Australian federal election 2022 - consider who you vote for

The next federal election in Australia is approaching. The date is not set - it will be called at the discretion of Scott Morrison, the incumbent Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal - National Party Coalition government. He will do this when he thinks he has the best chance of winning.

When will the election be held?

The first date for a normal house and half-Senate election was 7 August 2021 but that date has passed.

The last date for a normal house and half-Senate election is 21 May 2022. This date gives six weeks to complete the complex Senate count and allows Senators to be declared elected and start their terms on 1 July 2022. A mid-May election would be announced in early April 2022.

See: When can the Next Federal Election be Held? – Antony Green's Election Blog

Possible election dates are:

2022: February 26, March 5, 12, 19, 26 (with SA election moved), April 2, 9, May 21 as earlier dates overlap Easter and Anzac day

It is now likely the election will be in either March, April or May 2022

Morrison Government election campaign strategy

Strengths - issues they will attempt to campaign on.

• "Morrison the saviour" - leading Australia out of COVID-19 lockdowns, chastising the Labor states (VIC, QLD, WA) for "causing harm by draconian lockdowns".   See this thread from @aarondodd for more information.

• "Sound economic management" - providing financial measures to get Australia through the finanicial impacts of lockdown.

• Coal votes - keep promoting coal for "baseload power" and the importance of jobs associated with coal mining and profits from coal exports

• Border security - keep refugees detained in offshore gulags to "deter refugees arriving by boats"

• Defence and national security - publicly criticise China about the origins of COVID, human rights, occupation of islands in South China Sea. Keep speculating about possible war with China. Strengthen alliance and "military cooperation" with the United States, Indonesia and India.

Also read Great Scott: the grand narrative of Scott Morrison

Attacks - on other parties and candidates.

• "Labor are incompetent" - Labor is held hostage by Unions and will wreck the economy
• "Independents are stooges" - for other political parties
• "Greens are dangerous radicals" - with extreme left policies that will ruin Australia

Weaknesses - they will attempt to protect against

• Climate change - The Morrison government has set no long term or short term targets for reducing carbon emissions. They claim that "technology solutions" will be effective but there is no evidence that they will. They are still spending money on implausible "carbon capture and storage" projects.

• Great Barrier Reef - in peril from climate change, but the LNP successfully lobbied to stop the reef being listed as "endangered" by UNESCO

• COVID-19 responses 
• Vaccine delays: Failure to get enough appropriate vaccines in time and severe delays in getting the population vaccinated. Orders for Pfizer vaccines delayed for 6 months
• Vaccine politics: Reallocating Pfizer from Labor states to Sydney
• Vaccination campaign: Very poor public campaigns to encourage vaccination
• No quarantines: No provision of safe quarantine facilities - a Federal government responsibility
• Aged care deaths: 700+ deaths in federally regulated aged care homes from COVID-19, and no COVID-19 management plan for them
• Stranded Aussies: Morrison's failure to get home 40,000+ Australians stranded overseas for 18+ months

• Corruption - sport rorts, car park rorts, Great Barrier Reef foundation donation, electoral donations from fossil fuel companies [link]

• Treatment of women and sexual violence
• no action taken on alleged rape of Brittany Higgins in parliament building on 22 March 2019
• Morrison says he was not informed of the alleged rape until 15 February 2021. The Gaetjens inquiry about who in the Prime Minister's Office knew what and when has not been completed and will not be releases (its a cover up).
• Morrison Govt voted against 49 of the 55 recommendations made in the landmark Respect@Work report
• Morrison Govt held  "Women's Safety Summit" in early September 2021 which was a talkfest to "hear from women" - but not enact any new legislation.

Murdoch's Newscorp

 The Murdoch press provide propaganda to support the Morrison government.

Independents are making a stand

Several independent community-based grass roots candidates are running on platform of climate action, integrity and better treatment of women. Candidates include:

• Dr Monique Ryan, Kooyong 
• Zoe Daniel, Goldstein
• Aleggra Spender, Wentworth
• Dr Sophie Scamps, Mackeller
• Kylea Tink, North Sydney
• Zali Steggall, Warringah (re-contesting, won seat from Tony Abbott)

For a video see: The Project (@theprojecttv) December 20, 2021

Some things to consider when voting

• How has your local MP voted in parliament? Find out here: They Vote For You — How does your MP vote? 
• How do candidate's policies and statements align with your values?
• For candidates in political parties - how does their party's policies and statements align with your values
• What are candidate policies and statements on climate change, social justice, peace and environment, health, education and other things that matter to you?
• How have candidates contributed to public health response measures for COVID-19?
• The honesty, integrity, accountability and competence of each candidate.

This upcoming election will have a huge impact on Australia's and the world's future. Use your vote wisely.

Links

• As Scott Morrison feels the heat, Labor and Anthony Albanese must swing into gear 
• Morrison is gearing up for an election based on "freedom". Thread by @AaronDodd 
• Too late now, but ‘let it rip’ might prove tricky for Scott Morrison come election time, Hugh Riminton, The Guardian

Submission to Climate Change Bill 2020

To the House Standing Committee on the Energy and Environment regarding the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 and Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020

Via email: Environment.Reps@aph.gov.au. 

 

Dear Committee Secretariat,

I am a resident of Surrey Hills in Melbourne. We renovated our house in 2001 to improve its energy efficiency and we added solar panels and a battery system. I feel very strongly that climate change must be tackled as the primary threat confronting our country and a safe climate across Earth.

The Climate Change 2020 Bill put forward by Zali Steggall is a genuine attempt to break the political deadlock that has thwarted meaningful action to tackle climate change in Australia across 3 decades.

The Bill is an authentic proposal to build a legal and policy framework for national action on climate and energy policy.

 

The bill proposes to legislate a national net zero emissions target by 2050 and set five yearly emissions budgets and emissions reduction plans, consistent with limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees and pursuing efforts to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

I consider this to be bare minimum policy settings for establishing a safe climate. I consider that a target for net zero emissions by 2030 would be more likely to secure a safe climate.

The guiding principles for decision makers in the Bill will ensure decisions are efficient, effective and equitable, informed, risk-based and integrated and fiscally responsible.

In addition, provision is made in the Bill for fair employment transition for workers, industries or regions affected, community engagement and self-determination, and national and international cooperation.

I support this Bill for the following reasons:

• Reducing carbon emissions is vital for restoring a safe climate. Setting a target for net zero emissions and progressive targets to achieve this is essential.
• The increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events including bushfires, floods, cyclones and droughts, is having a major negative impact on Australia and elsewhere.
• There are opportunities to develop new technologies in energy efficient, electric vehicles and renewable energy and to provide employment opportunities in a new clean energy economy.
• Informed decision-making based on science will provide the best policy and programs for achieving a safe climate.
• Community consultation and engagement is essential for involving all Australians in the roadmap and actions towards net zero emissions.
• International cooperation is necessary to ensure there is consistent and effective global action on climate change.
• Development and implementation of emission reduction plans is essential.
• The Climate Change Commission in the Bill will provide appropriate oversight and information and advice on climate action and emission reductions.
• Establishment of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Climate Adaptation and Mitigation will provide oversight and information on adaptation and mitigation measures.

I respectfully request that the Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 be endorsed by the Australian Parliament.


Yours sincerely,



Peter Campbell

<Name and address supplied>

Links

• Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) Bill 2020 and Climate Change (National Framework for Adaptation and Mitigation) (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2020 – Parliament of Australia 
• Making a submission to a Committee inquiry – Parliament of Australia 

Please reverse government cuts to CSIRO climate science

Open letter to:

Josh Frydenberg, Member for Kooyong, Minister for Resources, Energy and Northern Australia

Greg Hunt, Member for Flinders, Minister for the Environment

Please reverse your government's announced cuts to CSIRO climate science.

Hectares of burnt cushion plant. Photo: Rob Blakers

More government funding is required to better understand the effects of climate change, not less.

Climate change impacts that are now apparent, many of which are exceeding worst case scientific estimates, include:

• Dramatic increase in very severe bushfires and the extension of the bushfire season
• Bushfires occurring in regions not adapted to burning such as Tasmania's Central Plateau, where rare plants in World Heritage areas have been destroyed.
• Heat waves resulting in increased deaths due to heat stress
• Sea level rises now impacting many coastal regions and communities around Australia
• Acidification and warming of the oceans leading to coral loss on the Great Barrier Reef
• Increased frequency and severity of tropical and sub tropical storms (such cyclones and twisters)

All these impacts require ongoing scientific measurement and modelling, not less.

Climate scientists believe Australia's obligations under the Paris climate commitments will be directly undermined by the CSIRO cutting 350 jobs.

Australian and international climate scientists in Melbourne have warned the cuts would cripple CSIRO climate research.

Please reverse your government's cuts to the CSIRO Climate Science team Oceans and Atmosphere, and Land and Water divisions.

Regards, Peter Campbell

Links

• PM - CSIRO climate scientists speak out about job cuts, ABC 08/02/2016 
• Experts Say CSIRO Climate Science Job Cuts Will Put Australian's Health At Risk, Gizmodo
• CSIRO job cuts impact Paris promises, BOM, Skynews
• 'Jaw-dropping' CSIRO job cuts to 'gut' climate science unit, Renew Economy 

My email to the 39 Senators who voted for the Carbon Tax Repeal

You recently voted against Australia's carbon tax.

Please do not compromise Australia's RET.

The RET is a very important and effective mechanism for transitioning Australia towards zero emissions clean energy.

The RET has only contributed 8% to electricity price increases from 2007/08 to the present.

The Carbon Tax only contributed 16%.

Over this same period distributor costs and charges have contributed 70% to electricity price increases

Investment in renewable energy has risen $5 billion per year.
Renewable energy capacity has almost doubled from 2001 to 2012.
86% of Australians think that Australia needs more renewable energy.
71% of Australians support the RET
90% of Australians want more electricity from solar
80% of Australians want more electricity from wind.

Overall the RET comprises only 3% of the total price of electricity bills.

Please support meaningful action on climate change and transitioning Australia to a new economy with clean energy and associated local industries and jobs.

Total Electricty cost increase 2007/08 to present
Wholesale costs	55	5%
Distributor costs & charges	746	70.4%
Carbon Price	172	16.2%
RET	87	8.2%
	$1060

Source: The Australia Institute

You can send your own email to the 39 Senators here: http://www.savetheret.com/

Links

• Fact file: How does the Renewable Energy Target affect your power bill? - Fact Check - ABC News 

Ambassador Morozov, please free 30 activists held by Russian authorities

Open letter to Russian Ambassador to Australia, Morozov
[link]

On the morning of Wednesday 18 September two activists from Greenpeace International were arrested as they took peaceful action towards Gazprom’s off-shore oil platform Prirazlomnaya, to stop the company conducting oil drilling operations in the Arctic waters of the Pechora Sea. The following day, September 19, the Russian Coast Guard illegally boarded the Greenpeace International ship Arctic Sunrise while in international waters and arrested 30 activists on board at gunpoint. We are demanding the immediate release of all the activists detained and an end to the Coast Guard’s unwarranted aggression against our ship and peaceful protest.

Greenpeace International is in the Russian Arctic to bear witness and express non-violent opposition towards oil companies’ destructive and reckless oil drilling plans. Our peaceful protest was met with extreme and disproportionate force from the Russian Coast Guard, who fired 11 warning shots at our ship, the MY Arctic Sunrise, and threatened our activists with knives and guns. Now 30 of our activists are being held by the Russian Coast Guard against their will and without legal representation.

Today we are conducting a peaceful solidarity protest outside this embassy in support of our activists to demand that they are freed by the Russian authorities. We urge you to transfer our requests to the Russian government without delay.

We ask that you:

- Free the 30 activists who have been detained on board the Arctic Sunrise, and order the Russian Coast Guard to holster their guns and withdraw immediately from our ship.

- Prioritise investigation into the destructive activities of oil companies in the Arctic, and not aggressive intimidation of peaceful protesters.

- Ban offshore oil drilling in the Arctic for good.

The real threat to the Arctic comes not from Greenpeace International but from oil companies like Gazprom. In contempt of the urgent need to protect the Arctic for all life on earth, Gazprom is determined to drill in its remote, frozen seas for more fossil fuels that are warming our planet and melting the ice. In the Arctic an oil spill would be irrecoverable. Such an event would devastate the local environment.

We urge you to transfer these requests to the Russian government in Moscow immediately to assist us in the swift release of our activists from the custody of the Russian authorities, and put a end to the unwarranted aggression and repression of our peaceful protest against Arctic oil drilling.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Campbell

Kevin Rudd, please don't weaken Australia's policies for tackling climate change

Open letter to Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia
CC:  Mark Butler, Anthony Albanese, Penny Wong, Chris Bowen

Dear Prime Minister,

I support your government’s efforts to introduce a price on pollution and am working in my community for stronger action on climate change and a renewables-powered future.

I am concerned that your government might be about to weaken the carbon price package. The price on pollution is working, is lowering emissions, and along with other programs like the Renewable Energy Target is driving transformation of our power supply. If it ain’t broke why fix it?

If you do decide to change the scheme, please keep the following things in mind:

1. We need to increase ambition on climate change and adopt a higher pollution reduction target than our current 5% target;
2. Moving to a floating price early will have budgetary implications. I’d support cutting polluter handouts like the unnecessary billions going to brown coal generators or polluting diesel subsidies for miners. But cutting important programs like the Clean Energy Finance Corporation or the Biodiversity Fund would be inexcusable.
3. We’re still missing really important planks of climate change policy. We need a legislated National Energy Efficiency scheme, we need longer term and higher renewable energy targets; we need to reduce and ultimately phase out coal and gas exports; we need to remove fossil fuel subsidies and we need a plan for climate change adaptation. We’ve only just begun the critical journey of decarbonising our economy.
4. We need to protect Australia's remaining native forests for their natural values and to preserve the carbon they store.

I understand what’s at stake this Federal election and that there’s an important choice before Australians. That’s why I urge you to be the leader we need on climate change.

You are tasked as Members of Parliament with representing your local constituents and the Australian People.  I urge to to avoid doing deals with big business that will weaken Australia's policies on climate change and the reduction of carbon emissions.  The Carbon Price has proven to be effective.  Please do not weaken it.

External links

• Send a message to Kevin Rudd to keep moving forward on climate action, Environment Victoria

Halt coal seam gas expansion

Open letter to Minister Greg Combet. 

I am writing to urgently draw your attention to research which has just been release by Southern Cross University. The research shows massive leakages from the ground occurring around Tara in Queensland where coal seam gas mining is underway.

If these results are verified it could mean that coal seam gas is worse for climate change than coal.

Please take the following urgent actions in the interests of Australia's farms, environment and climate:

1. Put in place an immediate moratorium on coal seam gas exports from Australia until further study has been done to verify the results of this research.
2. Commission a thorough independent study of the scale of fugitive emissions from coal seam gas mining, including emissions directly from the ground.
3. Implement a revised greenhouse gas accounting method to ensure that these 'fugitive' emissions from coal seam gas mining are accounted and paid for.

Your Sincerely,

Peter Campbell

Durban Climate Change Conference fails miserably with a whimper

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.

Victoria must keep the 20% emissions reduction target

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

Australia finally gets a price on carbon

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

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

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 

Tropical cyclone Yasi - Australia's worst cyclone?

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 

Australia must lead on forests at Cancun

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

Water and the Murray Darling river system

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 »

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

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

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?

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

• FACTBOX-Key political risks to watch in Australia
• The end of the world as we know it
• Kevin Rudd to backflip on mining tax rate
• Labor breaks childcare centre promise

We need a carbon levy

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

The failure of Copenhagen

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?

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?