions? Clearly not a majority of Americans, and clearly not the rest of the world. To me this is more evidence of the end of the world as we know it.

The deal is not yet done, but here is my take on the current positions:

Spending cuts (first round): Immediately spending cuts of $US917 billion dollars between 2012 and 2021, in the form of caps on discretionary spending. These cuts come from funding authorised at will by Congress - not from entitlements such as Social Security and the Medicare health care program for the elderly.

If this means the homeless are not disadvantaged, and unemployment benefits are not affected, this appear to be reasonable.

Spending cuts (second round): A special committee in Congress is established - evenly divided between Obama's Democratic Party and Boehner's Republican Party - to find $US1.5 trillion in further cuts from all areas. The committee is required to come up with proposals by November 23. Both the House of Representatives and Senate would then vote on those proposals by December 23, in up-or-down decisions in which lawmakers would not be able to make amendments. If the committee process fails, then cuts of $US1.2 trillion would automatically come into force -- divided evenly between military and non-military spending, but not touching Medicare and Social Security. The Congressional Budget Office said that the total package would result in at least $US2.1 trillion in deficit reduction by 2021 compared with March 2011.

No amendments to proposals is not democratic. The special committee has extraordinary powers.

Debt ceiling: An increase in the debt limit by between $US2.1 and $US2.4 trillion is authorised. The United States hit its current ceiling of $US14.3 trillion on May 16 and will start running short of cash at midnight Tuesday (2pm AEST on Wednesday). This covers US debt until the start of 2013 - a key goal for Obama who wants to avoid a similar showdown with Congress during his re-election bid next year.

This represents a win for Obama.

Defence spending: Cut $US350 billion in defense spending over the next 10 years as part of the first batch of cuts. The special committee would look at further cuts. The US military budget last year was around $US700 billion, by far the largest in the world, but the figure is certain to come down as the United States winds down commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Some Republicans have argued against steep defense cuts, saying there is insufficient thought on the strategic implications. Republicans have vowed to resist steep defense cuts in the special committee. The White House hopes the threat of the automatic cuts if the committee fails - which would amount to $US600 billion - would serve as leverage to press Republicans on the panel.

This is the first major battleground. Essentially, there will be some reduction in the extremely high defense expenditure - which is the most signficant budget item - but Republicans want it maintained.

Taxes: The package would not increase taxes, a key Republican demand. Liberal Democrats have been strongly critical, saying that the United States should not consider major spending cuts at a time of a weak economy without also raising revenue. The White House said that Obama could still fight to restore tax rates on wealthy Americans - bringing in nearly $US1 trillion in revenue. Obama's Republican predecessor George W. Bush lowered the taxes on the wealthy but the cuts are set to expire at the end of 2012. Democrats have also said that the special committee could propose to raise revenue by cutting subsidies to the oil and gas industries, but Republicans have rejected the idea.

This is the second major battleground. Essentially, Republicans want to protect wealthy people from tax increases, while the Democrats want to be increase their taxes. Quite clearly, wealthy people can afford to pay more tax.

Constitutional amendment. The package calls for Congress to vote by the end of the year on an amendment to the US Constitution that requires a balanced budget, a long standing proposal of conservative Republicans who say the country must keep its finances in order. If Congress approves the amendment, Obama would be authorised to seek another $US1.5 trillion hike in the debt ceiling. Many Democrats argue that the amendment is a gimmick that would not make sense in a future crisis. Amending the founding US document is an arduous process, requiring two-thirds votes by both the House of Representatives and Senate and ratification from legislatures of at least 38 of the 50 states.

A constitutional amendment for dealing with budgets? Surely there are more pressing issues?

Education: The bill preserves President Barack Obama's initiative to help needy students. So-called Pell Grants provide up to $US5550 to students who would not otherwise be able to afford university attendance. The plan provides $US17 billion for the program in the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years. But the blueprint also cuts $US21.6 billion between 2012 to 2021 from student loans, in part by eliminating a subsidy that allows graduate students to defer payment while still in school.

Hitting students with more financial imposts is surely not a good thing. Its amazing how the lowest paid and most vulnerable and needy people in America are neglected for targeted for "spending cuts" yet the wealthy sail on regardless.

In conclusion.

This deal looks certain to further increase the divide between the wealthy and lower income sections of American society, with little or no input from the American public.

Borrowing costs will go up when the United States looses its AAA credit rating, and share markets around the world have fallen and are in turmoil due to the uncertainty this process has caused.

The Republicans are playing a game of Russian roulette with the entire world.

External links

US debt deal wins approval, The Age

We need to transition from coal to 100% renewable energy

2011-07-12T16:10:00.001+10:00

An open letter to Michael O'Brien MP, Minister for Energy and Resources, Victorian Government

Michael,

I was very surprised to hear you on 774 radio on Monday 11/7 advocating the continued burning of Victoria's brown coal as the energy source for our future. We need to transition form coal to renewable energy over the next two decades to reduce our very high carbon emissions associated with stationary energy.

A transition to gas is not desirable either - as it is just another fossil fuel.

Spending public money on CCS is not justified either - the technology is unproven and will be very expensive.

We need to invest in 100% renewable energy technologies that are available now - such as concentrated solar energy with molten salt storage, and wind power.

Regards,

Peter Campbell

Why do we lock up asylum seekers?

2011-06-23T19:28:00.003+10:00

There are two answers to this question, and neither of them are nice.

1. We lock them up in mandatory detention as a deterrent to others.

2. For political reasons.

Why should we NOT lock them up?

It is a breach of human rights.
They have done nothing wrong.
Prolonged incarceration causes psychological damage
It is inhumane.
It is very expensive.
It portrays a very negative view of Australia.

In Australia, there is bipartisan support for mandatory detention between the Labor party and the Liberal/National coalition. But they spend a lot of time scoring "political points" off each other on issues like how many boats are coming and how tough their respective policies are.

This is immoral and wrong. It just should not be happending in a society that calls itself civilised.

Australia has had waves of immigration, both "legal" and refugees, including Greeks, Turks, Hong Kong Chinese, Italians, Vietnamese (many in boats) to name a few.

Claims that asylum seekers are a "border security issues" and are "terrorists" have emanated from some Australian politicians. This polarises public opinion and slanders hapless asylum seekers, who of course have no right of reply from behind the razor wire.

We should simply allow asylum seekers to live within our society, assess their claims, and send the cheats home. It is time our politicians stopped grandstanding and breaching human rights and international conventions.

We need leadership on this issue, not gutter sniping and political trench warfare.

All Victorians must have equal protection from discrimination under Victorian Equal Opportunity laws

2011-06-12T11:42:00.000+10:00

Below is an open letter I have sent to Robert Clark, my local member of parliament, about the Baillieu governments alarming intention to provide permanent exemptions that will allow some religious organisations to discriminate against Victorians.

You can sign and online petition about this, and send an email to your local MP from the Equal Rights Victoria website.

========================

Dear Robert

I am contacting you to express my strong objection to the Liberal government’s intention to strengthen the rights of religious organisations and individuals to discriminate against and abuse others who don’t agree with them.

I fully endorse people’s right to freedom of religious thought, worship and practice. However this does not mean that religious individuals and organisations should therefore have the right to impose their beliefs on others who don’t agree with them - particularly when this occurs in non-religious/mainstream or secular settings.

It is appropriate that people with religious beliefs be able to say who can or cannot join their congregation or attend one of their religious ceremonies or be appointed as a priest/ pastor etc. However when a religious organisation or individual is engaged in the provision of things such as education, health, welfare or commercial/retail services, they should have to comply with the anti-discrimination laws in the same way that everyone does.

To give religious people and organisations additional legal privileges and protections over other groups in society is totally against notions of fairness and social justice. It also goes against all efforts to create and maintain a society in which citizens welcome diversity and understand that although we all have human rights, we also have responsibilities to respect the equal rights of others. It is absurd that a government would excuse or pardon one groups’ discrimination against others just because it was done of the basis of their particular spiritual beliefs.

By strengthening the exemptions in the Equal Opportunity Act, major harm will continue to be inflicted on the health and wellbeing of significant numbers of the population. For example, there would be some 500,000 individuals in Victoria that identify as same sex attracted and research clearly shows higher rates of depression, anxiety, self harm and suicide attempts amongst these citizens (especially young people). This is not the result of anything arising from their sexual orientation but the direct impact of isolation, discrimination and abuse they experience in the community. Religious belief is often used as the justification/explanation for such discrimination.

As my local member of parliament I urge you to take steps to stop the unequal and unfair endorsement of additional privileges and rights for religious individuals/organisations in this state’s human rights law.

Robert, I believe it is very important that all Victorians be treated equally and protected against discrimination.

Regards,

Peter Campbell

Fast Trains for Australia

2011-06-09T17:47:00.001+10:00

Below is a letter I have sent to Victorian Senators Kim Carr (Labor), Stephen Conroy (Labor), Steve Fielding (Family First), Gavin Marshall (Labor) using this website: Fast Trains for Australia

==========================

It's time Australia invested in a high speed rail on the East Coast corridor (linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne).

The existing rail services between Australia's major cities are slow, infrequent, and can be more expensive than air travel! They are also slower than bus services.

The aviation industry is responsible for 3.5% of anthropogenic cimate change (IPCC), while average passenger kilometres are increasing by 5% each year. We cannot afford for aviation to continue expanding. But we do want to travel between our cities!

Aside from the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, road congestion already costs Australia $10 billion a year. And Australia's population is expected to increase to 26.7 million by 2026 and 36 million by 2056.

Modelling indicates it would cost around $13 billion to build the corridor today, but if it's put off it the cost could balloon to $57 billion by 2030.

High-speed rail is being rolled out in countries across Europe, the US and Asia as a way to link up major cities, reduce congestion and battle pollution.

Please know that we Australians want to get with the program!

Yours sincerely,
Peter Campbell

Why did Julia Gillard rule out a carbon tax last year?

2011-05-23T11:27:00.002+10:00

During the "cut and thrust" of a close Australian federal election campaign in 2010, Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister said something remarkable.

The election was characterised by the usual claims and counter claims about a variety of the "usual issues" such as health, education, the economy, taxation and budget deficits. There was also contention about some tentative Government policies designed to help us move to a low-carbon future such as the poorly implemented and managed home insulation scheme, green loans and solar panel rebates.

Climate change was the elephant in the room. The Labor government's previous attempt to push through an Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS) had failed for two main reasons:

The Liberals broke their bipartisan support for it when Tony Abbott rolled Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader. Abbott's basic position was a mixture of denial that climate is happening and obscure objections to the proposed market-based mechanism for limiting carbon pollution.
The Greens and other independents did not support the CPRS because they judged it was far to generous to the big polluters and would not have been effective in reducing carbon pollution.

Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister at the time, lost his nerve and didn't call a double dissolution election on this issue. Instead he back-flipped and delayed the introduction of the CPRS, an action that he had strongly criticised the Liberals for during the 2007 Federal election campaign. The so-called "gang of four" - Julia Gillard (Deputy PM), Wayne Swan (Treasurer) and Linsday Tanner (Finance) along with Kevin Rudd collectively agreed to go soft on climate change.

Julia Gillard then rolled Kevin Rudd and became the prime minister in the run up to the election. She was supported by some strong factional players, including Paul Howes (secretary of the Australian Workers Union), who has subsequently stated that "climate change policy must not cost a single worker's job".

Back to the question. Tony Abbot was running (and still is) an effective misinformation campaign about climate change and carbon pricing that Labor party campaign people felt was getting significant traction with voters. He was claiming that the CPRS was a "great big new tax" and that Labor would bring in a carbon tax.

With the failure of the CPRS (ETS), a carbon tax was the only quick and effective means of pricing carbon pollution left. It was worthy of immediate consideration. However, Julia Gillard specifically ruled it out in the closing weeks of the election campaign by stating "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead".

I thought at the time that this was an ill-considered statement designed to take the wind out of Tony Abbott's sails. In short, political considerations during the election campaign ruled out a viable policy option that had been suggested and endorsed by Professor Ross Garnaut, the government's own advisor on climate change policy.

Fast forward to 2011. To form a minority government, Julia Gillard had to gain the support of the Greens and two out of the three lower house independents. Part of the deal was formation of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee. The Liberals and Nationals, still stuck in a degree of climate change denial, "spat the dummy" and refused to participate. The others on the committee, a mix of Labor, Greens and independent MPs, resolved during 2011 that a carbon tax was indeed a valid and effective mechanism for pricing carbon.

Julia Gillard is now been constantly and relentlessly criticised by the Liberal National coalition for breaking her promise about never introducing a carbon tax. Yes, she made a stupid promise. However, a price on carbon is one essential measure for reducing carbon emissions. But it is only one of many needed.

It is also subject to the same corruptive influence that fatally compromised the CPRS - industry groups lobbying for special consideration, financial assistance and low carbon tax price - which of course means they just keep polluting. The fact that many large industry players are opposing the carbon tax is a good thing. We need to curb excessive profits reaped from carbon pollution and transition to a lower carbon economy.

The proposed carbon pricing mechanism is not even actually a tax. It is set price on carbon that is likely to only apply to the top 100 listed companies in Australia, which could face an annual carbon cost of $3.3 billion if the government imposes a $25 per tonne price on carbon.

Low income households are already suffering from large increases in their energy bills without a carbon price. Part of the proceeds of the carbon price will be directed to compensating them for their energy costs so they will end up better off when the carbon price is in place.

Along the journey to carbon price, presumably in response to some agitation by industry and some right-wing unions such as the AWU, Julia Gillard also decided to criticise the Greens at the Gough Whitlam oration in April 2011 with the following statements:

"The Greens wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy. The Greens have some worthy ideas and many of their supporters sincerely want a better politics in our country.

"They have good intentions but fail to understand the centrepiece of our big picture - the people Labor strives to represent need work.

"And the Greens will never embrace Labor’s delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation."

This is just more nasty, spiteful and divisive poll-driven politics. It demonstrates a basic failure of leadership by Julia Gillard and alienates a lot of people who voted for Labor either directly or via their preferences with the expectation they would deliver real action on climate change.

The right wing media in Australia - most notable the Murdoch press including the Australian and the Herald Sun - jumped on these comments and have embarked on their own campaign to attack the Greens, Labor and any sort of price on carbon. They are clearly in the thrall of large polluting industries who don't want to change, and are aligned with and supporting the Tony Abbott-lead conservative opposition in this regards. This is not news - it is ill-informed opinion, and a public relations smear campaign.

A carbon price in excess of $50 per tonne is required to shift investment decisions towards renewable energy rather than natural gas. A lower carbon price will result in a massive investment shift from coal-fired power to gas-fired power. Unfortunately, while gas is more efficient than coal as an energy source, it will still produce huge quantities of carbon emissions. I predict that the Gillard Government will announce a carbon price of $15 per tonne, which would be an abject failure.

So in summary, the broad policy measures we need to tackle climate change include:

A carbon price on pollution in the range of $50 to $100 per tonne.
7 star national building energy ratings. Our current state standards are lame and a dog's breakfast.
Mandatory energy efficiency standards for appliances in line with european standards
A national feed-in tariff to boost investment in large scale 100% renewable energy such as wind and concentrated solar
Standard distributed local solar energy production plants of remote communities - possible based on the CSIRO parabolic solar dish system
Major investment in low-carbon public transport systems in both city and rural areas. This should be mostly rail systems powered by electricity
Local low-carbon water storage and conservation measures such as rainwater tanks and urban storm water collection to avoid the construction and use of massive energy guzzling desalination plants.
Protect Australia's remaining old growth forests to keep the carbon they store safe, and allow logged forests to regrow and sequester more carbon. Shift all timber production to plantations.

Unfortunately, or political system and leaders seem to be mired is a sideshow prize fight about only one issue - a price on carbon.

Gillard is bad, but Abbott is worse. His plan to hand about billions of our money (yours and mine) to large corporates without any tangible or effective carbon emissions resulting is a complete sham.

Both Gillard and Abbott really need to lift their game.

Links

Multi-Party Climate Change Committee - Think Change
Carbon tax promise has Julia Gillard choking on her words | Herald Sun
Carbon price compensation: businesses not like households | Crikey
Gillard plans FY13 carbon price | News | Business Spectator
Prime Minister Julia Gillard tells Gough Whitlam Oration Labor will never partner with Greens, news.com.au :
Bob Brown warns Julia Gillard's attacks on Greens are 'divisive' | Herald Sun

Dramatic video from helicopter of tsunami in Japan

2011-03-15T09:36:00.004+11:00

Tsunami in Japan

Effects of Tsunami in Hawaii

Links

Amateur video captures Tsunami horror, Reuters

Oil price rises and natural calamities threaten the global economy

2011-03-13T12:20:00.002+11:00

It is interesting to note the effect of oil price rises and natural disasters on the global economy, and Western economies in particular.

Three recent examples are:

The 2011 Australian floods
Increased oil prices due to unrest and regime change in the Middle East and North Africa, particularly the civil war in Libya
The devastating Japanese earthquake of 11 March 2011

Oil price rises put immediate pressure on items like:

Retail expenditure - household disposable income drops when fuel prices rise and people stop spending
Inflation - price rises effectively devalue the currency
Increase transport costs - leading to an increase in business costs and price rises for many other good and products, including food.
A negative impact on exporters

In summary, higher oil prices act as a brake on global economic growth. This may not be a bad thing as unlimited growth is clearly not sustainable.

However, it seems that governments and policy makers are not dealing with the reality of peak oil, rising oil prices and transitioning to the low-oil and low-carbon economies we need to cope with depletion of fossil fuels and emission reductions to help combat climate change.

Petrol has reached around AUD $1.50 a litre in Australia.

What will the impacts be when it reaches $3.00, then $5.00, and eventually $10.00 a litre? Very serious, it would appear.

Australia's oil and gas industry is worth $28 billion in the 2009-2010 year. We would be better off spending a large proportion of this money on transitioning to sustainable transport and energy use.

The devastating Japanese earthquake of 11 March 2011 has caused jitters throughout the global economy. While the earth quake is not associated with climate change, it demonstrates how disruptive natural calamities can be.

It is clear that we should reduce carbon emissions locally and globally to help reduce or prevent events linked by science to climate change such as floods, droughts and bushfires.

External links

Petrol price just barrels along, The Age
Japan quake causes market jitters , Herald Sun
2011 Australian floods - Greenlivingpedia
The end of the world as we know it, Greenlivingpedia

Libya: No-Fly Zone

2011-03-10T08:56:00.000+11:00

Dear United Nations Security Council delegates,

I call on you to take immediate steps to impose a no-fly zone under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to stop the aerial bombings of civilians in Libya and restore access for humanitarian flights to Libyan air space.

Only through robust international action and oversight can the bloodshed in Libya be stopped.

Sincerely,

Peter Campbell

You can send the United Nations a letter about this here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_no_fly_zone_1/?cl=974061205&v=8575

Tropical cyclone Yasi - Australia's worst cyclone?

2011-02-02T10:46:00.007+11:00

Tropical cyclone Yasi is bearing down on far north Queensland. The forecast predictions are for conditions that may be the worst (strongest) ever cyclone to impact Australia. The cyclone has been upgraded to Level 5 - the highest.

My thoughts are with FNQ friends. Stay safe folks.

Cyclone Yasi details:

500km wide
200km eye
7m storm surge expected
1000m rainfall expected
Landfall just south or Cairns expected, 1am on Thursday 3 Feb 11

Here is the wind forecast, as at 10am Wed 2 Feb 2011

Maximum winds to 115 knots near the centre.
Winds above 64 knots within 30 nautical miles in northern semi-circle and within 50 nautical miles in southern semi-circle with phenomenal seas.
Winds above 48 knots within 90 nautical miles in northern semi-circle and within 130 nautical miles in southern semi-circle with very rough to high seas and heavy swell
Winds above 34 knots within 190 nautical miles in northern semi-circle and within 280 nautical miles in southern semi-circle with rough to very rough seas and moderate to heavy swell.

Here are some selected forecast diagrams and charts, all derived from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology unless otherwise credited.

Pressure chart - 0800 Wed 2 Feb 11

Pressure chart - 0200 Thursday 3 Feb 11

Sea Level pressure chart prognosis

National weather radar as at 01/02/11 21:40

Satellite photo - NASA Modis Rapid Response

Enhanced satellite image. Source www.goes.noaa.gove

This is another example of an extreme weather event - of which scientists such as Graeme Pearman (ex CSIRO), Barrie Pittock (ex CSIRO) and David Karoly (University of Melbourne) have been warning will increase in both frequency and severity, due to climate change.

This is more evidence that we need a fund for addressing the catastrophic effects of climate change - such as floods, bushfires and cyclones, rather than just a one year "flood levy" just announced by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

External links

Cyclone Yasi - Greenlivingpedia
Cyclone Yasi Evacuations: 'Don't Bother To Pack Bags': Bligh, Brisbane times
Tropical cyclones explained - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Video of Tropical Cyclone Yasi - Satellite & Radar Timelapse

Grand Prix support continued by Baillieu Liberal government

2011-01-30T10:12:00.000+11:00

Melbourne has hosted the Australian Grand Prix car race since 1996. The race moved to Melbourne from Adelaide under the then Kennett Liberal government. At the time, there was much controversy about the financial benefits of the race at the time, and the environmental and social impacts of holding it on a street circuit around Melbourne's Albert Park lake.

Subsequent Bracks and Brumby Labor governments continued to provide unconditional support for the race. The Victorian government has consistently refused to disclose the amount of public money provided to race organisers and promoters. It is in the range of tens of millions of dollars.

Successive governments have also claimed that the benefits to Melbourne and Victoria outweigh the costs, but have provide no evidence of this.

This is public money, so the public has the right to know how it is spent, and on what basis. Hiding this expenditure is simply not acceptable.

It is therefore very disappointing that the recently elected Baillieu government has chosen to continue funding the Grand Prix, holding it on the Albert Park circuit, and to also withhold the information on public money spent on the race.

This is after Ted Baillieu's claim to provide "transparent and good government".

Successive governments have simply failed to assess public opinion on this issue. Majority community opinion remains untested, and our democratic system has failing to provide and opportunity for anyone to vote on this matter.

We need a plebiscite on this issue now.

125 scientists condemn basis for "alpine grazing trial"

2011-01-30T09:19:00.001+11:00

A letter to Robert Clark (MP), Ted Baillieu (Premier), Ryan Smith (Minister for Environment and Climate Change), Peter Walsh (Minister for Agriculture and Food Security)

Robert, Ryan, Peter and Ted,

I note that 125 scientists have now stated that your the "trials of alpine grazing to test bushfire mitigation" lack scientific integrity. This includes 11 professors and nine associate professors.

Link: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/top-scientists-urge-halt-to-alpine-grazing-trial-20110129-1a938.html

The also state, correctly, that government has potentially broken federal environment (EPBC) law.

As per my previous correspondence, this pre-emptive and ill-considered move is bad for everyone other than a few select families (about 12 I think).

It is also quite obvious to all that cattle don't eat eucalyptus trees or leaf litter, and any "trampling effect" is negligible.

Your government should act for the people, and base decisions on good practice and good process. Re-introducing cattle to National Parks under a sham pretext fails on all these counts.

I urge you to reconsider this action immediately.

Regards, Peter

See also: Cattle grazing in Victoria's alpine areas is not acceptable, previous post

Strategies for dealing with Queensland and Victorian floods

2011-01-29T16:40:00.000+11:00

Here is a post I put on Facebook recently, and the comments it attracted. It is interesting to note divergent opinions on the responsibilities of state governments and developers.

It is however very clear that a lot of homes have been built on areas known to be subject to regular flooding, with little or no effective measures to protect the.

What about marking the highest water levels of recent floods then elevating houses on posts above this where possible (e.g. up to say 4-5m max height above ground level) and consider carefully what to do about the rest. Perhaps they should be rezoned as high flood risk and residents assisted to relocate to higher ground?

15 Jan 2011

Glenn It seems that developers have the final say on what land is to be developed. They are in the business of making money. If they can get away with building houses on flood prone land then they will. They call it capitalism. I call it greed.

Kieran When it comes to developers, everyone calls it GREED.

Peter Campbell Yes, its greed. But what is the cost? At around $10b+ for the Queensland floods, this money would be better spent preventing future flood impacts and another $10b+ costs for the next flood(s). Governments should regulate this.

Heather What has happened in Aust, Brazil, Sri lanka,Bangladesh etc is tragic -but now wait for class actions in negligence against developers and those issuing planning and building permits,particularly by those with insurance probs.The one positive to come out of this situation is that finally authorities are realising that the statistics haven't lied-what all of us have known for 20 years-climate change is happening and proactive preparations need to be undertaken to ensure that societies are protected as best they can be.Smart developers will realise this and develop accordingly.

Simon Developers fault? Developers greed? What? It is a failure of regulation and politicians...the developers can only do what they are allowed to so to blame them is simply ignoring (or absolving) the real issue that it is a failure of government. And after our recent decade long experience in Victoria it also isnt a simple political 'left' or 'right' wing issue either...it comes down to the morals and values of those who set policy.

Harriett Many Brisbane residents were offered buy-backs of their property by the council and they refused.

Danny Developers aren't passive victims of government regulations. Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments and get zoning regulations overridden or modified to suit them. Half the problem with the "morals and values of those who set policy" comes from corruption, in which property developers have a starring role.

Simon ‎" Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments " No, they may 'attempt' to but if they succeed it is due to those that allow it to happen!! The kind of thinking that says it is all the ‘big bad property developer’ is the real problem as we are not making the policy and regulation makers responsible for their actions!! All vested interest groups try and influence and sway policy, the greens certainly do, as do the pro lifers etc. etc. So the issue is with the policy makers and regulators and it is they who need to be held accountable…to do otherwise (and/or blame the vested interest group trying to sway them) is to absolve them of the very responsibility they should be held to account for.

Danny Problems with the political process can't be separated from the rest of society. It's not a coincidence that the most corrupt and least transparent countries in the world also have massive levels of wealth and income inequality. We need to regulate corruption at _both_ ends, by coming down on the people who pay bribes as well as those who take them.

Tom Wrong Simon. 4 years at Waverley Council says you are wrong, wrong, wrong and talking through your hat as well. The donors control the govt who monster the local councils, and the NSW EP&A Act - you could drive a B double through it - and take over planning controls when it doesn't work. Latest example is state govt sell out of Wagga Wagga planning to smear campaign of the developers.

Michael "Transparent Ted" is a property developer by trade isn't he. Maybe he'll make everyone relocate to Dinner Plain, with all the cattle?

Peter Campbell I thought the "other John Howard" in Sea Change was an accurate simile of real life. He wdas busy flogging off Porpoise Spit to Japanese Developers (pre Japan's recession), and ramming through developments regardless of local and environmental impact. In our society, money buys votes, and developers pressure councils and even get their candidates onto them. I agree with Danny, about taking action against bribe takers and givers. Lets see if the anti-corruption commission deals with this.

Simon I agree with Danny too...as the politicians set the process then so to they need to set the standard, leaders set the standards not society. Every time a person says no to being lobbied, coerced or worse they set a higher standard and challenge the (sad) theories of the like who say it is all the nasty developers/donors and nobody else has any power...bollocks, if the NSW govt. grew some stones, if the local govt. wouldn’t be bullied then the issues of Tom's concern wouldn’t occur. That they do is an indictment on those who allowed it. Leadership starts from the top down. If we follow the logic of the power is all with the donor/developer etc. then the Greens are now at the behest of their political donor?? I would like to think not...

Simon Agree Peter, we do need adequate oversight and appropriate bodies to control these sorts of dubious and even fraudulent activities…but it will still come down to those who set the terms of reference and those who actually act/are appointed to those bodies to be moral centered. Sorry to bang on about it ;)

Heather Like Simon I have extremely strong views about the need for an anti-corruption commission which can deal with local govt and govt departments. Yes, I have had an unpleasant experience and all that I can say is thank goodness for the independence of VCAT!

External links

2010 Australian floods - Greenlivingpedia, a wiki on green living, building and energy

Cattle grazing in Victoria's alpine areas is not acceptable

2011-01-12T23:19:00.002+11:00

A letter to Robert Clark MP, copied to Premier Ted Bailleu.

===========

Dear Robert

Congratulations on winning government.

I am however not pleased to be writing to you as my local member about the Baillieu government's ill-considered actions in allowing cattle to return to graze in Victoria's Alpine National Park.

Cattle have no place in sensitive alpine environments. They cause far too much damage trampling sensitive streams and bogs and their excrement pollutes the environment and water supplies. I have seen this destruction at first hand in the Victorian Alps.

I assisted a PhD student in 1984 whose thesis researched and measured the impacts of alpine grazing. Unsurprisingly, his published results stated that cattle grazing had major impacts on sensitive alpine ecosystems.

This action by the Baillieu government is not supported by a majority of Victorians. It benefits very few people. Our Alpine National Park should be protected from cattle grazing, as the adjacent Kosciusko National Park in NSW has been for decades.

This action will compromise Victoria's alpine environments and jeopardise their World Heritage listing.

I strongly urge you to reverse this decision and provide our Alpine National Park the protection from cattle grazing that science has confirmed in requires. Can you please table my concerns in both your party room and the Victorian parliament about this on my behalf?

Regards, Peter Campbell

============

External links

Alpine grazing resumes - Weekly Times Now
Grazing returns to high country - The Age

Australia must lead on forests at Cancun

2010-12-07T12:12:00.001+11:00

Dear Minister Combet,

I’m writing to urge you and your government to avoid giving the timber industries special conditions by creating massive loopholes on forestry in a global climate treaty.

Developed countries such as ours need to play a bold leadership role to get the talks back on track. It’s time for us to lead, please ensure that Australia supports honest and complete accounting of emissions from forestry and land use at the current UN climate negotiations in Cancun, Mexico.

The world can’t afford accounting tricks -- what is needed is real, science-based climate action.

I believe that protecting forests is a very important action we can take as one measure for tackling climate change.

Sincerely,

Peter Campbell
Home address supplied
=============

Send your own letter via Avaaz.org: Trees not Tricks

What is Labor up to with the NBN?

2010-11-23T20:26:00.000+11:00

Labor's policy initiative for implementing a high speed National Broadband Network arguably was a decisive factor in them forming minority government after the hung 2010 Australian federal election.

Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor both stated that the delivery of fast internet access to rural regions in Australia was a key consideration in their decision to support the minority Gillard government.

So far so good. Many of Australia's regional areas - even close to major cities - have very slow Internet access. This hampers local businesses and makes it difficult for them to compete with city-based businesses, particularly when websites need updating and eCommerce transactions are conducted.

Spending money - say $20b - on providing fast broadband Internet access to rural areas would go a long way to providing services and opportunities to rural areas. This could have the following benefits

Companies could conduct business relying on Internet services at any location, not just major cities
Regional employment opportunities could increase, attracting people to live in regional areas rather than continue to go to cities such as Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane that are becoming crowded and congested
Innovative health services using video conference and remote surgery could be provided in regional areas, and mean that people living there don't always have to travel to Melbourne for complex or specialist medical treatment
Young people in rural areas would have the same sort of access to online media and social network that their city counterparts have.

I think all this is good.

However, the notion of providing fibre to every household in major cities is questionable. The vast majority of people who currently have ADSL2+ are happy with their speed of access and download volumes. Our household manages well with 15GB per month and two fairly heavy Internet users find the speed more than acceptable.

Friends with teenage children downloading lots of media operate on plans up to 150GB per month and find this meets their needs.

The notion that extremely high speed (and expensive) optical fibre is required to every home is simply not true. The notion that "it will be needed in the future" is highly questionable too. Given the rate of innovation and change in computing and the Internet, when the future arrives it will be different, and more often than not cheaper.

Politicians like Stephen Conroy know virtually nothing about technology and networks, yet they are presiding over major decisions like the scope and technology solution(s) for the National Broadband Network.

Most of these decisions are happening behind a veil of secrecy, with "commercial in confidence" being trotted out as the excuse for this. This is just not good enough. There has been no community consultation regarding the NBN requirements that I am aware of.

There has been no open industry consultation about it either.

Now Stephen Conroy and Julia Gillard are sitting on the "business case". Why? It is because it doesn't stack up? Do the significant costs of providing optical fibre to every home not have any tangible benefits?

Right there are more questions than answers.

I support proceeding with a rural high-speed Internet solution (say $20b) but think we should delay any expenditure on implementing optical fibre to the homes in our cities.

Optical fibre is already in use within the "Internet backbone" and further investment in this would be appropriate and cost effective.

Liberal, Nationals and Labor converge to shut out Greens

2010-11-21T18:39:00.008+11:00

When political parties lodge their "group voting tickets" with the Electoral Commission, their distribution of preferences reveals deals that have been done between them. These "group voting tickets" number all candidates in order and determine the order of voter's preferences for those who vote "above the line" by putting a "1" in a single party's box.

Looking at the "group voting tickets" lodged for the 2010 Victorian State election, the following preference deals are evident:

Labor and the Country Alliance
Labor has a directed preferences to the Country Alliance in Northern Victoria and Eastern Victoria regions - which could result in a right wing candidates getting elected who would oppose new National Parks, support native forest logging and support duck shooting and hunting.

Labor and the Sex Party
Labor has directed preferences to the Sex Party in Northern Metropolitian ahead of the Greens. This is likely to have no effect as the Greens are most likely to win a seat on first preferences. In exchange, the Sex Party is directing lower house preferences in some seats such as Melbourne to Labor ahead of the Greens.

Liberals and the Sex Party
A deal has been done between the Sex Party and the Liberals, making them strange bedfellows. The Liberals have given the Sex Party second preferences in Northern Metropolitan. The Sex Party give immediate preferences to the Greens in South Metropolitan, but as the Greens are likely to have a full quota, the next preference to be effective is to the Liberals ahead of Labor, defeating Labor's Jennifer Huppert and electing Liberal Georgie Crozier (source: Antony Green).

The Sex Party may have even put the Greens last everywhere. The are looking like "the porn and pimps party" run by the big money of the adult industry and are supporting Labor.

Labor and the Greens
Labor has directed second preferences to the Greens in five of the eight upper house seats. In exchange, the Greens have directed preferences to Labor in 11 of Labor's 13 most marginal seats (Mount Waverley 0.3%, Gembrook 0.7%, Forest Hill 0.8%, Mitcham 2.0%, South Barwon 2.3%, Frankston 3.2%, Mordialloc 3.5%, Prahran 3.6%, Burwood 3.7%, Ripon 4.3%, Bendigo East 5.4%, Bentleigh 6.3%, Ballarat West 6.5%)

Labor has also directed preferences to the Greens in 79 of 88 lower house seats, but this is of no real benefit to the Greens as the only seats where they are likely to get elected are direct contests between Labor and the Greens, which means Labor preferences will not be distributed.

The Greens appear to have withdrawn preferences in two of the 13 (possibly Gembrook and one other) in retaliation for Labor directing preferences to the Country Alliance in the upper house. The Greens have stated that they did not direct preferences to Labor in lower house seats in regions where Labor preferenced the County Alliance.

Liberals and the Greens - no deal
The Liberals announced their decision to put the Greens last in all lower house seats across the state. This breaks with their practice in past elections of putting the Greens ahead of Labor on their how to vote cards.

There appears to be four possible reasons for this. The first reason is that the Greens were apparently not offering the Liberals anything they wanted - such as more open tickets (no preference direction) in key Labor marginal seats.

The second reason appears to be ideology. John Howard stated that the Coalition had nothing to gain by helping the Greens take seats from Labor. This was due to perceptions that the Greens would always support Labor and their agenda was more extreme. "I think my side of politics has got to be very careful about giving preferences to the Greens. In my view the Greens are worse than Labor". "The Greens are fundamentally anti free enterprise. They have terrible foreign policy attitudes and they have a lot of social policy attitudes that a lot of Labor people would find abhorrent." Senator Helen Kroger expressed similar views.

It is interesting to note however that both Howard and Kroger participated in previous decisions to preference the Greens ahead of Labor.

However, there was a split within the Liberal party on this. Ex-Treasurer Peter Costello stated that it made good political sense for the Coalition to direction preferences to the Greens in the four inner city seats of Melbourne, Richmond, Northcote and Brunswick as Labor losing these seats would make it easier for the Coalition to win government, and because Labor would be directed campaign resources on two fronts - the inner city contest with the Greens and the other Labor marginals mostly in the outer Eastern Suburbs.

Ex Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett weighed in with an attack on Helen Kroger, stating the Liberals should direct preferences to Labor in the inner city seats, but then later backed Ted Baillieu's decision not to.

Premier John Brumby also made an extraordinary direct appeal when he begged for Liberal voters preferences for Labor ahead of the Greens, stating that Liberal voters should realise a Labor government would be better placed to tackle the big policy challenges than a minority government with the Greens holding the balance of power. ''For the Liberal Party to de facto elect Greens members of parliament is quite anathema to the Liberal Party,'' Brumby said.

The third reason is that it seems there were perceptions within the Liberals that the Greens would not form a minority government with them in the event of a hung parliament, which would have been likely if the Greens won four inner city seats. The Liberals were possibly thinking "if we have got nothing, we have got nothing to lose", or they may prefer staying in opposition to the prospect of entering a minority government with the Greens.

The fourth reason, probably the most likely, is that Labor got onto its big business mates and used them to persuade the Liberals to put Labor ahead of the Greens.

So the Liberals announced their decision to direct preferences to Labor in the four inner city seats, and attempted to claim the high moral ground by claiming "voters now have a clear choice" and that "a Labor majority government is better than a Greens-Labor minority government. Brian Walters, the Greens candidate for Melbourne stated that in doing so, "The Liberals and Labor seem to have formed a grand conservative coalition to shut out the Greens".

Mandatory preferences are not good for democracy
The electoral requirement for parties and candidates to specify "preference flows" for Upper House voting in Victoria (and the Australian Senate) opens up the playing field for parties and candidates to do all manor of "preference deals", which sometimes results in candidates being elected from a tiny percentage of the vote as Stephen Fielding (Family First) and Peter Kavanagh (DLP) were from Labor preference deals.

This is anti-democratic as voters are not involved in or even aware of such deals, yet their votes go where the party apparatchiks have decided.

A solution is to give voters the right to decide NOT to distribute the any or all of their preferences. For above the line voting this would mean that a "1 Liberal" vote would go only to the Liberal candidates and not "flow on" to others. For voters who do wish to allocate their preferences they could go 1, 2, 3, 4 etc above the line, or number any desired squares below the line in sequence - stopping when they want to.

In the lower house, how-to-vote cards favour political parties who have the resources to (people and/or money) to have them printed and handed out. This provides a heavy bias against any independent candidates who don't have the resources to do this.

A solution would be ban handing out of how to vote cards, and provide fixed printed versions in every polling booth. This would have the added benefit of eliminating the massive waste of paper from the hundreds of thousands how-to-vote cards printed and mostly discarded.

In conclusion
The Liberal-National coaltion's decision to direct preferences to Labor has certainly have impacted the Greens chances in all four inner city seats, but a lot still depends on the voters, many of whom may not follow their party's how to vote cards and choose where their preference goes.

If Liberal voters in these seats follow the Liberal how to vote card, then a vote for the Liberals will be a vote for Labor.

If you live in the seat of Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick or Northcote (or any other seat for that matter) you would do well to allocate your own preferences and not follow any how to vote card.

It is also possible that Labor preferences may elect the Country Alliance to the Upper House, and that they may hold the balance of power in the upper house. Yet another right wing group could hold the government to ransom.

Links
Note that some of the articles below would have been written by party apparatchiks and fed to the media, and may bear no semblance to the truth!

Antony Green's Election Blog: Legislative Council Preference Tickets
Kennett Attacks Kroger Over Green Preferences | AustralianPolitics.com :
John Howard urgers Liberals not to give preferences to Greens :
Liberals In Conflict Over Preference Deals :
Preferencing Greens may be Libs' best option | The Australian :
Victorian Liberals Put Greens Last On How To Vote Cards The Age
How-to-vote cards awaken the rebel in inner-city voter The Age
Coalition Puts Greens Last | Greens On The Outer : The Age
Deal founders on Greens' arrogance | The Australian :
Greens cling to lower house hopes :
Of course the Liberals prefer the right-wing Labor party to the progressive Greens | An Onymous Lefty :
Greens still positive despite preference deals - iPRIME Albury :
Antony Green's Election Blog: Implications of the Liberals putting the Greens last in the Lower House :
Preference snub renders Greens 'a lost cause' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) :
Labor’s Greens obsession on show over preference deals | Crikey :
Liberals split on Greens preference snub | The Australian :
Lateline - 15/11/2010: Greens lose Coalition preferences :

Has Melbourne's property bubble burst?

2010-11-19T23:43:00.004+11:00

After a long sustained period of dramatically rising house prices in Melbourne, and across Victoria, the market seems to have flattened out at last. Many house prices in metropolitan Melbourne have doubled over the last 10 years.

I think the major factors contributing to this are:

Tax free status of the place of residence. Home owners pay no capital gains tax when they sell their house. This is one of the last easy ways to avoid tax.
Negative gearing for investors. Investor can write off interest on loans for investment properties as a tax deduction. This is also easy tax avoidance.
First Home Buyers Scheme grants puts money in the pockets of first home buyers which allows them to pay more for a house
Ongoing volatility in the share market creates doubts about shares being a good investment

The first three factors are all dependent on and associated closely with continually rising house prices. Nobody wants to take out a big loan, buy a house, then see its value decline. As soon as there is a perception that house prices are flat (or even worse falling), we risk entering a negative feedback loop of the kind seen recently in the United Kingdom and the United States.

We could end up with a rush to sell houses to avoid losing capital value, which in turn floods the market and would drive the price down. In addition, if unemployment rises and/or interest rates keep increasing, some people can no longer make their home loan repayments so they would be forced to sell their house.

Money borrowed to buy houses at inflated prices only benefits the banks and other lenders who reap a windfall in interest payments over a long time period. This money would be better spent on improving the energy efficiency of our housing stop so the we use less energy and save money on bills.

Factors one, two and three are "sacred cows" where no politician will go. Unfortunately, I fear these factors have combined to create a huge bubble in house prices which is based on peoples perceptions about wealth without having any real basis.

The other big problem is affordability and provision of housing for people and families on low incomes. Many are simply priced out of the market. They cannot afford to buy a house, or pay inflated rents that landlords charge to offset their large loans. This is not good for the long term cohesion of our society.

By coincidence, the Australian has also published a prominent article on this topic.

Update 24/1/11
Apparently Melbourne's house price bubble is no longer growing. I wonder if it will burst?

In the last two decades, we have gone from affordable housing for most to the world's most expensive housing for the wealthy elite, under the gaze of our politicians.

See also

5 star rated houses in Victoria, Australia - Greenlivingpedia
Sustainable house design features checklist - Greenlivingpedia
Treasury warning on home price 'bubble' - The Australian
Will ninjas burst the Great Australian Housing Bubble? - Prosper Australia
Melbourne housing now 'severely unaffordable', The Age
House prices to flatline this year: ANZ, The Age

A better solution for water

2010-10-22T00:03:00.000+11:00

Here is a copy of our domestic water bill for 2 February 2010.

We have 23,000 litres of water tanks in Surrey Hills and are almost completely self-sufficient for water - as you can see by the information on this bill, including:

4 litres per person per day for November to Jan 2010 (compared with the government target of 155)
0 liters per person per day over the periods may to October 2009.

Yet the Victorian Minister Tim Holding has stated that "water tanks are not an effective solution" and Premier John Brumby as stated that "water tanks would have higher carbon emissions than the desalination plant".

Neither have responded to my letters informing them that they are wrong on both counts - despite me providing evidence that proves my point.

The Brumby government panicked during 2008-2009 when the drought was severe, and threw 10 years of water strategy and community consultation focused on recycling water and conserving it in the bin.

Instead the Brumby government has:

Built the north-south pipeline at considerable cost that takes water from the deprived Murray Darling basin.
Commissioned the world's largest desalination plant which will cost around $5 billion to build, and residents will have to pay the private consortium "returns" even if they don't produce water

There was no community consultation about either project and the huge environmental impacts of both have been basically ignored. "Parliamentary rule" from Spring Street is not democracy - its dodgy business deals that deliver really bad outcomes that we all have to end up paying for decades to come.

If the government had commissioned recycling and storm water capture instead, we could have avoided the expense and environmental impacts of both these projects.

Links

Melbourne water usage

Agreement to exit native forest logging in Tasmania

2010-10-19T16:55:00.000+11:00

An historic deal that will end logging of Tasmania's native forests was reported today.

Following lengthy talks between industry, union and environment groups, an agreement between them has just been struck, and a joint statement of principles issued, that includes:

Recognising the need to protect high conservation value forests and end ''industrial forestry'' of them in a timeframe to be agreed
Restricting the burning of timber as biomass fuel to material sourced from plantations only
Moving to ''a strong and sustainable industry based on a range of plantation-based industries including a pulp mill"
The logging of some specialty timbers from these forests for purposes such as craftwood is allowed.

This is great news for Tasmania's remaining native forests, and potentially ends decades of conflict over the logging of native forests.

It is interesting to note that no politicians were involved in brokering the agreement. Forests have been a "political football" for some time, with both Labor and Liberal governments supporting their ongoing destruction for decades and ignoring the wishes of over 80% of the Australian population that want them protected.

There are many factors that have contributed to this outcome, including:

Continued job losses within the native forest logging industry, despite ongoing access to native forests
Gunns Corporation exiting native forest logging due to the unwillingness of Japanese buyers to purchase woodchips that are not subject to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified forestry practices
The rising strength of the Australian dollar making export of woodchips unprofitable.
Declining availability of native forests has forced governments to move loggers into highly contentious forest areas, which has provoked serious ongoing conflicts.
A realisation that plantations can provide a much more reliable supply of wood with greatly reduced environmental impact - but only if they are appropriately managed.
There is enough hardwood and softwood plantation resource currently available to enable industry transition out of native forests.

This follows the end of industrial-scale native forest logging in Queensland and Western Australia in the late 90s.

This agreement clearly sets a precedent for exiting native forest logging in Victoria and New South Wales too, where factors very similar to those in Tasmania are also relevant.

It is to be hoped that industry, union and environment groups in New South Wales and Victoria can achieve a similar excellent outcome after years of similar conflict and declining jobs in the native forest logging sector.

Forest protection is big issue in the upcoming 2010 Victorian State election. The Brumby government protected around 41,000 hectares of forest in September 2010, but this included many areas that were not high conservation-value forests (only around 11,000 hectare were old growth forests), and left many other high quality forest areas such as Brown Mountain unprotected from logging.

A compromised political outcome that only protects Melbourne's water catchments (less than 2% of Victoria's native forests logged annually) - will not be good enough.

Links

Era of protest ends in a principled peace, Sydney Morning Herald
Historic deal on forests, The Age
Forest Letter Watch
Historic agreement to protect Tasmania's ancient forests, The Wilderness Society

Water and the Murray Darling river system

2010-10-16T12:39:00.008+11:00

We have recently seen the Murray Darling river system - Australia's greatest river system - drastically affected by reduced water flow due to the combined effects of climate change and irrigation from the river.

For several years the Murray River stopped flowing into the sea. Barrages (like dams) are in place to stop seawater moving backup through the lower lakes and river systems, including the wonderful Coorong. If saltwater were to do this, the freshwater ecology of these parts of the system would be greatly damaged.

The drought that lasted over 10 years exceeded all wort-case estimates by climatologists and weather experts. It has been broken in 2010, but the underlying causes for it have not gone away, and this cycle could be repeated within the next decade.

The drought drastically reduced water flows. Many farmers with water allocations ("rights") along the river simply could not get their water. Orchards, vineyards and dairies relying on water from the river had to shut down or close, and many commercial trees and agricultural crops died.

There is no point having water rights if there is no water.

The Wentworth Group of Scientists warned of this scenario over a decade ago, but their warnings and recommendations were ignored by governments and policy makers. There has been much talk about "doing something" to restore desperately needed environmental flows to the river system, but very little effective action to date.

The Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has now commenced community engagement about actions and recommendations to restore environmental flows the river system. They have released the a Guide to the Basin Plan document.

Some of the proposal and information on the guide include:

Proposed basin-wide cuts to water extraction of 27 to 37 per cent.
$9 billion has been allocated to buy back water allocations
No one will be forced to sell water
In many river valleys a lot of the reductions in water allocations has already occurred
Two-thirds of the minimum 3000-gigalitre reduction will be achieved by 2014 through programs already in train.
The amount of additional surface water needed for the environment is between 3,000 GL/y and 7,600 GL/y (longterm average).
The current average volume of water provided to the environment is about 19,100 GL/y, so this range of additional water would mean that the long-term average volume of water provided to the environment would be between 22,100 GL/y and 26,700 GL/y.

The guide details possible water reductions required in numerous regions within the basin. This has generated major concern within rural communities within many regions, who fear that reduced water allocations will have drastic financial impacts on agricultural producers and the local economy and towns they support.

This will certainly be the case - but similar impacts have occurred, and will occur again, when water in the river system becomes scarce again.

There have been loud and irrational outbursts at public consultation and meeting and directed and the Federal Government , the Water Minister and numerous other members of parliament.

It is worth noting that so far only a guide to the plan has been release, not any binding plan or commitments. This is being misrepresented by emotive claims by some rural commentators - and federal politicians such as Senator Barnaby Joyce - that "this plan (sic) will lead to the decimation of rural agriculture and country towns". This is not consultation or a debate - this is a beat up.

Cotton, rice and vineyards all produce crops and products that require vast amounts of water (more information). Ditto for dairies. I think it is clear that this type of production should happen in regions that have sufficient available rainfall, rather than chronically depleting a river system.

It is not hard to see why there has been no effective action on restoring environmental flows in this river system to date. Any attempts to do so are met with a barrage of emotion and accusations, which in the past have lead to major water reforms being shelved.

It is to be hoped that the current water reform process doesn't suffer the same fate. Otherwise the next severe drought will cause decimation of rural agriculture and country towns along with like death of much of the ecology of the river system.

The new parliamentary committee for regional Australia, chaired by independent MP Tony Windsor whose electorate will be affected by the plan, appears likely head up a parliamentary inquiry into the social and economic effects of the proposed cuts. Let's hope he acts in the best interests of all Australians in doing so.

External links

Basin plan, Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)
Guide to the Basin Plan, Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)
Angry crowd gives basin consultants a taste of things to come, The Age, 13 October 2010
Irrigators vent fury at proposed water cuts, The Age, 14 October 2010
Gillard needs to move quickly to stem rural anger, The Age, October 15, 2010
Welcome back to a long-lost friend, The Age, April 12, 2010
Gillard buckles on water cuts, The Age, October 15, 2010
Water needed to produce food, Greenlivingpedia
Windsor warns Parliament won't back plan, The Age, October 15, 2010
Don't think you can keep on neglecting me, Darling, The Age, October 13, 2010
Murray Darling Basin

This post is part of Blog Action Day: blogactionday.change.org

Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

John Brumby approves a new coal fired power station

2010-09-13T01:19:00.001+10:00

Premier John Brumby and the Victorian Labor government has just approved a new coal fired power station to be build by a Chinese company in the Latrobe Valley.

More carbon emissions will obviously result - despite claims that it is somehow "clean".

We should only be building solar thermal power stations with molten salt energy storage, and wind farms.

Update 17 September 2010
Marius Kloppers, the CEO of BHP, today called for Australia to bring in a carbon tax to put a price on carbon and to plan for a transition off coal [link]

In California, the world's largest solar power station has just been given approval to proceed. It will cost US$6b and provide 1000 MW of power. [link]

Links

Coal station deal raises eyebrows, Adam Morton, The Age, September 13, 2010
Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan
Move on climate, BHP Billiton urges
Calif. solar plant, to be world's largest, wins key approval

Nationals go feral and a disgruntled Opposition and media

2010-09-11T00:35:00.000+10:00

After hearing nothing from the National Party during the election, we have been treated to the unedifying spectacle of Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss launching strident and savage attacks against the two independent MPs who decided to support Labor in a minority government. This behaviour is quite inappropriate and demonstrates the worst of "politics as usual" by MPs who should know better.

Tony Abbott, to his credit, has attempted to reign them in but has not been able to do so. So much for a "stable opposition". We have also seen attacks on the minority government by Joe Hockey and Christopher Pyne, who labelled it as "illegitimate". This was also inappropriate and was just more attack-dog style politics.

We also see the Coalition (all 74 of them) now committed to more whining and carping and incessant criticism of the minority government. Imagine trying to run a company where 49% of the workers were sitting back and doing nothing other than finding fault, often for no good reason, with the other 51% working for the good of the company! There is certainly no new paradigm being displayed here.

The response from large sections of the media is also curious. Some seem outraged by the lack of a "winner takes all" result and subsequent autocratic behaviour of a particular political party.

As many observers have noted, minority government and power sharing arrangements are the norm in most modern democracies. There is nothing wrong with this, and there are several advantages as we have already seen - such as better decision making, getting a wider range of issues considered by government and parliamentary reform to improve its function to name a few.

I was impressed by Tony Windsor's and Rob Oakeshott's short speeches when they announced their decision. They made several excellent points and also provided a clear and considered basis for their decision to support a minority government with Labor, the Greens Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie.

Bob Katter had his moment in the sun and predictably swayed in the conservative direction of his constituents in Far North Queensland to support Tony Abbott and the Coalition. Even though he displayes a visceral hate for a couple of the current national party members. But then he knew they were not going to form government.

Some other points of interest are:

Penny Wong may be replaced as the minister responsible for climate change by Greg Combet. Wong has been a dismal failure in the role, but Combet has previously launched intemperate attacks on the Greens.
Peter Garrett is missing in action. Off to the back bench I think, never to be seen again.
Rudd looks like he will be the next foreign minister - he would be the best for this role and Stephen Smith has graciously stepped down to vacate it
Wilson Tuckey has lost his seat to an "independent National". Bye bye Wilson.
Stephen Conroy seems to still be pursuing his ill-considered "clean feed Great Firewall of Australia" despite the fact he won't get support in either house for it. Drop it Stephen.
I still think Malcolm Turnbull should be offer the job as Treasurer. Wayne Swan really doesn't seem to know what he is doing.
What will be become of Martin Fergusan? Will he retain his job as Minister for Coal and Oil? He had a massive swing against him in favour of the Greens Alex Bhathal.
"Border security" and "the population debate" have both disappeared off the radar, and so they should. If Labor and the Coalition ramp up this sort of dangerous and errant nonsense in future elections then the Greens will pick up even more votes and more will get elected. No more dog whistles please.

Hopefully we will see a rejuvenated political system with less gumpf from the mainstream media and opposition, and we will at last see some positive steps to the future, including steps to transition to a clean and safe energy future.

Gunns exits native forests, they should now be protected in Tasmania, NSW and Victoria

2010-09-10T12:11:00.004+10:00

Gunns has exited from logging native forests in Tasmania, and have stated that "native forest is not part of our future" and that they are moving to a plantation-based business.

Gunns acknowledged that the vast majority of Australians want their native forests protected.

However, Tasmanian native forests, and native forests in Victoria and New South Wales, are not protected from logging as a result of this.

Three wise monkeys at the Brown Mountain rally at the Victorian Parliament

The Victorian Labor government promised in 2006 to "immediately protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting" but they have not yet done so.

The 40,000 hectares of "forest" they did commit to protect included low quality regrowth forest and even some cow paddocks. They did not protect other designated old growth forests such as Brown Mountain.

Following legal action by Environment East Gippsland, the Victorian Supreme Court ruled that Brown Mountain forest must be protected due to the presence of endangered species and the requirements of the law, and found the Victorian Government and Vicforests to be at fault.

It is now up to state and federal governments to recognised the will of the people and ensure that remaining native forests are protected and that the logging and woodchip industries fully transition to plantation resources.

The very significant benefits in protecting our remaining native forests include preserving their biodiversity, safeguarding the carbon they store and the water they produce, and providing an excellent resource for local and international eco-tourism.

Links

Timber giant concedes defeat in decades-old logging war, The Age
Time for loggers to leave Victoria's forests, Brian Walters
Victoria no longer in Gunns' sights, Melissa Fyfe, The Age
Brown Mountain old growth forest, Greenlivingpedia

A well hung parliament is healthy for Australia

2010-09-02T21:51:00.002+10:00

Negotiations are proceeding to form a stable government in Australia, with neither of the "major" (or "old") parties getting enough seats in the House of Representatives to form government on their own. The magic number is 76 seats.

Currently the Liberal - National coalition have won 73, which includes a National MP in Western Australia who has not yet fully committed to supporting the Coalition.

Labor have won 72 seats. The Greens had previously committed to supporting a minority Labor goverment [link], bring Labor's total to 73.

Andrew Wilkie, the indepedent who has just won the seat of Denison in Tasmania, committed to supporting a Labor minority government today [link]. Wilkie's commitment boosts Labor to 74.

There are three remaining independents yet to decide who they will support.

Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott appear to share similar views on matters of policy and the conduct of government. The recent revelation of serious errors in Coalition budget estimates and promised found by Treasury means they are either incompetent or liars, which does not auger well for a future Abbott government.

Both Windsor and Oakeshott have stated that a price on carbon is needed as one of the measures to tackle climate change [link]. Abbott ruled this out during the election campaign and stated his government would not bring in either a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.

For these reasons (and a few more), I think Windsor and Oakeshott will support Labor too, which would give Labor 76 seats.

Bob Katter comes across as a rough diamond passionate about protecting the interests of rural Australia. There is no doubt that services and economic conditions in much of rural Australia have been neglected by political parties (and governments) intent on winning elections focussed on marginal seats. Katter was quoted today saying the "Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut are lightweights" along with some mutterings about climate change [link] - which seems to indicate he is the camp of politicians gulled by carbon industry PR.

Katter's background and the views of voters in his electorate would seem to push him towards supporting Abbott, but he may go along with his other two independent colleagues and support Labor too.

We should know by the end of this weekend coming.

The hung parliament has been the best possible result for the election, as our political system was being gamed by the major parties leading to many perverse policies, including unfair treatment of asylum seekers, avoidance of any real action on climate change to name a couple.

The benefits of this hung parliament are already clear. They include:

reform of question time in parliament so that it real questions get asked and properly answered (3 independents)
two-and-a-half hours of allocated debate for private members' bills (Greens)
an independent speaker in the House (3 independents)
bans (or limits) on donations to political parties (Greens)
some tightening of policies relating to poker machines and problem gamblers (Wilkie)
the scrapping of Labor's ill advised "Citizens Assembly on Climate Change" and establishment of a Climate Change Committee to replace it (Greens)
a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians (Greens)
access to Treasury analysis of government and coalition budget estimates and statements (the three independents).
the formation of a climate change committee
a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan (Greens)
legislation on truth in political advertising (Greens)
the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Committee (Greens)
a parliamentary integrity commissioner (Greens)
improved processes for release of documents in Parliament
a leaders debates Commission (Greens)
a move towards full three-year parliamentary terms (Greens)

All these are in the best interests of good governance and the people of Australia.

The evolution of personal computers - what I have owned

2010-08-28T16:46:00.005+10:00

Here is a list of "primary" personal computers that I have owned in order of purchase. The evolution of the technology and specifications - particularly the hardware - is spectacular.

1. Kaypro, circa 1989

1 MB RAM (640K used by DOS)
20 MB Hard Disk
Intel 8088-2 Processor - 5 MHz, turbo mode 8MHz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8088
5.2 inch floppy disk drive
Cost $4,000 (approx)
Status: in storage

Software:

MS DOS
MS Windows 1.4 (ran like a dog, basically useless)
MS Word for DOS v4

This was my first PC. The processor was on a board that plugged into the motherboard so in theory it could easily upgraded, but in practice CPU and bus design superseded this feature.

The RAM above 640KB could be configured and used as a RAM disk.

2. Microarts 486, circa 1993

8 MB RAM (8 * 1MB modules)
120MB Hard disk (upgraded to 1.2GB eventually)
Intel 486 processor - 50 MHz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_486
Video: Tseng ET4000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tseng_Labs_ET4000
Cost $4,000 (approx)
Status: Disposed of.

Software:

MS DOS 5
OS/2 version 2.1 and version 3.0
MS Word for Windows 2.0

3. Landmark AMD K6, circa 1997

256 MB RAM (2 * 128 MB modules)
??? Hard disk
AMD K6 processor - 233 MHz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K6
Video ???
Cost $2,500 (approx)
Status: Given away

Software:

Windows 95

4. Dell Optiplex, circa 2001

512 MB RAM, upgraded to 768MB RAM (3 * 256 MB modules)
100 MB Hard disk (?)
Pentium III processor - 600 MHz (?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_III
Video onboard
Cost: $1,250 (approx)
Status: Returned at end of lease deal.

Software

Windows 2000

This machine was purchased as part of a "PC at home" via the company I worked for at the time. They took a long time to get the program running so it was a substandard spec by the time it arrived. I upgraded the RAM and hard disks over time.

5. Homebuilt Pentium IV, circa 2003

2GB RAM
100 MB Hard disk (?)
Pentium IV processor - 2.4 GHz (upgraded to 2.8 GHz) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_IV
Video: nVideo GE Forece 4 440, upgraded to ATI Radeon 9600 512MB
Cost: $1,500 (approx)
Status: Still in use

Software

Windows 2000

I built this machine as a longer term proposition. It had double the RAM that was common at that time. I also fitted a SCSI card to run a Nikon Coolscan III scanner. I started with a RAID configuration then reverted to normal disk management.

6. Asus F3JM Laptop - Core 2 Duo, circa 2006

2GB RAM
250 MB Hard disk (upgraded to 500 MB)
Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 processor - 2.53 GHz
2 cores
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2_Duo
Video nVidia Geforce GO 7800 512MB
Cost: $2,700 (approx)
Status: In use.

Software

Windows XP
Kubuntu 9.10

The concept here was to use a lower power machine as my primary workstation that I could also lug around when required. The processor has enough grunt to do video editing. However, over time the boot time has increased and the performance has degraded. It never ran Adobe Premiere Elements very fast. I also ended up with several large (1TB +) which cluttered up my desk space a bit.

7. Custom built Core i5, mid 2011

8GB RAM (4 * 2 GB modules) DDR3
3 TB Hard disk (2 * 1.5 TB hard disks)
Intel Core i5 750 m IV processor - 2.67 GHz
4 cores
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_i5-750#.22Lynnfield.22_.2845_nm.29
Video: 1GB Radeon HD 5450 DDR3
Cost: $1,300 (approx)
Status: In use.

Software

Windows 7 Home Premium
Sun Virtual Box - Linux Mint 8 and Fedora Core 13

This machine has good processor power for encoding videos and more than enough for general office tasks. There is enough memory to run additional operating systems in virtual machines too.

Mobile and secondary computers

Fujitsu Lifebook 2120

256MB RAM (on board)
Transmeta Cruseo processor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta_Crusoe
120 MB hard disk
Cost: $2,500 (approx), on special
Status: in the cupboard

Software

MS Windows XP
Kubuntu 9.10 Linux

This very compact laptop ran the low voltage and low power Transmeta Crusoe processor. It was a pioneer of the segment that later become known as Netbooks. It has been very reliable, but the processor speed is a bit slow and the memory cannot be upgraded.

MSI Wind U100 Netbook

2GB RAM
Intel Atom N270 processor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta_Crusoe
250 GB hard disk

Software

MS Windows XP Home Edition
Linux Mint 8.0
Kubuntu 9.10

Wave and tides damage Portsea front beach following channel deepening

2010-08-24T14:38:00.001+10:00

The deepening of the shipping channel in Port Phillip Bay that ran from to February 2008 to November 2009 has been criticised for not having a business case and for the environmental damage it would cause.

The project proceeded with approvals from the Victorian state government (Tim Pallas, Minister for Roads and Ports) and the Australian federal government (Peter Garrett, Environment Minister) with assurances and reports stating that no environmental damage would result.

I visited Portsea Front Beach on 20 June 2010 and was amazed to see the beach almost completely gone. Waves were pounding at the footing of the Portsea pier that has been there for several decades, and at the vegetation that used to be protected by a reasonable beach. People sunbathed on the beach, and I remember it stretching a third of the distance to the first landing on the pier.

Two large erosion barrages were in place to stop the footing of the pier being destroyed. Two things struck me - the height of the water and the size of the waves. Both were much higher than my memories for the past.

Increased water flow speed and volume through the Port Phillip Bay heads after the Channel Deepening Project is a possible and likely cause of this. However, this has been denied by the authority charged with monitoring the environmental impact of the project.

The Victorian State Government seems to have made no comment on this to date.

Here are the photos of 20 June 2010.

I returned on Monday 23 August 2010. The protection barrages were gone and a lot of rock had been placed around the base of the pier where it connects to the shore.

We passed three B-Double trucks full of sand that was being delivered to the beach. Another truck was dumping its load near the pier. Two front end loaders were pushing the sand along the beach attempting to restore it. There was a massive plume of sand as it was being washed away almost immediately out to sea. It looks like a very expensive and loosing battle.

A local told me they had "rebuilt" the beach a week ago but that most it had then been stripped way again. The front end loaders were perilously close to toppling into the waves as their sand ramp was being eroded.

External links

Channel deepening project, Wikipedia
Life's not so swell on the beach at Portsea, Adam Morton, The Age, June 5, 2010
Tides of change strip Portsea of its sand, Lauren Wilson, The Australian May 10, 2010
Dredging blamed for Portsea beach erosion, Alison Caldwell, May 5, 2010
Portsea Front Beach erosion, Greenlivingpedia

An opportunity for a new form of government

2010-08-22T21:59:00.003+10:00

The 2010 Australian Federal election results are not yet finalised, but it appears that no party has enough seats (76) to form government on its own. This situation has not occurred in Australia since 1940.

The Greens have won their first ever lower house seat at a general election (Adam Bandt in Melbourne).

The three previous (incumbent) independents have been returned to office. These are:

Tony Windsor, New England (rural NSW)
Bob Katter, Kennedy (rural QLD)
Rob Oakeshott, Lyne (rural NSW)

In addition, it is quite likely that Andrew Wilkie may win the seat of Denison in Tasmania as an independent.

Negotiations are in progress between the three confirmed independents and both the Labor party and the Coalition as to how a minority government might be formed.

I think this is a good outcome for democracy. All those elected (all parties and independents) have been selected via the current electoral process by the people of Australia. It is incumbent on them to form a stable and effective government.

These three confirmed independents have stated that a new form of government will be required to provide the stability required, and that traditional party politics should be shelved to make this happen. I agree.

If either major party forms government in their own right they tend to run their own agenda along their party line rather than respecting the best interests and wishes of the Australian people. They are basically accountable to nobody until the next election.

We saw this with the Rudd Labor government ignoring the recommendations of the extensive Garnaut Review of Climate Change and concocting a fatally compromised Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS), that was initially supported by the Coalition opposition, then opposed. It failed because it was no good.

The Henry Tax Review finished early in 2010 was eventually released by the Rudd Labor government, who then chose to implement only 2 of the 137 recommendations (the mining tax being one of them) in the midst of an election campaign for political reasons.

Rob Oakeshott made the point on the 7:30 Report (special election edition 22/8) that a lot of time, money and effort has gone into these and other similar reports, which could be considered by the next government with more care and attention than the previous one. In short, the next government should use this type of information to formulate policies for the future covering energy, carbon pollution, taxation and water utilisation and conservation, rather than just playing short term political games about these important issues.

It seems that the old political parties have become part of the problem contributing to lack of action on climate change and inadequate planning and investment in infrastructure for the 21st century. They are stuck in old paradigms of winning, losing, being "in government" or "in opposition".

Why should 51% of our elected representatives be given the right to "govern" in an autocratic manner with the other 49% consigned to "opposition" where they spend most of their efforts whining, criticising, attacking and just opposing for the sake of it?

If Malcolm Turnbull would be a better treasurer than Wayne Swan, why shouldn't he get the job? Our current political system totally precludes this (for this example with a Labor Government in office).

The Labor, Liberal and National parties are out of touch and out of date. The Greens need to be very careful they don't end up in the same state.

Tony Abbott seems to think he has won the election and Labor has lost, apparently oblivious to the reality that the Australian people have given him no mandate to govern.

Julia Gillard seems to be adopting a better negotiation approach to possibly forming a minority government with the support of the independents and the single Greens lower house member.

I think we need a form of government where all 150 lower house MPs are accountable for delivering stability, innovation, good management of the executive arm of government and planning for a prosperous and sustainable future. Bring it on please.

External links

Parties tussle to form government, The Age
Greens hedge their bets, The Age
Labor leads race for minority government, The Age
Hung parliament looms, as voters punish Gillard, The Age
We deserve to lead, says Abbott, Heraldsun
Politics abhors a vacuum, ABC

11th hour hatchet job on the Greens on Lateline

2010-08-20T23:01:00.000+10:00

The Leigh Sales interview with Michael Kroger and Paul Howes on 20/8/2010 lacked balance in one very serious aspect.

We heard the Labor point of view (Howes) and the Coalition's (Kroger), but both of them attacked the Greens about them potentially holding the balance of power in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

We did not get to hear the Greens point of view on this. Such unbalanced coverage is likely to impact the Greens vote during this election, particularly among those voters who have not yet made up their mind (up to 1 in 10 apparently).

A spokesperson from the Greens should have been represented in this discussion for fairness and balance. This segment was not accurate, impartial or objective in its coverage of the Greens.

I wish to lodge this as a formal complaint.

=============

You can leave your own feedback about this here.

The end game - is a minority government likely?

2010-08-20T11:58:00.008+10:00

The election campaign is now at end game.

This election was Labor's to lose rather than Abbott's to win, and it looks like Labor may have just about blown it. The basic problem with playing politics is that a clear majority of people don't like it.

We haven't seen any leadership on fundamental issues of great concern and importance; such as moving Australia towards a sustainable and vibrant economy for future generations to enjoy.

A summary of the political tactics in play follows:

Labor

Focus on Abbott and his negatives - viz:
Attempt to scare people about the prospects of Abbott as Prime Minister. There is some validity to this as Abbott's belief that climate change somehow isn't happening is real worry (remember the bushfires?) and he has flagged big cuts to education and the public sector. This is similar to John Howard's "please don't kick me by registering a protest vote" line in 2007.
Keep blaming the Greens for Penny Wong's failure to get a price on carbon. They really have to get over this - they did not negotiate with the Greens on either the ETS or an interim carbon tax, their politically strategy to wedge the Liberals backfired when Turnbull was deposed as leader and Abbott took over. Kevin Rudd then backed down when he should have called a double dissolution history
Try and shift the focus from Rudd's fall from grace - Labor even had him campaigning in the seat of Melbourne in atttempt to stop Adam Bandt winning it for the Greens.

Liberals

Keep on hammering Labor about the demise of Kevin Rudd, and attack Julia Gillard as one of the perpetrators of his demise
Grab the media by any means possible - Abbott's "I am not sleeping until the election" tactic has been quite effective here. There is lots of media coverage about this, despite the fact that Abbott dashing around in frenzy visiting police stations (law & order) and other random locations is essentially meaningless.
Attack the credibility of the Labor government across a number or topics - including asylum seekers (even though they share identical policies) , the economy (even though Labor steered Australia through the GFC), and Julia Gillard's bona fides.

The Greens

Keep the focus on positive policies - such as tacking climate change, reducing taxes for small business. This is difficult with a huge proportion of media attention focused on who will win out of Tony and Julia and who will from government.
Convince people that a green vote counts - and try and counter attempts by both major parties to "scare supporters back into the fold". This is of particular importance to the Greens in the Senate and the seat of Melbourne.
Present the Greens as a positive influence in the senate if they end up with the balance of power.
Avoid getting sucked into discussion on preferences. For the future, I think the Greens should adopt a policy of reforming the voting system to eliminate (or at least reduce the effect of) preference deals.

In summary, for the major parties, the election has devolved to a "he said - she said" and "we are right - you are wrong" game devoid of any real substance.

Interestingly, several newspaper editorials and articles today have made similar points.

We deserve much better, Heraldsun editorial
Australia needs a government with a vision for the future, The Age editorial
Climate of evasion compounds the challenge, The Age editorial
Don't squib the chance to have a say, Richard Flannagan, The Age
Green around the Gillard, The Age

It seems our style of western democracy has spun itself into a silly game where long term planning and strategic outcomes get lost in a babble of inane "campaigning". A minority government is a likely outcome that I think would be positive. It is better that some independents and the Greens have a say and role in government rather than sitting as with the "opposition".

Adversarial systems often don't deliver outcomes; it is time for our parliament to truly represent the people rather than the fairly narrow interests of political parties and career politicians.

As postscript, here is a video I shot yesterday of a discussion between Nicola Roxon, Bob Brown and Joe Hockey with Jon Faine on ABC 774 radio.

PPS: It is also interesting to note how much we have heard about Abbott and Gillard, and how little we have from other such as:

Barnaby Joyce (where are the Nationals?)
Almost all Lower House candidates from all parties (except for a few marginal seats)
Wilson Tuckey (has he been gagged?)
Penny Wong (following her abject failure on climate change policy)
Eric Abetz (the shadow minister for logging)
Mark Arbib (gone to ground apparently)
Peter Garrett (after several train wrecks as a minister)
Bronwen Bishop (the silence is deafening).
Kim Carr (shouldn't he be spruiking the "cash for clunkers" scheme?)
Martin Ferguson (the minister for coal)

It seems that some effort during the campaign actually might go into keeping some of these people off the airwaves, or maybe the media is just not interested in what they have to say?

Is Julia Gillard doing a Beazley?

2010-08-17T00:44:00.003+10:00

So now we have the new Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, launching Labor's election campaign less than a week before the election with hardly a mention of climate change - "the greatest moral challenge of our time".

This election has been largely a content and policy free zone. It has devolved to a game of cat and mouse between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, both of whom have adopted personas quite different from their own.

Gillards rapier wit and forensic precision so often admired in parliament has been replaced by a bland and carefully measured drone. She doesn't answer questions and stays on message about "moving forwards".

Abbott's bovver boy combative style has been replaced by a forced joviality and an appearance of calmness and control befitting someone who would be prime minister.

Neither are playing their natural game and it shows. The winner takes all game they are playing is to form government after the election. To do this they need to win the votes of a small percentage of swinging votesr (less than 15%) in a small number of marginal electorates - approximately 20 out of 150.

The entire election has been pitched at winning the votes of this very small proportion (less than 5%) of the Australian population - based on feedback from "focus groups" in these electorates.

Rusted on voters are taken for granted -their votes won't shift.

Voters in non-marginal seats are considered irrelevant as their votes will not determine who will win government.

So what about the issues?

Climate change

Gillard has committed to a "community consensus of 150 randomly selected people". There will of course be no consensus if at least one skeptic is included, and there is nothing new that will emerge that the Garnaut Climate Change Report has not covered
Abbot has committed to NOT introducing any price on carbon pollution if he wins government, and to hand out millions of taxpayers funds as corporate welfare to large polluters to "encourage them to reduce their emissions". This is ridiculous - the role of government is to legislate, not hand out corporate welfare.
Gillard scores 1 out of 10, Abbott scores 0. Neither will commit to the year Australia's emissions should peak then fall.
Emission reductions 0.

Asylum seekers

Gilllard has "done a Beazley" and aped Coalition (indeed Howard) policy on offshore processing. This will disenfranchise a lot of Labor voters and drive them to the Greens. This could a factor that costs Labor the election. This is moving to the right and to the bottom, not moving forwards
Abbott's policy is virtually indistinguishable from Gillard's
Both are dog whistling on this too - dropping hints about "border security" and "Australia's population growth", both of which are completely irrelevant, but not apparently in the minds of those few voters who matter

National Broadband Network (NBN)

This is one of the few policy areas where there is a discernible difference.
Labor is committing to spending $43b on fibre to 93% of homes offering speeds up to 1gbit per second. Next generation wireless services to 4 per cent of premises and satellite services to 3 per cent will deliver speeds of 12 megabits per second.
This has a very high cost and provides bandwidth than many people need.
Abbott is proposing a confusing mixture of cheaper technologies - but it is quite clear he does not know what he is talking about. He has committed to killing the NBN too.
I think about $20b should be spent on high speed internet - with the priority shifted to rural and regional Australia that currently has poor and expensive services - and the other $20b allocated to clean energy project to transition us off coal

Health

Gillard wins on this - GP super clinics are a good idea and some additional funding for mental health have been committed too.
Abbott will kill the GP super clinics.

The outcome will be interesting. Labor could well lose the election in the key marginal seats, even though they are likely to have a higher overall vote.

Forests
Forest destruction and land clearing accounts for over 8% of Australia's carbon emissions, yet neither Julia Gillard nor Tony Abbott is proposing to do anything about this. The solution is quite simple - protect our native forests for their carbon stores, biodiversity and water production. However, the silence from Tony and Julia on this is deafening.

Indigenous Australians
The racist Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 brought in by John Howard as an election stunt in 2007 is still in place and supported by Labor. This legislation is racist as they first had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to bring it in. This suspension is still in force. Welfare payments are quarantined and indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory are treated differently from everybody else.

It was supposed to be an emergency in 2007, yet in 2010 indigenous affairs have not been mentioned during the campaign. The gap has not been closed, and needs to be. Indigenous Australians need to empowered to manage their own affairs, and more funding is required for improved health, housing and employment.

Public Transport
No federal funding is routinely allocated to the States for public transport, unlike roads which are funded 50% federally and 50% from the States.

Consequently, public transport infrastructure has lagged behind and crumbled for over 50 years.

During this election campaign, the Gillard goverment has announced funding for two new urban rail lines that both run through marginal electorates.

Gillard has pledged $742 million for the long-awaited $1.15 billion Redcliffe rail connection, should Labor be re-elected.
Gillard has promised to build the long-awaited $2.6 billion rail link between Parramatta and Epping. This rail line runs through the marginal seat of Bennelong. This is the biggest single funding announcement of Gillard's campaign so far, with $2.1 billion in federal funds towards the project, with the a state government contribution of $520 million.

Gillard have also pledged up to $20 million for a feasibility study into a fast railway linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne. This after they has previously voted down a bill from the Greens for exactly this, prior to the election campaign.

Will we get a minority government?

I think the best outcome would be hung parliament followed by negotiation to form government with independent MPs such a Bob Katter and Tony Windsor, and possible Adam Bandt from the Greens if he wins the seat of Melbourne.

This would curb the excesses of either major party governing in their own right, with the democratic representatives of other electorates frozen out of government and forced into a largley futile opposition" role.

Perhaps it is time for political parties to be banned - as they mostly don't act in the best interests of Australia and they corrupt the basic principle of democracy by putting there "partly line" at a much higher priority than the local MPs representing their own constituents.

This is an interesting "example" of election advertising from the Gruen Nation program that we have not seen during this campaign. It provides some food for thought.

Bali trip 2010

2010-08-10T00:25:00.016+10:00

I visited Bali for the first time in September 2010 to go to the Ben Wilson Bali Accelerator Kitesurf Camp. You can read about my experiences on the camp on my kitesurfing blog.

This post provides some information and links to photos of my other experiences in Bali.

It has taken me 50 years to get to Bali, and I am glad I have finally visited. Bali seems to a place you think you know all about even if you have never been there as so many Australians visit here and talk about it.

Some say they love it. Others say they hate Kuta but the rest of the island is very good. I was very interested to see for myself.

Arriving and early experiences

Landing at the airport, I approached customs and immigration wondering what I was in store for. I was confronted with very long queues that took about an hour to be processed, and I was right up the end.

Once through, I looked for my transport to the hotel I have booked, but couldn't find anyone. There was a fellow in an office who rang my hotel (the Puri Cendana), but they said I didn't have a booking. They said to contact ABL Tours who I had booked through, but they did not answer their 24 hour number.

Not a good start. Hot and bothered, with several guys offerning lifts. The guy in the office helped me get a car (not a taxi as it turned out) who took me to Pur Cendana for 140,000 rp. I figured this would be the best place to go and I might be able to talk them into giving me a room.

The car drove through the bar district of Seminyak which had people (mostly tourists) spilling out into the street with music thumping, and Balinese "lady boys" perched on motorbikes parked nearby. What an introduction; I was getting frazzled.

The driver left me at Puri Cendana where I spoke to the attendant and settled by nerves. He and the security guys were friendly and helpful, as I found most Balinese to be. The concierge found me another hotel and a taxi to take me there, and showed the taxi where it was on his scooter. The Ari Meriki turned out to very friendly, quite convenient and not too expensive. I booked it for my other nights in Seminyak.

The first day around Seminyak and Kuta

I woke early and went for a walk along the JL Drupadi road the Ari Meriki is on. Some hustle and bustle starting up along the road, but most of the shops were closed. I encountered the Bali paradox - some very neat and expensive western shops, and a small very poor street market.

I had a nice breakfast back at the hotel, then wandered in to Seminyak and walked along JL Dyhana Pura. Again there was a mix of western bars, hotels and shops and other more local places. I stayed out of most of the shops but settled in the Bestest Cafe for some good free wifi and some eggs for lunch. I checked out the Sofitel on the beach after a security check to get in, and then the beach and the Hotel Pelangi where we meet tomorrow for the wave camp departure.

2010-08-01 Seminyak and Kut

The beach is nice and wide, with lots of deck chairs to rent and drinks, massages and rental equipment available. There are some good waves too. This beach is the draw card, along with cheap prices, for the Type A Australian tourists who flock here.

I then rented a bicycle which was only just big enough for me and not in a good state of repair and cycled along the JL Raja Seminyak to Kuta. Endless shops and people milling about. Lots of scooters and cars too. It was very busy, and not my idea of a relaxing holiday. I cycled down through and around Kuta, passing ground zero for the 2002 bombings (without realising it) then back along the beach. It is much busier both on the beach and the streets in Kuta. Too busy for me.

I bought a mosquito net and a T shirt at the Bintang supermarket, which is full of local goods.

After a rest at the hotel I headed off to try and cycle to Sanur to check out the kitebeach there. Lots of cycling along roads that all start to look the same, jostling with scooters on the left. I could hear them talking about me on their scooters as they approached from behind and passed by.

I got close, but did not have a good map, so I turned before I got there as it was getting late and I wanted to avoid the dark. I followed my nose home along a busy road. The right crank on the bike became loose so I had to hand tighten the screw several times, as well as constantly adjust the seat. It was great to get some exercise. I dropped the bike back after a shower and had dinner at the Bestest Cafe - a nice safe souvlaki.

Kitesurfing at athe Ben Wilson Wave Camp

I then spent 7 days at the Ben Wilson Bali Accelerator Kitesurf Camp. You can read about my experiences on the camp on my kitesurfing blog.

A day tour to Kintimani and Sanur

Back in Seminyak after the wave camp, I decided to hire a driver and go inland to the volcano region and check out some sights along the way. I was considering doing one of the bicycle tours that leave from the top and meander down, but I also wanted to visit Sanur.

My driver for the day was Gusti Nyoman Suamba in a Suzuki people carrier. We stopped at one the streets where they sell and create stone carvings, which are very impressive. We then visited the silver region, where I bought some pendants for Lena. They were not very cheap, but they were nice.

2010-08-09 Stone carvings

I also bought some drink coasters from a shop selling ceramics. We bypassed Ubud, a popular town to visit in the hills, then stopped at the Ubud Rice terraces, where I was beseiged by persistant local sellers. Gusti told by later to avoid talking to them and handling the goods they thrust at you. I bought a couple of sarongs from an extremely persistent lady. Every time I walked away she dropped the price, until I reallly thought I had a bargain, and they would be good to have at home. As it turned out, I need one as a wrap at the temple later too.

The rice terraces are beautiful and there are cafes there for meals. I bought some bananas thrust through our window as we drove off. We then finally left the endless roadside stalls and shops and entered a more rural region where they go fruit. Then we crested the rim of a giant crater to get a breathtaking view of two volcanoes and a giant crater lake. This was well worth the trip.

The smaller volcano has a fairfly fresh lava flow (circa 2008) down its flank. More sellers of postcards and paintings. Some are mobile on scooters and pop up when you stop in the middle of nowhere.

We then visited the superb Ulun Danu Batur temple. Gusti explained that Ganesh the elephant welcome you just inside; Hindus pay him homage during there visit. There were various regions and shrines within, including a small shrine for Buddha.

I had my sarong to wear but had to hire a sash to tie around it, after a bit more hassling.

2010-08-09 Ulun Danu Batur Temple

The three main dieties of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva were represented by statues. The flower offerings are colour coded for them. Red for Brahma (the creator) on the right, Green for Vishnu (the maintainer and preserver) in the middle, and all the colours for Shiva (the destroyer) on the left.

We then drove along the crater rim and stopped for lunch a restaurant perched on the edge with seats looking out to the superb view. I took the buffet after they dropped the prices to 80,000 rp + tax. It was a nice lunch, with fruit and stick rice pudding along with good tea. I started before 12 and was glad to leave when hordes of tourists arrived. I found Gusti with some locals and stopped for a chat and had a snake fruit - a curiously tart fruit with a skin like a snake.

2010-08-09 Kintamani

We headed down into the crater for a look. There are market gardens growing cabbages and tomatoes down by the lake and a small village too. We stopped at a small Warung (local bar / cafe). I walked up onto the lava flow for a lovely panorama looking up the the Mt Batur volcano, then had a good Bali coffee at the Warong.

We continued on to the hot springs, but I balked at 150,000 rp to enter the resort. I walked down the lake and saw some locals in canoes fishing along with fish farms. I walked around the resort complex and found a neat local hot spring bath where they said I could bathe for a donation, but I was happy to just keep walking. The lake is lovely, but there is garbage in it, and one guy was washing some clothes in it with detergent.

We then drove back to the top and returned along a different road, passing some large processions of locals heading to the local temple for a ceremony. They were dressed in marvellous finery and the women were carrying ornate food offerings on their heads.

A couple of times we passed local school children in uniform marching in unison along the road, with a guide and vehicle behind them slowing traffic.

There is much more culture, ceremony and social interaction here than we have in Australia.

Sanur

2010-08-09 Sanur

We stopped at Sanur on the way back. The beach scene here is more relaxed then Kuta. It was low tide to the reef was well exposed. There are seveal very expensive hotels here. I found the kitesurfing location to the west of Sanur beach. There were four experienced kiters out in the harbour area enjoying the good sea breeze. High tide would be much better for beginners here. Its flat water only. There are three kite schools along the foreshore.

We left just before the sunset and got back to the hotel without too much traffic. All in all, and excellent day out.

Last day in Bali - Ulu Watu, Nusa Dua and Jimbaran Beach

I woke early and updated my blog and put some Facebook photos of Ben and Tony up. I was packed at 10 and contemplating how to spend the day. I decided to call Gusti again and do a tour down to Ulu Watu and Nusa Dua, then get dropped at the airport at 8:00pm.

We headed off, and stopped at the big Rip Curl shop on Sunset Way. The prices were similar or more expensive than Australia, and they didn't like me taking a photo.

We drove on to Ulu Watu where I walked around the temple. Gusti warned me to be very careful about the monkeys and not wear my hat or sunglasses. There were a lot of them about, and some were quite playlful. The views from the cliffs along the coast are superb. A large surf was roaring in, and this area is not developed much. Gusti said water is a problem up in the hills and it has to be trucked in.

2010-08-10 Ulu Watu, Nusa Dua and Jimbaran Beach

The temple is not a big one and is in a state of some disrepair. Tourists are not allowed into the worship areas which is fair enough.

The monkeys managed to pinch a few tourist's hats and other gear, but only the ones who chose to play with them for a good photo. I kept my distance. Their sharp teeth and the potential for rabies is a big deterrent.

We then went to Ulu Watu, which is a surfing mecca. Descending the foot path from the road head brings you into a world of Warungs and small shops tucked in contours of the steep drop to the water. Surfers hang out to rest and eat, and some store there gear in racks in the roofs. I had a great Nasi Goreng at the Surfer Warung. Photographers are perched at good vantage points with massive lenses shooting surfers in the waves.

The break follows a reef and a largish swell was coming in. Wave selection seems to be crucial. Many go unridden, and many attempted takes offs are not successful. Good riders where getting in the pocket and even tubes, and getting a long ride.

A path leads down step steps through a chasm to a grotto which opens onto the flat reef which is not too sharp. It is a very scenic spot with the combination of limestone cliffs, water and waves.

Gusti then took me to Padang Padang, where a Rip Curl surfing tournament is "on hold waiting for the waves". A big swell is needed to get good waves at this location. There is more of a beach than the tiny cove at Ulluwatu. There were a lot of Europeans here; French, Italians and some Americans here, but very few Australians.

Gusti then drove toward Nusa Dua. There was a steep climb to a plateau which we traversed in very light traffic to Nusa Dua. At Nusa Dua, vehicles enter a secure zone though police inspection points. Once through the road follows a neat and very tidy and well planted green zone which traverses the entrances to numerous 5 star hotels. There were no Warungs or pedestrians about. This was where the United Nations Convention on Climate Change was held in 2007. It is a world apart from the Balinese. Tourists here probably stay at their hotels and do tours out from them; many wouldn't mix with the locals. It seems the U.N. buys into this paradigm too.

We drove through to a beach further north. The area resembles Sanur, with a similar reef system out from the shore. Low water sees all the boats resting on the sand and the water activities cease. A good strong wind was blowing most of the day, but no kitesurfing was happening. The locals were flying their ubiquitious cheap kites made from bamboo and garbarge bags.

I got a text from Jestar advising the flight would be delayed four hours which was not good news.

We then drove back towards the airport and stopped at Jimbaran beach where several local seafood restaurants spill out along the beach. There is a public section of the beach that was being enjoyed by many Balinese, and not very many tourists. I went for a swim in the small surf and caught a few waves. While in the water a turtle surface a short distance out, it had massive head so it looked like a seal to me, I didn;t see its shell. It looked around then dived.

After the swim we had Chicken Nasi Goreng for dinner at a nice Warung, and I had a banana pancake for desert. Some locals held a ceremony with bells on the road. Gusti said they were looking after the soul of a relative who had probably died there recently.

We then drove to the airport where I said goodbye to Gusti and headed through customs. No problems with the kitesurfing bag (22.3kg), then through paying the 150,000 irp departure tax. Jetstar gave us a free feed that was a bit average. There are lots of shops in the airport full of souvenirs, but none of them were cheap. I got some time to write up my trip and also some content for the kitesurfing handbook I am writing.

We got on the plane at 4:00am and had a good flight home, back to a cold wet winter in Melbourne.

Some general observations about Bali

There are of big global brands adverstised on TV

Low income Balinese can earn as little as 1,000,000 irp per month. A beer in the Rooftop bar of the Anananta Hotel costs 50,000 irp, while a beer in a Warong costs 15,000

Kuta has been transformed by tourists into a not so pleasant place.

The surfing breaks are good, but getting to them in not easy. A lot of survers use scooters with a board cradle, but one prang could ruin your holiday or even your life. The best bet would be to hire a car and driver.

The official taxis are quite cheap compared to the cars that offer lifts then haggle over the price. For example, the same trip cost me 7,000 irp in a taxi and 30,000 irp in a car.

Health is definately a concern. Caution is required to avoid Bali Belly and even Dengue Fever.

Arriving late at night is a hassle if you don't have confirmed bookings with a hotel.

Getting out of Kuta (and staying in Seminyak or Sanur) is good to do.

Map of some locations visited

View Bali trip 2010 in a larger map

Melbourne's train meltdown

2010-07-27T23:46:00.003+10:00

Melbourne suffered a extreme outage today. Nearly every train line was affected when a train's pentagraph (the bit that connects to the overhead wires) got snagged and brought down the line, causing a power outage that basically shut down Southern Cross station, then the entire rail network.

Dozens of trains were cancelled on all lines for over 2 hours. Over 400,000 commuters were delayed on their way to work and across the rail network. The cost to the economy has been estimated at $12 million dollars.

Martin Pakula, the state transport minister, apologised to the public, as did Metro, the new private operator of the system.

The root cause appears to be a chronic lack of investment in basic maintenance, including:

many old trains
wooden sleepers still abound, many of which are decades old
signals and associated cable conduits
the power wire system

There is obviously also no redundancy in the power system - what we saw today was a single point of failure.

The funding allocated to maintenance of Melbourne's rail system is a tiny proportion of that allocated to roads, yet every day in Melbourne the rail system moves more people to and from the CBD.

As I have mentioned previously, no new suburban train line has been built in Melbourne since the Glen Waverley line in 1930. Since that time Melbourne's population has increased from 1 million to over 4 million.

The privatised system is clearly a failure. The government blames the operator (Metro) for "delivering poor service" and Metro (and previously Connex) blames the government for not investing enough in upgrading rail infrastructure. Nobody is actually accountable any more, which is just not good enough.

As compensation, the Metro operators and the State Goverment will let people travel for free on Friday and share the $1m loss of revenue.

Here is what we need to do:

Allocate $2b per annum to upgrade existing rail infrastructure
Build new rail lines to suburbs that have no rail, including the Rowville and Doncaster lines.
Plan a metro circle system for inner Melbourne that connects Parkville, Brunswick, Fitzroy, Richmond, South Yarra, South Melbourne and North Melbourne.
Return the system to public management with clear accountability for service delivery.
Spend no more money on the Myki card - and ditch it doesn't work. The system really only benefits private operators - for whom it has been designed to provide revenue. It is too complicated and the stupid "touch off" requirement impedes users greatly.
Stop building ridiculous "roads to nowhere" projects such as Westlink and the Frankston Bypass

The total cost of $15m would have been much better spent on prevention and proper maintenance.

External links

Shame Metro, shame, The Age
Frustrated commuters to travel 'free' after Metro rail meltdown, The Age
Rail chaos imperils Brumby, The Age
Stranded by a wire, The Age
Call to invest in rail powerlines, The Age

Wong plays more politics with climate change - all talk and no action

2010-06-29T22:20:00.000+10:00

The Labor party is back in election mode and restarting their campaign after the campaign started by Kevin Rudd turned to custard. Having deposed Rudd as Prime Minister and shut him out of the new Cabinet, Julia Gillard has rewarded those loyal to her by keeping them in their ministries - despite quite obvious failures for a few of them to deliver.

Penny Wong for example failed to deliver an emissions trading scheme. The accountability for the failed CPRS was hers, not Kevin Rudd's. Instead of architecting an ETS based on science and evidence based reduction targets, Wong set about "negotiating" with the fossil fuel industries and running a political wedge within the Coalition ranks. At no time in this process did she (or anybody else from Labor) negotiate with the Greens, who publicly committed to a science-based emission reduction target of 40% by 2020.

Wong "browned down" Labor's CPRS by gifting billions of free carbon emission permits to polluters and even doling out free cash payments to coal-fired power stations out of the public purse. Then she negotiated with the Coalition and further "browned it down" so that if implemented, Australia would have achieved no emission reductions by 2020 and bought dodgy "offsets" from overseas.

Then the skillfully crafted wedge against the Liberals failed - Turnbull was ousted, and the new opposition leader sidestepped the trap set and opposed the CPRS - as it turns out for the wrong reasons, but for the right outcome.

Penny Wong had no "plan B" despite an offer from the Greens to negotiate on an interim carbon tax as described the Government's own advisor on climate change and economics - Professor Ross Garnaut. Kevin Rudd then took the rap for the CPRS failure and said he would do nothing until 2013. This was the beginning of the end of his time as Prime Minister of Australia, even though it was Penny Wong's failure.

I waited keenly for Julia Gillard, as the new Prime Minister, to say what she was going to do on climate change. She acknowledged that action is required and that climate change is serious, but said that "we need to reach consensus on a price on carbon within the Australian community". This is code for doing nothing.

There will be no consensus when the fossil fuel industries spends hundreds of millions of dollars on propaganda and funding climate denialist groups, as we saw happening in the lead up to and during the recent failed Copenhagen Accord. So Gillard stands for yet more talk and no real action.

Has Penny Wong learnt from her recent dismal failure with the CPRS? Apparently not. She is attending a

Climate Adaptation Futures Conference at the Gold Coast along with over 100 climate scientists from around the world. They are talking about how to adapt to climate change, not whether it is happening or not - which is now regarded as a given by climate scientists. Unfortunately, this is cure rather prevention.

Penny Wong told the Conference that:

"it was important to remember that science was at the heart of understanding climate change"

So how does she explain ignoring recent climate science and setting only a 5% reduction target under the CPRS?

"For too long those who deny climate change is real have muddied the debate, for too long they have hijacked this issue to pursue their own agenda."

I agree with her on this - but is Penny Wong who has hijacked the issue for petty political reasons.

"The reason we don't have a price on carbon is Tony Abbott tore down a leader (Malcolm Turnbull) and installed himself on the basis that he doesn't believe climate change is real, and the Australian Greens voted with Mr Abbott."

Some classic blame shifting here Penny. As previously noted, she did not negotiate with Greens on the ETS at all, or after it failed!

"Julia Gillard has made clear her commitment to this issue, and her views about the need for a price on carbon"

Penny Wong and Julia Gillard can achieve this tomorrow by negotiating with the Greens senators and getting two Liberal Senators to cross the floor.

It is time for Penny Wong to stop playing politics and to stop making excuses for doing nothing. We need a carbon tax and we need it now. Get on with it.

An open letter to Julia Gillard PM - please take action on climate change

2010-06-24T11:11:00.006+10:00

Subject: Congratulations on becoming Prime Minister - please take action on climate change and forest protection

To: Julia Gillard MP

Dear Julia,

Congratulations on becoming Prime Minister. I think you will do a great job. I was extremely disappointed when Kevin Rudd abandoned any effective action on climate change.

Here are some items I suggest you consider, with urgency:

Negotiate with Greens and at least two Coalition Senators in the Senate to get a carbon tax in place - this would apply across all industries, not just mining, and the funds can be directed towards transitioning to a low carbon economy

Remove perverse taxes that encourage fossil fuel use - such as car leases that require minimum kilometres to be driven, the diesel fuel rebate, and sundry others

Allow tax deductions and/or salary packing for people who cycle to work

Ditch the $2billion+ corporate welfare funding for "Clean Coal" geo-sequestration pipe dreams that defy the basic laws of physics and direct this towards a 100% clean energy program based on concentrated solar with salt storage and wind power.

Commence planning for a very fast train project to link Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane.

Introduce national building standards for 6 Star Rated buildings and retrofit of existing building stock (and keep Peter Garrett away from it)

Protect native forests from logging to keep the carbon they store where it is, secure our water supplies and provide habitat for endangered species.

Do not allow the burning of native forest woodchips as a "renewable energy source" - it clearly is not renewable and our forests are worth much more than woodchips.

Commence an initiative to transition Australia to net zero emissions by 2020 - as outline in the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Energy Plan produced by Beyond Zero Emissions

I believe you have an excellent opportunity to lead Australia towards a vibrant zero carbon emissions economy that is sustainable, with our national heritage and environment protected.

Regards, Peter Campbell
Home address supplied

Why can't Rudd do a carbon tax?

2010-06-15T21:31:00.003+10:00

With the Federal election likely to be called this year, probably in August, the Rudd Labor government is now in campaign mode. Consequently, its policies and focus are directed toward positioning themselves for winning the election and not much else.

The campaign strategy discussions may have unfolded something like this:

What will be our core platform for the election?

Let's do health, education, economic responsibility and the national broadband network
We will lob a new health funding model on the States and bully them into submission so we appear tough and forceful
We can trade off avoiding the Global Financial Crisis claiming we saved Australia from financial ruin

What will be our main issues to defend for the election?

We completely flubbed it on climate change when Copenhagen turned to custard, and we had no plan B - so lets keep blaming the Greens for not supporting the industry-friendly CPRS - and the Liberals for sidestepping our skillfully crafted wedge when Turnbull went under and Abbot took over

We aren't doing too well on environment either, with native forests still being destroyed, the Great Barrier Reef dying, the Orange Bellied Parrot and a few other species rapidly heading towards extinction - so lets get Peter Garrett out there handing out money for a few good causes in the States.

The housing insulation scheme killed for people and turned it a fatal farce. Can't remember why we gave this to the Environment Minister Garrett when he and his department know nothing about building matters or managing large scale projects. So let's take it off him and give him a bit more money to throw around. And send him to the back bench after the next election.

Clear the decks. We have a few backflips to get out of the way.

Backflip 1 (Kevin Rudd) - the need for urgent action on climate change "the great moral challenge of our time" - the CPRS (emissions trading) now on hold until 2013

Backflip 2 (Kate Ellis)- ditch the building of 260 new childcare facilities

Backflip 2 (Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd) - avoid scrutiny of Government advertising by the Auditor General by announcing a $38 million, taxpayer funded political advertising campaign., despite it being “a cancer on our democracy” and a clear commitment from Rudd that this would not happen.,

Then some polls were released indicating that Kevin Rudd had burnt most of his political capital in a very short space of time and his support plummeted, with opposition leader Tony Abbott seemingly now capable of winning the next election.

Let's run a scare campaign on Abbott - like Howard did on L Plates Latham. Let's even compare Abbott to Latham. Brief to all ministers - keep saying "Tony Abbott would win an election if one were held tomorrow".

Now we need to get back onto our core platform.

We have an exposure on the economy - we are now seriously in debt with a large deficit. Lets cherry pick from the Henry Tax Review something that will help us back on track to a budget surplus. Let's go with the Resource Super Profits Tax - will lob it out there and have some biffo with the mining companies. This will give Kevin Rudd another opportunity to demonstrate his strong leadership style, and will offset some of the fallout from gifting $8 billion via the failed CPRS to large corporations making millions out of fossil fuels.

Well, that worked, sort of. We got the media off climate change and even backflips, but those mining companies sure have gone troppo. Now a bit of a stoush and ritual combat is turning into another problem for us - no consultation with stakeholders (like health reform), and back benchers in marginal seats with mines getting restless. Let's hang tough for another couple of weeks then reduce the RSPT rate a bit to shut them up.

*** End of script as at 15 June 2010 ***

This reads a bit like a script from the Hollowmen. But then truth is stranger than fiction.

Here are a few things that should have happened:

Negotiate with Greens and two Coalition Senators in the Senate to get a carbon tax in place - this would apply across all industries, not just mining, and the funds can be directed towards transitioning to a low carbon economy
Remove perverse taxes that encourage fossil fuel use - such as car leases that require minimum kilometres to be driven, the diesel fuel rebate, and sundry others
Allow tax deductions and/or salary packing for people who cycle to work
Ditch the $2billion+ corporate welfare funding for "Clean Coal" /geo-sequestration pipe dreams that defy the basic laws of physics and direct this towards a 100% clean energy program based on concentrated solar with salt storage and wind power.
Commence a very fast train project to link Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane.
Introduce national building standards for 6 Star Rated buildings and retrofit of existing building stock (and keep Peter Garrett away from it)
Protect native forests from logging to keep the carbon they store where it is, secure our water supplies and provide habitat for endangered species.

I am not holding my breath for any of this. But I am astounded by the failings of our political system and our major party politicians to deliver sensible policies.

They are intent of just playing politics, striving to get into government, then just pfaffing around when they get there.

*** Script update at 15 June 2010 ***

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appeared on the 7:30 Report on Monday night. He appeared to be in damage control mode forcing some smiles, rapidly blinking and appeared uneasy. When questioned about the Resource Super Profits Tax, the mining industry campaign against it and the date of the next election he mentioned that the election could be delayed until March/April 2011.

"Yeah, well we have an election due by whatever it is, March or April next year and we only have three year terms. You've got to use the time effectively. "

So it seems that the nascent election campaign in progress may be drastically rescheduled. Then again he may go early to avoid Tony Abbott gaining more support.

I wish he would just bring a carbon tax and get on with it.

External links

Port Douglas trip 2010

2010-06-14T00:33:00.033+10:00

Winter in Melbourne means very little reliable wind for kitesurfing, wet weather and cold temperatures. We decided to have another family holiday this year in Port Douglas, and I would stay another week for kitesurfing.

However, this trip there was no wind most of the time which was dissappointing given a major reason for this trip was to go kitesurfing. I was lucky to get in a couple of good sessions however in the warm tropical water.

There are very few Japanese and other tourists about compared to my visits in previous years. A lot of the hotel chains had 10% occupancy rates, and many private apartments and villas have been empty for extended periods.

A 3 month lease can be negiotated for 2 bedroom villas for around $200 to $250 per week. Daily rentals of around $90 per day are commonplace. A lot of real estate is for sale. It seems that appeciation is low or non-existent. It doesn't look like real estate is a good investment in this region for either rental return or capital gains. However, it could a low point and therefore a good time to invest, but only if tourism increases and the market moves ahead.

This shows the perils inherent in basin and economy on tourism. Cairns and Far North Queensland have 15% unemployment at the moment.
There are also some bogans around in Far North Queensland. Someone set fire to rubbish in a plastic bin at the 4 Mile Beach reserve and left it burning on top of a wooden picnic table. The result was a burnt table covered with litter and melted plastic - a terrible mess.

The Captain Cook highway which hugs the coast between Cairns and Port Douglas is superb. It has ocean views similar to Victoria's Great Ocean Road and many nice beaches along it. It is a great road for cycling if you time it when there are few cars - such as early on Sunday morning.

We visited Hartley's Crocodile Farm and were surprised by the range of animals there - including Cassowaries, Jabiru, a Spotted Quoll and of course some huge crocodiles. It is well worth a visit.

Mosman Gorge is always a favourite. The fresh flowing water and the rainforest is superb. On this trip Chloe said "look daddy, a big bird!" and a wild Cassowary walked out of the forests into the carpark - the first I have ever seen in the wild.

We swam in the sea a few times in the stinger nets. They are usually taken down by May but a lifeguard told me that a stinger was found at Mission Beach a couple of weeks ago, so they kept nets in place for another few weeks as a precaution. Lots of people have been kitesurfing around Port Douglas an encountered no problems.

We did a day tour to the spectacular Barron River Gorge and visited Kuranda, which is now a major tourist trap. Lots of souvenir and "local produce shops", some of which are interesting, and the locally grown coffee is good, but it gets a bit overwhelming.

No trace of these further inland at Mareeba - and old style Queensland town. The Penninsula Development Road that runs inland through Mareeba and north to Cooktown is remote and isolated. We drove to Mount Molloy then returned to Port Douglas.

Cycling highlights

The cycling was superb as usual. Bike rides up "the hill" on the climb to Julatten are great for training and appreciating the rainforest. There are cassowaries in this forest but I haven't ever seen one on this road. A circuit ride along the Euluma Creek Road was a highlight. Views to the surrounding high peaks such as Black Mountain are spectacular. The area around Julatten is cooler due to its altitude and has lush farm land and a small but active local community. Lots of people around Julatten own big dogs here that are used for pig hunting.

I rode a short detour along Side Road near Julatten and saw a small toothy marsupial road kill. When the road turned to dirt I followed it over a small creek and came across a jungle bush dwelling that was rough and ready. There are some alternative lifestylers tucked around this area too.

In general, drivers treat cyclists with respect in this region. Usually they gave me a wide berth and a few waved hello as they passed.

Mount Molloy seems to be in decline despite its location on the main road from Mareeba to Cooktown. There is a new real estate subdivision selling there but the bakery has closed. Now there is just a cafe and a roadhouse.

The ride to Cape Tribulation is superb. It is a long day - about 160km - but the rainforest, hills and creeks on the road to Cape Tribulation are wonderful to cycle through.

Quaid Road - an exercise on folly. It was built as a private road by Quaid (local real estate agent) in cahoots with Russ Hinze and Joh Bjelke Peterson (Premier at the time). The intention was to provide fast access from the Cairns airport to a real estate development at Quaids Lake inland. The road climbs up steeply from Wangetti through rainforest. Several landslides have occurred in this region so it is in poor condition. At the top, the road traverses a high plateau and pine plantation and is covered by much leaf litter.

A locked gate is encountered just before it is crossed by a track that connects Julatten and Kuranda. From here the road passes through very deep cuttings and across some long high filled sections. It descends, climbs to a second high point, then descends again and climbs to a third high point. It is in quite good condition along these sections. after the third big descent a smaller climb brings you the final locked gate, which f4WDs have a track around, From here it is open to general traffic. A dirt track to quarry joins it. The road then connects to the Mareeba - Mount Molloy road just near Quaid lake.

It would have been very expensive to build and no sits as a monument to stupidity and avarice. There are very few houses at Quaids lake and nothing else around, The Queensland government still refuses to gazette and maintain it as a public road.

Kitesurfing
The wind this year was lacking. I got only two good sessions in this trip as bad weather in the south of Australia caused storms in southern Queensland and blocked the seasonal trade winds coming up to Port Douglas and Cairns.

It is hard to get the timing right for wind. The week before we arrived was very windy.

My blog log entries for the kiteboarding:

Photos

2010-05-16 Port Douglas flight up

Looking out to Hinchinbrook Island and coming into Cairns.

2010-05-16 Yarrabah

We did a side trip to Yarrabah, and Aboriginal Community south of Cairns. It is a nice drive to get there and a there is a very steep hill to climb over. Bike road races are held on the Yarrabah Road, but not up the hill.

2010-05-17 Macrossan St and 4 mile

Macrossan Street is always worth a wander. Beach gear, restaurants and cafes. Chloe is wearing a dress from Something Tropical for Kids, which our friends Doug and Wendy manage.

2010-05-18 Hartleys crocodile farm

That is a five meter Saltwater Crocodile under the decking of the cafe at Hartleys. There are lots of other animals to see too, and the reserve is well kept. The staff are friendly and helpful.

2010-05-19 Kuranda and Barrons Gorge

A view from the Captain Cook Highway on the road back to Cairns. We then drove to Kuranda and Barron Gorge.

2010-05-19 Mareeba

Mareeba is an old style Queensland town.

2010-05-20 Dinner at Tin Shed

The Tin Shed is a great place for dinner. The views across to Thorntons Peak and the Daintree are superb and prawn shells tossed off the balcony are snatched by hungry fish.

2010-05-20 Shannons Lane ford

A lovely ford river crossing near where fruit wines are made.

2010-05-20 Mosman Gorge

The wild cassowary spotted by Chloe at Mosman Gorge.

2010-05-20 Mosman

Mosman is another local town unaffected by tourism.

2010-05-20 Port Douglas hill view

The view from the hill lookout along 4 Mile Beach and back towards Cairns is worth a look.

2010-05-21 Port Douglas Carnivale

Carnivale is a local festival with lots of events and of course a parade.

Here's a video of the Windsell float at Carnivale with me driving.

2010-05-22 Port Douglas 4 mile

Hanging out at 4 Mile Beach park waiting for the wind.

2010-05-24 Sailaway sunset cruise

The sunset cruise on Sailaway is a nice trip.

2010-05-24 Stand up paddle boards at Port Douglas

My first go on a standup paddleboard (SUP). I was surprised at how much fun it is. Great for when there is no wind.

2010-05-25 Bike ride to Cape Tribulation

The bike ride from Port Douglas to Cape Tribulation is one of the best I have ever done. Riding through the rainforest is a delight.

2010-05-26 Quaid Road cycle tour

A dog named Moose at the 9 mile Roadhouse on the road to Mount Molloy. I did this ride from Port Douglas, inland to Mount Molloy, along to Quaid Road, then along it to Wangetti, then back to Port.

2010-05-27 Kitecam 4 mile

Kitecam shots at 4 Mile and on downwinders to the Surf Club.

Democracy relies on transparency yet political party room discussions are secret

2010-05-12T23:11:00.000+10:00

I put the following post on my Facebook account:

So democracy relies on transparency, openness and public debate, yet political party room discussions are secret. Isn't this wrong?

Monday at 22:46 via Facebook for Android

This status update has attracted by far the most number of comments so far. I have reproduced them under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence my Facebook content is licensed with.

Gail Plowman, Nick Bursey and 2 others like this.

Oliver Minter i dont think so... politicians need to be able to discuss things however they do it - not everything should be taped and broadcasted - becoz the broadcast WILL ALWAYS BE EDITED AND OUT OF CONTEXT unless u think all australians have the time to have like a spare earpiece listening to the whole context of a meeting whilst we r at work or play?!

Monday at 22:58 ·

Oliver Minter But i'm all for openness and transparency Peter - the new invention of Participatory Budgeting is an example of this - but even this is incredibly complicated - if u want to see citizens on video learning how to vote on their local government budget and exactly where that money should go - i can send u links...

Monday at 23:01 ·

Sarah Holt-Foreman Oliver makes a very valid point. There comes a time when we need to allow politicians to do their job without every utterance being analysed or misinterpreted.

Monday at 23:05 ·

Peter Campbell The problem I see is that none of there utterances inside their top secret party rooms are ever made public unless there is a leak. People vote for local members to represent them, not for a secret society that regularly hold secret meetings pertaining to public policy and legislation. This seems like a serious contradiction to me. If the full context is available, then the record could be set straight. It is in parliament.

Monday at 23:14 ·

Oliver Minter i didnt think ALL of parliament is publicly taped and available - i thought just some of it is.. but maybe i'm wrong.. but i still agree with Sarah... aniway even if someone was to tape me in my own deliberations about an issue - i make many mistakes and change my mind - i wouldnt want media trying to take that thinking process out of my head and into misrepresentation..

Monday at 23:20 ·

Rachel King Eww politicians, dont trust them as far as I could throw one, the media is worse than the lot with their bias and propoganda. I loved this quote: "The modern proletariat is still just as self-satisfied with living in sub-standard conditons as he was at the time of Marx's writing, the only thing that now supresses him from uprising is the constant ...

Yesterday at 01:34 ·

Oliver Minter absolutely agree with u Rachel.. and unfortunately i am realising that 'Google' is far from a good thing - having one sole company in charge of ordering our internet searches for all of our information needs?! surely thats like saying "i'm happy with only ONE TV channel - thats all i need!!!

Yesterday at 01:41 ·

Rachel King hmmmm, exactly

Yesterday at 01:42 ·

Oliver Minter and pity none of these posts are "shareable" on facebook..

Yesterday at 01:42 ·

Oliver Minter Rachel- i think i'm insane!! Either i forget an enormous amount of important stuff that i have learned VERY frequently or i am just DUMB - becoz i honestly forgot that i felt that way about Google!! Completely forgot... Google is my homepage - its what i feel i need - just like the practicality and predictability of MacDonalds!!

Yesterday at 01:46 ·

Rob Jansson Never underestimate the importance of double speak in controlling the populous.

Yesterday at 04:18 ·

Oliver Minter what do u mean Rob?

Yesterday at 04:21 ·

Oliver Minter i think the whole issue Peter has brought up is important and we mustn't get too down about stuff- we are absolutley in the middle of one of the most important times in history- to me it compares to the wierd syncronicty that led to the hippie/left/socialism movement of the 60's and 70's.. which woz marked by an unprecedented number of pple in the western world becoming extremely politically active which then led of corse to an inevitable tipping point..

Yesterday at 04:26 ·

Oliver Minter i may be being a little too hopeful but all i mean is in the 50's and 60's Television gave information to the globe like never before in the 80's the internet woz born .. but in the 2000's - social networking and and social and peer created news was created - like wikipedia for example .. citizens around the world became more locally policticall y aware - the Global Greens movement didnt come from federal or state based politics but local..

Yesterday at 04:30 ·

Oliver Minter For the first time in all of human history - a political party can make an enormous amount of money just from little individuals like us on facebook...

Yesterday at 04:31 ·

Oliver Minter and that is only possible becoz we have online money now..

Yesterday at 04:32 ·

Peter Campbell Major parties seek the same prize - getting a majority of themselves elected so they can form a government. As they focus more on the prize and less on their notional roots and "visions" they converge onto the same turf. They seek broad appeal, to win over any undecided voters, and to discredit other parties that threaten them. The whole system has devolved into a game like Survivor, with about the same lack of sense and perspective. And a lot of it is secret.

Yesterday at 21:11 ·

Rachel King People who strive for power are the wrong type to be leading anyone. By discrediting opposing parties rather than the focus being upon how they can improve is to their own discredit. It becomes apparent how self serving they all are, give them a wage that equals that of the blue collar man and then see who fights for the PM position (not that it will ever happen)

Yesterday at 21:24 ·

Rob Jansson Double speak and hypocracy are the primary afflictions of modern democracies. These days the most successful politician would publically advocate the importance of transparency but have lots of secret meetings. The tradgedy is that darwinistically speaking what we most often end up with for politicians are people who are really good at deception.

The really good cheaters are allowed to win and rule.

Yesterday at 04:43 ·

Oliver Minter look i agree with the issues raised by peter and u rob- but i honestly think your veiws are too simplistic..Democracy is absolutley extremely complicated and slow.. trying to organise your own test group of say 300 pple takes 10hrs and usually fails.. Local Government and local government citizen participation is the closest evidence we have in ...

Yesterday at 04:55 ·

Oliver Minter if u look at the youtube and internet versions of world first democratic citizens controlling a governments budget spending it is an absoltute eye opener..

Yesterday at 04:56 ·

Rachel King It seems to me (not wishing to sound like David Ikes right hand man) that no matter who gets in its still the same people running the show, just a different face ( or puppet). Did you see that the Rockafellers have been priming politicians again with their complementary holidays?

Yesterday at 21:03 ·

We need a carbon levy

2010-04-27T23:38:00.003+10:00

Labor's fatally compromised emissions trading scheme has now slipped into political oblivion but climate change has not.

Kevin Rudd is a coal-eating surrender monkey!

It is clear that we urgently need a price on carbon to provide incentives for people and industry to shift towards zero emissions energy sources.

Professor Ross Garnaut and many others now support the immediate introduction of a much simpler carbon levy which would supplement other initiatives and policies to reduce Australia's carbon emissions.

It is time for Kevin Rudd to implement a carbon levy now to give us the best chance of avoiding the looming consequences of dangerous climate change.

Link: Rudd delays carbon scheme until 2012

Is Stephen Conroy's Internet censorship a religious crusade?

2010-04-21T22:45:00.000+10:00

Stephen Conroy, a Victorian Senator, has been relentlessly pursuing government censorship of the Internet, claiming that this is required "to protect children from harmful content" and to "stop bad people exchanging harmful content". Unfortunately it will do neither.

While his motive is reasonable, his secret Internet black list is not. It will be easily subverted by the villains, and will be largely ineffective.

Unfortunately Senator Conroy has deaf ears to these concerns, and is blindly forging ahead with his ill-considered proposal. Who does he thinks he is "representing" as a Victorian Senator? Not me, nor many other Victorians I suspect. His fervour and devotion to this cause suggests possible religious motivations.

Along the way, he has claimed that the Internet is not special.and should be censored like books, films and newspapers. Senator Conroy has dismissed the torrent of criticism directed at his policy as "misleading information" spread by "an organised group in the online world".

He has also ignored the obvious similarities to China's Great Internet Firewall censorship.

Australia has just made Google's top 10 censorship list of countries that have asked the search engine Google to hand over user data or to censor information.

Internet censorship is part of a steady drift towards Big Brother. CCTV, secret police lists, anti-terrorism and anti-organised crime laws that all impinge in individual rights. Oh, and no Bill of Rights either.

So the Labor Government is happy to behave like the autocratic Chinese Government? Its a disgrace!

The solution is for people to install personal content filters if they wish, and for the goverment and police to actively pursue and prosecute wrongdoers.

According to the U.S. Ambassador, "the United States has been able to accomplish the goals that Conroy has described for Australia, which is to capture and prosecute child pornographers, without having to use internet filters". So can Australia.

External links

Internetblackout.com.au
Great Intenet blackout, Greenlivingpedia.org
Left reasons to oppose the net filter #nocleanfeed, larvatusprodeo.net
US ambassador critical of Conroy's internet filters

Senator Kim Carr happily subsidises fossil fuel but not electric vehicles

2010-04-18T23:04:00.001+10:00

It is very disappointing that the Australian Government continues to provide massive subsidies for fossil fuels - around $9 billion per year - while Senator Kim Carr has ruled out any subsidies for electric vehicles.

From the Sydney Morning Herald:

The federal government instead believes the future of the car industry lies in the development of existing technology across petrol, diesel and LPG engines.

''It's not our intention to run programs to support any particular form of technology,'' Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research Kim Carr said.

This is yet another example of the failure of the Australian Government and our elected representatives to provide leadership towards a low carbon future.

Electric vehicles can reduce our carbon emissions if they replace fossil fuel powered vehicles, and they can achieve zero emissions when the source of electricity for recharging them is 100% renewable energy.

This is also a missed opportunity to develop an electric vehicle that could be exported around the world. China, France, Japan, the United States, Germany, Korea and India are all building electric vehicles.

Kim Carr's so called "green car fund" spends $1billion of Australian taxpayers money on very dubious projects such as a "green 6 cyclinder motor" (Ford Australia).

Not surprisingly, the oil companies in Australia regard their profits from fossil fuels to be "safe for 10 years".

Kim, the government should subside the development of low emissions technologies. You should also remove all subsidies on fossil fuel use.

Catholics need to deal with sexual abuse by Priests

2010-04-17T09:39:00.004+10:00

I have for years regarded the Catholic religion as distorting the teachings of Christ in many ways.

For example, Jesus spoke nothing about priests, bishops, popes or celibacy.

Even the building of massive churches and cathedrals - common across many forms of Christianity - is foreign to the teaching of Jesus. Jesus said that "the people are the church".

Now the worst kept secret for many years - that there are high rates of child sexual abuse and paedophilia among Catholic priests - is making headlines.

This has been a problem for decades - in fact centuries.

The Catholic church - all the way up to the current Pope - has developed a culture of denial and avoidance of this issue. They judge the perceived harm to their church as greater than the obvious effect on victims. I think this is a huge mistake.

Children in a congregation, choir or the like, look to their Catholic (or any other) priest as a person of special status and a link to God. They are regarded as morally correct and essentialy "good". Imagine what happens when that trust and respect is shattered by sexual abuse. Lifelong negative impacts on victim's lives result.

Denial and a lack of action by church authorities compound the problem. The victims are doubly victimised. Offending priests are moved elsewhere and even promoted, when they should be expelled and put through rehabilitation programs.

The entire Catholic church needs to accept full responsibility for this huge problem and deal with it. They need to stop blaming the victims, gays, "outsiders", and drop the pretence that in some weird way the "church is the victim".

I think a root cause of the common sexual perversion among Catholic priests is their mandatory celibacy. As far as I can tell from limited research, the original Catholic priests were not celibate. The Vatican became concerned around the 10C that priests were accumulating personal wealth and power and drifting away from the influence and direct control of the Vatican.

Their solution to this was to make priests celibate - thereby denying them legitimate offspring - and breaking their ability to accumulate and pass on wealth. This was dressed up as "interpretations of scripture" with notions of holiness and virtue.

Unfortunately, the reverse has occurred. The end result in an alarming number of cases worldwide is perversion and sexual abuse.

The Catholic church undoubtedly does a lot of good things in many societies - but this issue threatens to overwhelm them if they don't deal with it and the perpetrators appropriately. All other churches should take similar action too. One sexual abuse case is too many.

For the sake of their victims I hope they do so soon.

In the meanwhile, keep your children away from circumstances where celibate priests may have the opportunity to molest them.

Roads, water, smart meters and the 2010 Victorian state election

2010-03-28T09:51:00.003+11:00

The phoney campaign for the 2010 Victorian state election is well and truly underway. Unfortunately, this highlights the failings of politics and government to follow due process, public consultation and make appropriate decisions. Some examples follow.

Smart meters
The business case for smart meters has not been proven, yet residents are being forced to pay for them whether they want them or not. Greater benefits at much lower cost could have been obtained by installing simple in house energy meter displays to allow consumers to see real time how much power they are are using and therefore set about reducing it. Unfortunately, these "in home displays" have been dropped from the mandatory section of the Victorian Government's smart meter specification.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/smarts-on-hold-but-consumers-still-paying-for-meter-20100327-r48y.html

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/smart-meters-another-dumb-economic-idea-20100412-s40m.html

Water
The Brumby government has embarked on a carbon intensive and environmentally damaging water strategy that also has no solid business case. The north south pipeline steals water from the chronically deprived Murray Darling basin and sends it over the divide to Melbourne. The desalination plant will consume large amounts of energy, pollute the Bass Coast, and result in high net carbon emissions. Meanwhile, water tanks, recycling and stopping logging in water catchments are all ignored, despite being more effective, cheaper and better for the environment.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/brumbys-water-plan-savaged-20100327-r4dh.html

The relaxing of stage 3A water restrictions is a political stunt for the election. Melbourne's water storages are still too low for this.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/water-restrictions-never-again-above-stage-3-20100316-qcl6.html?autostart=1

The economics of the desalination plan just don't stack up, and due diligence has not been a feature of the business case or the planning/approval process for it.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/water-plans-drift-behind-a-veil-of-secrecy-20100411-s0os.html

Planning
The internal workings of Government - including sham public consultations - is revealed in the media strategy written by Planning Minister Justin Madden's media advisor and accidentally sent to the media. Madden and Brumby have claimed repeatedly that the document is "unusual" and "irregular: and even that they have "seen nothing like it". What a load of nonsense. This sort of spin and manipulation is clearly common.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/madden-media-plan-shows-the-inner-workings-of-spin-20100306-ppts.html

What has Victorian Attorney General Rob Hulls and the Brumby Government go to hide? Given a Ministerial advisor wrote at document that indicates planning processes would be subverted (for the Windsor), why should they be "excluded" from giving evidence to a Parliamentary Committee? This has a whiff of corruption about it.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/labor-advisers-may-face-jail-20100412-s47q.html

Public transport
Decades of neglect and inadequate funding for Victoria's public transport by both Labor and Liberal governments have taken their toll. Trains don't run on time, or at all, and are packed when they do. Trams in the city are infrequent and now crowded to capacity. Privatisation is a failure. The new Metro operator is as bad or worse than the previous one.

The majority of funding in the 40b dollar transport plan is still going to roads and freeways.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/brumby-rail-promise-stalls-20100214-nzgk.html

Logging old growth forests
The 2010 Timber Release Plan (TRP) for East Gippland published by the Victorian Government will dramatically increase old growth forest logging in 2010. It deliberately targets old growth forest areas from maps used during negotiations with environment groups about the government's 2006 election commitment to "protect that last significant old growth forest in East Gippsland" Download the letter to get the full story.

http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Image:2010_VicForests_logging_letter.pdf

VicForests, under the control of the Victorian Government, has been taken to court by Environment East Gippsland to protect Brown Mountain. The government refused to take appropriate action to protect endangered species such as the Potoroo from logging. It is to be hoped the judge finds the government should do what the law says and survey for threatened species in forests before logging them. Currently they don't - because they don't want to find them - which would mean they can't log the forests.

http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Brown_Mountain_old_growth_forest

This track record is not good. I think it may even cost them the next election. Unfortunately, a Liberal/National government would most likely continue with all these flawed policies and practices.

So think about voting Green or independent and choose carefully where YOUR preference goes.

Smart roads or dumb politicians?

2010-03-07T08:07:00.002+11:00

After decades of far too little in investment in public transport, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, our roads are now grindng to a halt. Gridlock, or near gridlock, is choking Melbourne. Short journeys that take 20 minutes in no traffic can now take over an hour.

VicRoads is part of the problem. When you have a government department with a brief to build and manage roads that consume most of the transport budget, all you get is roads and freeways.

No one in transport or government seems to understand basic maths about how may cars it takes to move too few people - and when the system grinds to a halt.

So now "Smartroads" is announced. While this seems to be step in the right direction - trying to optimise road use between multiple types of transport - in reality this is what VicRoads has been attempting to do unsuccessfully for the last decade and prior.

The basic assumption that roads - and shared usage - will solve transport needs in a big city is incorrect.

Trying to juggle usage patterns according to the time of day is futile too. Peak hour used to be when everybody wants to travel, but now we have constant "peak hour" in many places over much of the day - including on weekends. Cars and trucks get in the way of cyclists, trams and buses at all times.

The solutions we need are:

Convert Melbourne's tram network into a dedicated light rail metro, free from interference by cars and trucks
Provide safe dedicated cycling routes that allow commuters to travel up to 50km into and across Melbourne from all directions. Bike lanes painted on lines that cars drive across, or bike routes based on the "time of day" won't work
Build more heavy rail - Melbourne's population has increased by over 3 million people with no more rail infrastructure added to service new suburbs.
Introduce a congestion tax on cars travelling with less than two people in central Melbourne.
Genuine public consultation on transport options rather than government departments and politicians dressing up "business as usual" as something new.

Submission on National Heritage Listing of the Tarkine

2010-03-05T12:10:00.002+11:00

Peter Campbell
Address supplied

Australian Heritage Council
GPO Box 787
CANBERRA ACT 2601

Via email: ahc@environment.gov.au

5th March 2010

Public comment submission on: National Heritage Listing of the Tarkine, north west Tasmania.

I am writing to support the recent Emergency National Heritage Listing of the Tarkine. I have visited the area and was greatly impressed by its cultural and natural values. I firmly believe these values justify a National Heritage listing.

The natural and cultural values of the Tarkine I think are particularly important and well recognised include;

One of the richest archaeological sites in Tasmania with the diversity and density of Aboriginal sites ranking it among "the world's greatest archaeological sites''. There are hut site remains, pebble causeways, numerous extensive middens and petroglyphs
The largest single tract of rainforest in Australia, and the largest Wilderness dominated by rainforest in Australia with over 190,000 ha of rainforest in total
The northern limit of Huon Pine
A high diversity of wet tall eucalypt forests including large, contiguous areas of Eucalyptus obliqua
A great diversity of other vegetation communities, such as dry sclerophyll forest and woodland, buttongrass moorland, sandy littoral communities, wetlands, grassland, dry coastal vegetation and sphagnum communities
A high diversity of non-vascular plants (mosses, liverworts and lichens) including at least 151 species of liverworts and 92 species of mosses
A diverse vertebrate fauna including 28 terrestrial mammals, 111 land and freshwater birds, 11 reptiles, 8 frogs and 13 freshwater fish
Over 50 rare, threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna, including the Tasmanian Wedge Tailed Eagle and Giant Freshwater Crayfish
A complex and diverse invertebrate fauna, including; at least 16 species found nowhere else, the largest freshwater invertebrate on earth (Astacopsis gouldi) and one of the richest amphipod (a type of small crustacean) fauna diversities in the world
Globally unique magnesite karst systems in the Lyons/Keith/Arthur River areas and at Main Rivulet/ Bowry Creek area
Excellent examples of joint controlled drainage features (e.g. Huskisson syncline, Meredith Range, Rapid River)
Significant coastal features such as the Sandy Cape dune field, which are among the largest in Australia, and the Arthur River estuary (probably the best example of a large river estuary in good condition in Tasmania)
Dolomite karst systems in the Trowutta/Sumac/Black River region and Karst landforms in the 'Ahrberg' group (Donaldson and Upper Rapid rivers)
The largest basalt plateau in Tasmania retaining its original vegetation
Other geomorphic features such as the Bulgobac glacial end moraine and fossil sites at Marionoak and Hatfield River
Large areas of high quality wilderness centred on the Meredith Range and the Sumac region and three separate areas (Norfolk Range, Mt Bertha/Donaldson River and Savage/Keith River) which abut each other, creating a continuous stretch of wilderness covering much of the proposed National Heritage Area;
Areas of high quality scenic value such as; Australia's largest tract of rainforest, the Meredith Range, the Norfolk Range and the coastline

The Tarkine contains a wide diversity of values. It is a significant area that contains a large proportion of true wilderness.

I commend it’s listing to the members of the Australian Heritage Council, and encourage you to recommend it’s permanent inclusion on the National Heritage List.

I believe World Heritage listing should also be considered for this unique and precious region.

Signed,
Peter Campbell

Should Peter Garrett stay or go?

2010-02-26T22:49:00.002+11:00

The recent problems with the botched federal home insulation scheme is another example of politics leading to perverse outcomes.

The case for improving energy efficiency of our buildings - both commercial and residential - is quite clear. Improvements in energy efficiency of both the building envelope and appliances translate to less energy use and therefore less carbon emissions.

The Labor government announced a grand scheme to put insulation in the roofs of 2 million homes. This sounded good.

However, haste makes waste. Rolling the scheme out in a hurry for political reasons - possibly due to the desire to get some wins on the board in the lead up to the next federal election has led to serious problems, including:

insulation being replaced when it did not need to be
substandard installation, which reduces the efficiency of the insulation
unsafe work practices - one installed died due to heat exhaustion and others died from electrocution linked to foil insulation and staples contacting house wiring
unsafe houses - thousands are now at risk of ceiling fires due to faulty installation
with the scheme now canned, many installers are now out of work, or soon will be.

All this was done under the oversight of Environment Minister Peter Garrett, who has no background or experience in either building regulations, program management or insulation.

In addition, the States are responsible for building codes and enforcing safe building practices, not Peter Garrett. This fact seems to have been completely overlooked by the mainstream media.

Garrett's department is obviously at fault too - he has apparently been given little or no information regarding the risks of the accelerated program. If this is the case then senior figures in his department should be disciplined. If Garrett is not telling the truth about when he read the risk report, he should be sacked.

As it is, Garrett has been demoted, with the insulation rollout being shifted to Penny Wong's Department of Climate Change. Of course, Penny Wong and Greg Combet no nothing about insulation either. And Penny Wong has presided over the political debacle of the CPRS.

Our political system is demonstrably incapable of considered and/or efficient action on this type of initiative. Politics simply perverts what should straight forward and simple.

On the balance of it, I think Peter Garrett should have been demoted, but I think that someone senior in his department should be too. Kevin Rudd needs to accept responsibility for the failure of governance that allowed these problems to occur.

The insulation program should be under the jurisdiction of a non-political taskforce with the right skills and oversight, not politicians.

Link: Peter Garrett pushed aside by PM

Why Myki should be canned - now

2010-02-26T00:27:00.001+11:00

I have given the new Myki "smart card" travelling system a go for a while now. The large number of major problems with the system - and the manufacturers inability to fix them after over 3 years development and $800+ million - lead me the conclusion that the whole system should be scrapped.

The basic technology architecture of the system is badly flawed, and the functional requirements (such as touching off) are nonsense too.

Here are a few of the issues I have encountered.:

Very slow "touch off" response - you have to leave the card on the reader for about a second to get it read. If you "swipe" the card it won't be read. This is too slow for long queues of commuters. Possible causes could be substandard readers or network latency. Both hard to fix.
Complex fare structure. Complexity is bad. It is expensive to code for and manage.
Myki doesn't work on trams. This is mandatory requirement for an integrated ticketing system. If I catch a train to work why would I rule out catching a tram during lunch?
A poorly designed website. You have to "purchase credit" for a card you don't have to get to an option to order a card. The site is confusing to operate and fails basic design principles you would expect an undergraduate to meet.
For the huge cost, the system offers very little benefits to public transport users, especially in its current form. It is actually inferior to the current Metcard system on several counts.
Melbourne's public transport users need more train lines, more trains, .more drivers and more frequent services, not a half baked ticketing system that is really designed to fill the pockets of private operators and government coffers.
There was no public consultation on the design of or the need for this ticketing system.

The Bracks Labor government minister Peter Batchelor commissioned the project for reasons best know to the Labor government. Now its a train wreck. Let us stop throwing good money after bad and just use the card readers in the current Metcard system - that are there but have never been commissioned.

Update: Apparently Myki is working on a few trams, but use it at your peril. Ticket inspectors could fine you as it is not "officially working'. Based on past experience with these inspectors, they could well fine you. They obviously have instructions to maximise revenue and not consider mitigating circumstances.

Public transport - a paradigm shift is needed

2010-01-20T23:13:00.004+11:00

Transport Minister Lyn Kosky has just quit politics, but the public transport debacle is not just her fault - it lies with the Labor government (and preceeding Liberal governments) that have spent far too little on new trains, tracks and better services.

The perennial low budget allocation for public transport compared to roads is the major reason that public transport infrastructure is now groaning to keep up with demand.

Over three million more people now live in Melbourne than when the train network was built - and the last new train line constructed in 1930 - the Glen Waverley line.

Far too little is allocated to serious improvements in sustainable transport infrastructure such as:

New train tracks to suburbs not currently serviced by trains - such as the planned (but never delivered) Rowville (servicing Monash Uni) and Doncaster lines.
Turning Melbourne's slow and inefficient tram network into a faster more efficient light rail network that is not impeded by traffic
Safe and direct bike paths to provide commute and recreational riding within suburbs and to central Melbourne - with proper signposting
A metro for inner Melbourne to take the load off congested CBD streets - linking Richmond, Fitzroy, Carlton, Melbourne University, North Melbourne, South Melbourne
Undergrounding several CBD trams to free up streets for pedestrians and street life.
Return public transport to public ownership and operation. The current blame game and lack of accountability for service delivery and quality - between Government and private operators - must stop.

Martin Pakula, a unionist before he entered politics, is now the Minister for Public Transport. Don't hold your breath for any rapid improvements to public transport - or shift in the Brumby government's priority focus on roads and freeways.

With climate change upon us, it is to be hoped that this situation will turn around so Melbourne's residents have convenient and effective climate friendly transport options available.

Links

Public Transport Minister Lynne Kosky quits politics

Is an Android phone better than an iPhone?

2010-01-13T00:19:00.001+11:00

I have been using an HTC Magic phone for two months. It is powered by the open source Android mobile operating system that Google was involved in creating.

My experience is that the platform provides excellent access to Internet services such as browsing, searching, accessing email and contacts (via Gmail or other web account), and it also performs well as a phone.

I think the killer features are:

Unified contacts list via Gmail - no more scattered contacts between phones, PDAs, laptops and email clients
Tethering is available without hacking the phone so you can use it as a modem
Integration with Google maps and GPS. You can hyperlink to maps directly from contact and calendar addresses, and use Google Maps to navigate there.

This Greenlivingpedia article provides more details.

In summary, I thin that Android has many features that make it superior to an iPhone, and many of the handsets are cheaper. You also now have a wider choice of handsets, including Samsung, HTC, Motorola (the Droid) and now even Google with its Nexus One (currently only available in the United States, and is manufactured by HTC).

Japanese whaling must stop now

2010-01-07T09:02:00.003+11:00

The Japanese are still insisting on whaling in the southern ocean adjacent to Australia's Antarctic Territory. Their excuses for this appalling slaughter of whales are nonsense.

They claim they kills whales for scientific purposes, yet there are no scientific publications of any consequence resulting. One whale maybe, but certainly not a thousand.

They claim it is a traditional activity and that they like to eat whale meat. This is a direct contradiction to the first excuse, and it is also false. The Japanese have no traditions of eating whale meat, and have only recently engaged in large marketing campaigns in Japan to get people to eat more.

The Japanese do not need to kill or eat whales. This barbaric activity must stop.

A Japanese escort ship has just rammed and sunk the Andy Gill, one of Sea Shepherd's boats attempting to prevent them whaling. This is a deliberate and hostile action that could easily have resulted in a loss of life.

The Australian Government (Peter Garrett and Kevin Rudd) must take immediate action to enforce international law regarding the protection of whales, and they must send a ship to the Southern Ocean to ensure that peace is kept and no deaths result.

As individuals we can also boycott all Japanese goods and products until they stop the whaling

Running a lightweight OS on my Netbook

2009-12-24T21:48:00.002+11:00

I investigated running a lightweight operating system on my Netbook to get off Windows XP. I looked at Ubuntu Net Remix and Moblin but consider their simplified interfaces too restrictive.

I will be interested to see how the Google Chrome OS compares when it is available.

In the end I installed Kubuntu 9.10 (Karmic Koala) from a USB drive as a dual boot option. Details on the installation and configuration are available in this article on Greenlivinpedia. Being a wiki, you can edit the article and add more information if you wish too.

http://www.greenlivingpedia.org/Kubuntu

My overall impressions are that Kubuntu Karmic Koala 9.10 is polished, easy to use, stable and quite slick. For those thinking of moving from Windows XP or Vista, this is a compelling option.

The failure of Copenhagen

2009-12-20T23:12:00.004+11:00

I was not optimistic that a strong and binding global agreement would be reached at Copenhagen in December, but the so called "Copenhagen Accord" still came as a bitter disappointment.

It is apparent that most of the so called "developed nations" are not willing to curb their indulgent and excessive use of fossil fuels. These nations, including the United States, Europe, Australia and Canada, have produced most of the carbon emissions to date and still have very high per capita carbon emissions, yet they are unwilling to take substantive action to reduce their emissions.

For example, Kevin Rudd was only prepared to commit to a 5% emission reduction target, and he capped the "negotiating range" prior to Copenhagen first at 15% then at 25%. Yet in Bali in 2008, it was agreed based on scientific advice that developed nations should make cuts in the 25% to 40% range.

Australia negotiated at Copenhagen in bad faith. A 5% target is ludicrous and the 25% target was an absolute minimum rather than a maximum.

Many small and developing nations - such as Tuvalu in the Pacific - are feeling severe impacts of climate change through sea levels rises that are engulfing them. Little wonder they were not impressed by rich developed nations ignoring their plight and refusing to put significant emission reduction cuts of 40% or greater on the table.

I believe that the only fair and equitable target is to restrict carbon emissions to 2 tonnes per person per year. This would create a level playing field for all humanity.

The Copenhagen accord is a political agreement that specifies a voluntary target of restricting global temperature increase to 2C. However, current emissions by the world's nations put us on track for a 3.5C rise which scientists tell us would be catastrophic.

It is clear that global and national political and economic systems are failing to address climate change and associated ecosystem collapse, even though we have the technology and opportunity to move to low carbon economies and lifestyles.

It is time for the blame game to end. We must set and achieve goals to ensure a safe climate future such as limiting per capita carbon emissions to 2 tonnes per person, limiting global temperature increases to 1.5C, and reducing atmospheric CO2 to between 300-350ppm.

Links

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009, Greenlivingpedia
Climate code red: A climate con: Analysis of the "Copenhagen Accord", David Spratt

Will Copenhagen yield a safe climate outcome?

2009-12-13T00:09:00.004+11:00

The international negotiations at Copenhagen to limit and reduce greenhouse gas emissions have some significant hurdles to overcome.

The governments of first world countries such as the United States, Canada and Australia wish to continue their high energy use and/or export of fossil fuels and do not seem willing or capable of undertaking structural and economic reforms to move to low carbon economies.

These countries also want the ability to "offset"some of their emissions by "purchasing credits" from developing nations. This is an exercise of smoke and mirrors, as offsets in reality mean no a country can avoid emission reductions.

Developing nations such as China and India wish to continue their growth in use of carbon dioxide emitting fossil fuels as their economies and lifestyles grow and change towards the levels of first world countries.

Small and poor nations, many of which are bearing the immediate brunt of climate change - such as many Pacific Island nations and African nations - want immediate significant emission reductions by first world counties and also money from them to improve their economies and living standards.

Given these tensions, it seems unlikely that the Copenhagen negotiations will yield a binding treaty that will move us collectively towards a safe climate future - one where global temperature increases are kept below 1.5C and atmospheric CO2 is below 350ppm.

I think it is likely that the outcome will be:

a voluntary "non-binding" political agreement
offsets will be allowed
emissions trading will be endorsed - even though in most cases it will not reduce emissions
greenhouse gas measurements and reporting will not be subject to independent reviews

If this is the case we will need to rethink our approach and mechanisms for addressing and tacking climate change - as "politics as usual" will have failed to give us the best chance of a safe climate future.

I have described the commercial, social and political pressures that were are facing in this wiki article: The end of the world as we know it.

I am documenting progress and outcomes at Copenhagen in this wiki article: Copenhagen Climate Change Conference 2009

I think the only fair and equitable policy to adopt is to decide on an appropriate carbon emissions per capita amount that all countries should commit to reduce their emissions too.

This figure would be lower than what China is currently emitting, and much lower than most other developed nations. Perhaps Costa Rica is at the best level already?

Will Clive Hamilton win Higgins for the Greens?

2009-12-04T15:55:00.004+11:00

Clive Hamilton is running as the Greens candidate for the "blue ribbon" Liberal seat of Higgins in inner suburban Melbourne. Clive is the author of several books, including Affluenza and Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change.

Labor decided to not run a candidate. Their motives for this are not clear but it seems they think the seat will be held by the Liberals so it is a waste of their effort.

But Tony Abbott's recent ascendency to opposition leader, thanks have changed.

The residents of Higgins would be justified in feeling abandoned by Peter Costello, and many would be greatly concerned by the Liberal Party's lurch to the right under Tony Abbott, and several recent statements for prominent liberals denying that climate change is happening.

The Liberal candidate is a political animal whose CV includes a stint in right wing student politics at Melbourne University - where she attempted unsuccessfully to shut down the Environment Office - then time in Peter Costello's office as a staffer. She fits the mode of "born to rule and done my party political time".

She is presenting as a "local candidate interested in local issues" and refuses to comment in any detail on climate change and what she will do about it.

In reality, if elected she will become just another muppet on the backbench, silent for most of the time and voting for the Liberal party line. So much for democratic representation.

The question is how many "rusted on" Liberal voters will vote for her? It seems likely that there will be swing against the Liberals based on public concerns about climate and change and the lack of any coherent Liberal/Coalition policy on this topic, and the recently vocal "denialists" such as Nick Minchin and his gang who recently "took out" Malcolm Turnbull.

It is interesting to note that while Turnbull did take a principled stand on climate change he backed a loser with the CPRS - which has been so heavily corrupted by industry handouts and exclusions (such as petrol and agriculture) - that it will not reduce Australia's emissions.

Getting back to Higgins, voters have a clear choice between a candidate that stands for real action on climate change and one who is really only interested in her political career in the Liberal Party.

I predict:

a 3% swing against the Liberals, but they will retain the seat 54/46 two party preferred
the Liberal primary vote will fall to 48% - which will be a significant outcome in itself

Let us hope that the good voters of Higgins send a clear message on climate change to our politicians. If Clive Hamilton is elected (I will be happy to be proven wrong on this) it will send schockwaves through both Labor and Liberal parties.

It will also help us avoid the end of the world as we know it.

It will also bode well for the Greens prospects in other seats in the 2010 Australian federal and Victorian state elections.

We need funding and improved infrastructure for public transport

2009-12-01T23:29:00.004+11:00

After several decades of neglect, Melbourne's public transport system is now running at capacity and old infrastructure is failing. Some examples of this are:

Wooden sleepers still abound - many over 60 years old
Trains fail when it is "too wet" and "too hot"
The old Hitachi trains are clapped out and have very high failure rates
No new suburban railway lines have been built since the Glen Waverley line in 1930
The signal system is ancient - and apparently so arcane hardly anyone knows how to maintain or replace it
No double decker trains are in use - despite one being trialled for a couple of years on the Belgrave line - apparently successfully. I caught it and it worked fine.
Trains don't have enough route information in them. The tiny maps are hard to locate, difficult to read, and only coloured according to zones (not lines).
The maps of tram routes are almost impossible to decipher. They are all in yellow and the numbers that designate routes are very small and hard to find.

So what have successive governments done?

Both Labor and Liberal governments have taken a "spend as little as possible" approach, regarding public transport as a burden to provide and adminster.

Jeff Kennett privatised it, with glowing promises of improvements and greater efficiency. None resulted, and the various operators morphed into single operators for train, tram and bus.

The Bracks (then Brumby) government did not reverse the privatisation, despite its obvious failure to deliver benefits. The Brumby government renewed the licences of operators, then this year change the companies that "operate" both the tram and train networks.

This is just changing the lipstick on the pig. Now millions will be spent on rebranding and new uniforms. This money would be better spent in improving and renewing infrastructure.

The train operator is even called "Metro", so now apparently we have a "metro" in name only - when the city really needs a decent new metro and more outer suburban lines.

We have a new behemoth Southern Cross Station, which also does nothing to improve train services.

The 8 billion dollar tunnel project to connect Footscray with Caulfield has gone very quiet; presumably it will have a slow and quiet death. Its benefits are dubious in any case, and it is not a metro project, despite government spin suggesting that it is. Heavy underground rail is not a metro.

The Liberal opposition criticises the Brumby government but refuses to commit to any increased expenditure as well. If the Brumby government gets turfed out - as they may - the Liberals would continue on in the same vein.

Please consider writing to your local MP on this issue. It seems they really don't care. It is up to us to make them care, and the city of Melbourne and its inhabitants (including car drivers) will all benefit if they do improve public transport.

External links

Rail woes mount for Metro, The Age, 1 December 2009

Turnbull digs and backs the corrupted CPRS

2009-11-27T23:56:00.005+11:00

While watching Malcolm Turnbull back the losing CPRS and the Liberal Party climate change denialists go for his scalp may be bloodsport for some, the "debate" needs to be re-framed to actually reducing emissions.

Here is a profile that illustrates a possible emission reduction trajectory to reach zero emissions by 2050.

It is interesting to compare the emission reductions projected above with the recent historical emissions of various countries.

The United States has the highest per capital emissions in the world
Australia is among the top three in the world, and emissions have increased dramatically over the last two decades
Germany, Denmark and Switzerland have all achieved emission reductions and have half (or less) of Australia's emissions
China's per capita emissions have increased, but are still less than one quarter of Australia's
India and Costa Rica have about one tenth of Australia's per capita emissions.

Source: Australian emission reductions projected, Greenlivingpedia

It is time to get rid of state governments in Australia

2009-11-21T18:18:00.004+11:00

State governments are no longer required. They are artifacts of a time when administration was restricted by the distance you could travel with a horse and cart. This time has obviously passed, especially with the advent of the Internet and modern communications.

Here are some reasons why they should go:

They are too parochial and cannot take action in the best interests of bio-regions or Australia. Just look at the death of the Murray Darling basin to inappropriate water management and climate change and the denial of environmental flows to the Snow River.
They are now middle-men, soaking up money allocated by the federal government (derived from Income tax, GST and other taxes) in their vast bureaucracies, and delivering precious little to the things that matter such as public transport infrastructure. Even traditional state management resources like hospitals and health services are struggling for money
They do not focus on regional and bio-regional services and projects. Public transport infrastructure and services in Melbourne are sorely neglected. There are no signficant major projects or initiatives to boost regional areas so that they will complement and provide alternatives for the over sized city of Melbourne.
They seem more interested in looking after the interests of big business such as car manufacturers, coal miners and energy companies rather than supporting real clean energy projects which offer fantastic opportunities for employment across the country - and even for exports.
Currently, the federal government is offering up to $40 million to States for bicycle-related infrastructure spending and none are asking for it or have projects to use it, even though cycling infrastructure is very poor across Australia (with the possible exception of Perth).

However, the challenges in getting rid of States include:

The Australian constitutions states that they must all agree to their demise - which is very unlikely
The federal government is currently not capable of providing services and local focus where it is needed
Strong bio-regional entities - with good grass roots democracy - are needed to take over the administration and service provision