Al Gore treads the middle road

I attended the launch of Safe Climate Australia over breakfast on Monday 13 July in Melbourne. The guest speaker was Al Gore, who I was very keen to hear.

I regard the Inconvenient Truth as one of the better movie-documentaries I have seen. It struck a chord with me when I viewed it, particularly Gore's observations about the shortcomings of the United States political system with respect to tackling climate change.

Gore speaks very well. His delivery is excellent. He engages the audience and looks about in a calm but forceful manner.

His content was good to. He spoke about the climate emergency the need for urgent action. But then he slipped up. He praised the Rudd government for displaying global leadership on climate change.

While this statement may be politically correct, it is factually untrue. Australia's proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will not reduce emissions, but he didnt go into this.

I felt there was a gap between his rhetoric and his call for action. If governments around the world don't set the right policies and legislation to drastically reduce carbon emissions they will greatly hamper our ability to ensure a safe climate future.

We can't lock in failure to reduce carbon emissions, which is what the CPRS will do.

I think Gore was intent on delivering a positive message and unifying some of the fractures that have emerged between environment groups intent on political lobbying and those that are more closely aligned with the latest science and grass roots climate action groups.

However, as I have observed recently, our political process, the structure of our governments, and the influence industry has over them are part of the climate change problem at present, rather than part of the solution.

We need to build a movement with grass roots engagement that cannot be denied by recalcitrant goverments, and we need to recreate the political process so that people really do engage with it, trust it, and be truly represented.

This sounds odd doesn't it? Political and government systems that people want, like and trust! It is a real challenge to achieve this, but I feel we really need this to facilitate the paradigm shifts required to move to a low carbon society with a safe climate future.

Links

• Safe Climate Australia
• Safe Climate Australia, Greenlivingpedia

Is Kevin Rudd really a climate pessimist?

Some curious statements by Kevin Rudd have been reported from the G8 chinwag.

On the one hand he states publicly that the world should strive to reach agreements on reducing carbon emissions at Copenhagen and the importance of this.

Then in a quieter conversation with the Danish PM (maybe off the record, but recorded?) he says he is "pessimistic about the world reaching agreement on reducing carbon emissions at Copenhagen" and that "our negotiators are hampered".

Our negotiators are hampered - by the Rudd Government's policy settings for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme - which thankfully has not yet been passed by the Senate, and hopefully won't be.

The CPRS sets an upper cap on Australia's negotiating range of 25% reductions by 2050, and has a measly and demonstrably inadequate 5% committed (minimum) target. Which is equivalent to no emission reductions.

So here are some tips for you Kevin:

• Set the negotiating range as 25% to 100% by 2050
• Set real targets for annual tangible emission reductions - which means no increases every henceforth, and no offsets
• Display leadership on this issue - not pessimism
• Focus on the thousands of green jobs associated clean energy research, development, manufacturing, installation and exports.
• Announce a twenty year transition off fossil fuels - coal, oil and gas
• Stop listening to entrenched industry interests that are polluting your government's policies and response to climate change - and start listening to the people.

It's your job to do this Kevin. You are the leader of our country.

Sustainable water solutions are needed not costly ineffective ones.

It is hard not to draw the conclusion that Tim Holding and the Brumby government are in a state of panic over Melbourne's reduced water supplies.

Water Minister Tim Holding's continual refusal to enact cost effective and high water yield options such are recycling waste water (200 gigalitres per year), capturing stormwater and more domestic water tanks (200 gigalitres), stopping logging in water catchments (30 gigalitres) is just not acceptable.

Recycling more water would have the added benefit of stopping pollution from the ocean outfall at Gunnamatta beach.

Instead he is intent on building a pipeline that will deliver very little water to Melbourne, and the extremely expensive desalination plant that will belch out greenhouse gases and destroy an pristine coastline.

Its time to go Tim.

Links

• Denying recycling just won't hold water, The Age, Ken Davidson
• Melbourne water usage, Greenlivingpedia
• North south pipeline, Greenlivingpedia
• Stop logging Melbourne water catchments , Greenlivingpedia
• Victorian desalination plant, , Greenlivingpedia

Victorian feed-in tariff introduced with improvements

I have just received a media release from Energy Minister Peter Batchelor stating that the Brumby Labor Government’s feed-in tariff legislation passed by the Victorian Parliament on 25 June 2009.

The final structure of the Victorian feed-in tariff includes:

• 60 cents credit per kilowatt hour for energy fed back into the grid within that year. This is about four times the current cost of electricity in Victoria.
• The tariff is paid to residences, community organisations and small businesses with energy consumption less than 100 MWh a year
• An array size limit of 5kW applies
  

This outcome is a significant improvement on the feed-in tariff initially proposed by the government. Amendments introduced in the Upper House which improved the scheme include:

• extending participation to community organisations and small businesses with energy consumption less than 100 MWh a year
• increasing the array size limit from 2kW to 5kW

Two electricity retailers have also provided letters which state they will provide cash or rollover credits for energy produced, rather than these credits "expiring" as was initially proposed.

The additional amendment put by the Greens for the tariff to be paid on the gross output (rather than the net output) was not accepted.

The tariff does not apply to large scale solar or wind either, so there is potential to further improve this legislation in the future.

On balance, this is a significant improvement over the legislation initially proposed. The government states that the amendments were made "in response to input from responsible environment groups" which demonstrates that the efforts made to contact politicians and build community support for a good feed-in tariff were successful.

Well done ATA, Environment Victoria, Climate Action Groups and everybody who spent time and considerable effort on this campaign.

2008 Feed-in Tariff rally at Parliament

External links

• Victorians to benefit from the fairest and best solar feed-in tariff, Media Release, Peter Batchelor, 25 June 2009
• Victorias new solar laws, Greenlivingpedia
  

Public transport for Melbourne rather than more freeways

Below is a map of the 1969 freeway plan for Melbourne. This is part of the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan commissioned by then Victorian Premier Henry Bolte, which was heavily biased in favour of freeways over public transport options such as rail.

It looks like a nightmare - Melbourne converted into Los Angeles. It is also interesting to note which freeways have been built - such as the Metropolitan Ring Road, the Monash, the Eastern, and most recently Eastlink.

Map of 1969 freeway plan for Melbourne

Here is a map from the same transport plan which shows details of proposed rail projects - including the new Rowville and Doncaster rail lines and the City Loop, which was the only one of these that was constructed.

A map of the 1969 Melbourne Transportation Plan map of rail projects

And here is a photograph of the new integrated freeway and train line linking the Perth CBC to Mandurah along the coast to the south.

Perth to Mandurah road and rail

So what has gone so horribly wrong in Melbourne? Why has no new suburban train line been built since the Glen Waverley line in 1930?.

The short answer to this is the triumph of short term politics and the road lobby over sensible transport planning.

The Brumby Victorian government announced another Victorian Transport Plan in 2008.

This plan provided no further suburban rail lines to Melbourne's east, but it did at least include some rail project in Melbourne's west and north. It also included a very expensive $8b rail tunnel linking Footscray with Caulfield to be built in stages. Given that the Eddington Report that the plan was based upon was tasked with investing "east west link needs", I have little confidence that a comprehensive study of Melbourne's transport needs and the best solutions was in fact conducted.

For example, new rail lines to new suburbs would surely carry more people than a tunnel linking two sections of Melbourne that not many people actually want to travel between.

Melbourne "metro train tunnel" and Tarneit link. Source: Eddington Report

Proponents of the train tunnel claim that "it is needed to free up capacity in the central rail network to allow more suburban lines to be built" but they don't provide any evidence to support this. The Eddington study was simply not tasked to investigate this so it is spurious to claim that it did. More politics with no planning. In any case, there are no plans or commitments to build any of the promised but never delivered rail lines such as Doncaster and Rowville.

Climate Change considerations

The proliferation of roads and freeways as primary transport infrastructure in Melbourne has proceeded with the assumption that fossil fuel supplies will continue forever, and that the associated carbon emissions don't really matter. The most recent Eddington Report and Melbourne Transport Plan did not even quantify emissions associated with transport modes. Both suggest that "hybrid cars" will provide the solution, when quite clearly they wont.

Here are some relevant facts from the Eddington Report:

• Car travel is the biggest transport source with more than 10 million trips across the city every day.
• About two million trips are in the morning peak and 78 per cent of Melburnians use their cars to get to work.
• 11.3 per cent of Melbournes used public transport during the morning peak.
• The demand for car travel is forecast to grow 30 per cent by 2031.

Taking the approximate figure of four million commute trips to and from work by car every day in Melbourne yields this information:

• Number of trips: 4,000,000
• CO2 per km (kg): .025 (average figure - for a Holden Commodore)
• Average length of commute trip: 9km
• Total tonnes of CO2 emitted: 900

A trip on a train has 1/8th the carbon emission of a trip by car, so if all these car journeys were shifted to trains, the total CO2 emissions would drop to 113 tonnes, resulting in a saving of 788 tonnes of CO2 per day.

It is therefore quite clear that rail transport should be the first priority for transport in Melbourne, after decades of neglect.

Our trains and trams are now full to capacity on existing lines and now significant new suburban lines are planned for the next decade. This is not acceptable.

Bass Straight oil is already greatly depleted and Australia now imports over 50% of its oil at considerable cost. If a proportion of the money spent on oil was redirected to climate friendly tranport modes such as rail and cycling, we would see some real benefits and long term financial payback.

Privatisation fails to deliver benefits

Melbourne's public transport system, including trains, trams and buses, was privatised by the Kennett government in 1999. This was done to supposedly create competition between private operaters and thereby provide better services. However, over the next decade several of the initial companies participating have exited. Three train operators became one - Connex, owned by Veolia. Two tram companies became one - which may soon also be taken over by Connex.

The proposed public bike scheme for Melbourne may also be operated by Connex if they win the contract to do so.

So there really is no "competition" except when tenders are renewed.

However, the worst impacts of privatisation are lack of accountability and lack of investment. The Brumby and preceding Bracks Labor government have chosen to retain privatised public transport. The government has blamed recent problems with cancelled services, faulty trains, whole system shut downs during heat waves on Connex. Connex in turn has responded that they operate the service but are not responsible for investing in sorely needed infrastructure improvements.

So it is stalemate, with nobody apparently accountable for delivering an effective and appropriate public transport network.

An unhealthy focus on revenue

Another undesirable by product of the privatisation of public transport is the unproductive focus on raising revenue from public transport users. This of course benefits the companies trying to make profits from the system. However, the large contingents of ticket inspectors, euphemistically called "Customer Service Officers" regularly stake out CBD stations and "bust" people for travelling without valid tickets.

Unfortunately, they often bust peoplewho make honest mistakes, such as those that carry a valid ticket but forget to validate it.

They are dishonest too. When they take your name and address they often suggest that you may not be fined - when the majority of people who they report actually do get fined.

Occasionally they are heavy handed and thuggish. Some people have been manhandled and even injured when they descend on someone en masse and attempt the "subdue" them. Such tactics are wholly inappropriate and should be left to the Police when they are warranted.

The Victorian government is also spending $1.35b - a huge amount of money - on the new Myki ticketing system - the benefits of which lie fairly obviously with Connex as the private operator. This money would be better spent on service improvements such as additional new trains or a new railway line. The current Metcard ticketing system was fully commissioned as late as 1998.

Conclusions

While the facts and figures associated with tranport can be daunting and difficult to find and assess, the directions we need to go in are quite clear.

We need more climate friendly rail and light rail transport to service new suburbs and growth corridors.

A metro service for Melbourne would provide better linkage between inner centres such as Carlton, Melbourne University, the Melbourne Zoo, South Yarra, South Melbourne and Footscray. A light rail metro similar to the Paris metro would be cheaper and more effective than the proposed heavy rail tunnel.

Some existing railway lines could be put underground (e.g. the Glen Waverley line through Toorak and the Box Hill line through Hawthorn to Camberwell and beyond) which would free up land above for residential, commercial, park and cycle path usage options.

More freeway projects such as the Frankston bypass should not proceed.

Cycle paths should be integrated with existing railway easements, where unused land within the easments is available.

We need a safe cycle path network that will allow commuters and recreational riders to use bicycles as the most climate friendly transport option.

We need our public transport system to be owned by and operated for the people, rather than for profits.

A safe climate future and a liveable city needs climate friendly transport options, and they are needed immediately.

Links

• Eddington Report recommendations
• CEN Eddington Report submission
• Frankston bypass
• 2008 Victorian Transport Plan
• 1969_Melbourne_Transportation_Plan
• Two in three Australians drive to work, study of commuting habits finds, ABC News, 3/2/14

What we have here is a failure of politics and democracy

Lesley Canold's characterisation of "failures of communication and tactics" as the barrier to our society taking real action on climate change (Age 16/6) is not entirely accurate.

There is now a common understanding that increased greenhouse gas emissions are the major cause of the climate change now upon us.

However, our current political framework based on adversarial debates, incremental changes and political compromises, is where the major barriers to action lie.

Our politicians must realise they cannot negotiate and compromise with the laws of thermodynamics and nature that govern the maintenance of a safe climate. Then we may get legislation and policies for the immediate emission reductions that scientists around the world are now demanding.

The flawed CPRS is a case in point. The scheme has been designed to reduce impacts on the worst polluters and will not be effective in reducing emissions.

With climate tipping points now upon is and the some of the impacts of catastrophic climate change now evident, we need immediate and substantive emission reductions.

These can be achieved by implementing energy efficiency programs, providing more renewable energy, cutting back fossil fuel usage and protecting native forests and the carbon they store.

Links

• What we have is the failure to communicate | theage.com.au

Climate Emergency Rallies across Australia give us some hope

The Climate Emergency Rallies across Australia on Saturday 13 June 2009 were inspiring. They delivered a targeted message to the community and our political leaders.


We need to reduce carbon emissions now through emergency action, and we can do this by creating thousands of green jobs to replace those lost in the polluting carbon-intensive industries.

More details on the rallies with photos and videos is available on Greenlivingpedia here.


Unfortunately, Minister for Climate Change Penny Wong has demonstrated why our political system and federal and state governments are currently part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Rather than listen to what the protesters were saying, she reacted with denial.

Penny Wong stated that "what these people are asking for can't be done".

That is a lie Penny. We can transition to 100% renewable energy by 2020, and we need to for a safe climate future.

Penny Wong also stated that "the government is bringing in laws (the CPRS) to reduce carbon emissions".

That is another lie Penny. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will not reduce Australia's carbon emissions until at least 2020, and probably not even by 2050.

This is because the government is handing out corporate welfare of $18b in the from of free emission permits to the worst polluting industries - which means they will continue on their polluting ways.

Penny Wong should resign as the Minister for Climate Change and take a job in the office of the Minister for Fossil Fuel Industries, Martin Ferguson.

We need to get action on climate change and energy policy out of the hands of incompetent politicians who are intent on "business as usual", "politics as usual".

We need to establish a taskforce informed by climate and energy scientists, not those under the thrall of the fossil fuel industries.

Peter Garrett kills solar but supports coal

Peter Garrett's decision to prematurely end the solar rebate demonstrates that the Rudd government is really not serious about clean energy.

Garrett's rationale for ending it without warning is that it was too effective. This has created great uncertainty and disruption for the solar industry,

On the other hand, the Rudd government's flawed CPRS is gifting billions and providing certainty to the coal and other fossil fuel energy industries with no strings attached, which will only entrench their emissions-intensive polluting practices.

In addition, the Rudd government has torpedoed a national gross feed-in tariff which would generate tens of thousands of jobs in genuine clean energy and would really reduce our carbon emissions and reliance on fossil fuels.

It is time that Peter Garrett started listening to the Australian people and truly representing their best interests, rather than just looking after the dirty big end of town.

Links

• Peter Garrett ends solar subsidy program for households, The Age

Bob Brown threatened with explusion from the Senate

Senator Bob Brown launched legal action some years ago to stop Forestry Tasmania sanctioning the destruction of Wielangta forest and many of the threatened species that live in it.

Bob won the initial court action which confirmed that forest and species destruction was occurring.

The Forestry Tasmania appealed and won. Now they are demanding that Bob pay their court costs of $240,000. Even though they are quite obviously still very much in the wrong.

If Bob doesn't pay then he may be expelled from the Senate.

You can contribute to help pay these outrageous court costs by either:

Internet bank transfer
Name of account: Bob Brown Forest Account
BSB No. 633 000
A/C No. 125 133 793
Name of person to be placed in the reference

Or - Cheque made payable to Bob Brown Forest Account GPO Box 404, Hobart, 7001.

I have sent my donation through tonight. Keep up the good fight Bob.

Fielding demontrates why politics is not tackling climate change

First some history. Steven Fielding was elected as a Victorian Senator at the 2004 Federal election. In the election, Fielding got:

• 45,204 primary votes,
• which was 0.13 of a quota,
• and was 1.8% of the total vote.

Preferences deals got him elected over David Risstrom from the Greens who gained 8.7% of the primary vote which was more than 2/3rds of a quota.

The most damaging deal was done by the Labor party with Family First. Labor gave their preferences to Steven Fielding rather than to David Risstrom - this was what elected Fielding in the end.

This article from The Age explains the intricacies of the preference deals that elected Fielding:

How party preferences picked Family First - Election 2004

This also gave John Howard control of the Senate - with Fielding on side - which resulted in Work Choices, student union reforms, lack of real action on climate change and a host of other bad things.

Senator Kim Carr (Labor Socialist Left faction), Stephen Newnham (Victorian Labor State Secretary)  and  Alan Griffin (MP, Bruce, Socialist Left faction) did the preference deal with Family First. They may have miscalculated and thought Fielding would not get enough votes, but in the end he did. This outcome was contrary to the wishes of an estimated 90% of Labor supporters who voted "above the line" on the Senate ballot, and preferred the Greens over Family First.

This demonstrates that major party politics (some might say all politics) has devolved to a game played to "get in". The game revolves around getting candidates elected with the first prize being forming a government. The game as played now has almost nothing to do with principles, long term vision, morals or just simply "doing the right thing".

Some more about Steven Fielding.

Senator Fielding, for better or worse, is there to represent the people of Victoria, along with eleven other Victorian Senators. Up until recently he has been fairly silent on the topic of climate change, but this has changed after a trip to the United States in June 2009.

During this trip, Fielding attended a gathering of "climate change sceptics and denialists" run by the right wing U.S.-based think tank - the Heartland Institute - which is partly funded by fossil fuel industry interests.

For more information on this see Fielding's climate mission from The Age.

Fielding, born and bred in suburban Melbourne, is a member of the CityLife Church, a large Pentecostal church which may have been involved in the formation of the shadowy Family First party during the lead up to the 2004 Australian federal election.

He has worked as an engineer and a senior superannuation executive before entering politics and was a member of the Knox City Council in 2003-04.

One thing is for sure - he is no climate scientist.

Soon after the "climate denialist conference" Fielding appears to believe the falsehood that the climate change emergency that we and our fellow travellers on planet earth are now facing is "part of a natural cycle, associated with solar flares". He has also presented this discredited crackpot theory to one of President Obama's senior advisers.

In doing so, he chooses to ignore the vast body of scientific evidence that climate change is in fact caused largely by increased greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity - including the large scale burning of fossil fuels and vast deforestation as a couple of examples.

Here is the "money quote" from Fielding:

"Australians must be given the opportunity to debate the possibility that climate change was part of a naturally occurring, 1500-year cycle or an increase in solar activity,"

Source: Fielding offered talks to sway climate stance | theage.com.au

Nobody seems to know, including Fielding himself, who he now represents. He opposed the "alcopops legislation" in a game of brinkmanship in the Senate and scuttled the bill - despite alcohol and health experts supporting the legislation. This was not a very "family friendly outcome".

It seems his support has eroded among his local Christian base too. His unpredictable behaviour in the senate has highlighted he is out of his depth. "between two rocks and a hard place" and not really sure what he is there for.

Some Labor party folk have even come out boxing and said he should be supporting the Labor government as it was their preferences that elected him.

Which brings me to my main topic - how "politics as usual" is badly failing our community and planet earth.

So we now have a dill in the Senate who got there by back room deals with political parties and appears ready and willing to scuttle any real and effective policy action to reduce our carbon emissions.

Opposing the Labor government's proposed weak, ineffective and unjust Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme would not be a bad thing given its serious faults. However, Fielding, along with a sizeable cadre of climate change sceptics within the Liberal and National Parties (most notably Barnaby Joyce), and a few within Labor too, would have us do nothing.

This is like being in a car about to drive of a cliff with the person driving and quite a few passengers apparently oblivious of the impending disaster.

We have the Labor party ignoring the advice of their erstwhile "chief advisor on climate change and associated economics" Ross Garnaut by delivering weak and ineffective policy that will not reduce carbon emissions (the CPRS).

The Liberal party opposes the CPRS on the basis that "it will cost us jobs" and that our profligate carbon addicted lifestyle can continue on indefinitely.

The Labor party then launches into lengthy personal attacks on Malcolm Turnbull as leader of the opposition using the both the parliament and the media. They are hypocrites - as their CPRS is effectively useless too.

The Greens insist that real action on climate change is an urgent imperative, are are attacked by Labor's Climate Change Minister Penny Wong for "blocking action" on climate change too.

And now we have the looming threat of the joker in the pack - Steven Fielding - most likely throwing a spanner in the works with his "casting vote" in the Senate for all the wrong reasons.

We need to find a way to get climate change and energy policy free from political interference and obscuration.

We need to link it to measures supported by scientific evidence - such as the need to reduce atmospheric CO2 to around 300ppm and stabilise global temperature increases to below 1 degree.

It is now obvious that a 2 degrees rise now has unacceptable risk of severe consequences such as drought, bushfires, acidification of the oceans and sea level rises of 2m to 7m within 100 years.

The Labor government of Australia is still comfortable with a target in the range of 450 to 550ppm CO2 which is clearly not acceptable. They are playing Russian roulette with our future.

See also

• Fielding feels heat over solar flare theory - ABC News
• Labor MP lashes out at Fielding as bills pile up - ABC News
• Steve Fielding senate theatrics | Paul Daley
  

The Labor government should introduce an effective feed in tariff to take real action on climate change

An open letter to:

• Labor Government Cabinet Members
  
• Eastern Metropolitan Region Labor party members
  

I find it very disappointing that the Energy Minister Peter Batchelor is refusing to represent the best interests of the Victorian public by threatening to kill the solar feed-in tariff in parliament.

Peter Batchelor has proposed a crippled feed-in tariff that favours the big end of town. Some energy companies have even been promoting his proposed net feed in tariff several months before it has even been legislated.

The net tariff proposed by Peter Batchelor will not encourage the uptake of solar power by households and community groups.

The Greens have put amendments to provide a gross tariff that has been proven to be effective in other countries and is in line with those in the ACT and Western Australia.

Peter Batchelor cannot even get his sums right. After claiming a real feed-in tariff would cost $100 per household per year, he now claims it will cost $40. He apparently has not bothered to read his own consultant's report that found it would cost about $8 per year.
In addition, low-income households can easily be protected from increased prices by granting them a concession.

A simple gross feed-in tariff should have been a easy and effective way for the Labor Government to provide real incentives for households and community groups to increase renewable energy generation and transition off coal-fired power.

Unfortunately, the Labor party is playing politics and looking after vested industry interests rather than listening to the community and taking real action to address climate change.

If the Labor party kills the solar feed-in tariff, you will kill the only real action on climate change you have on the table. I implore you to see sense and support an effective gross feed-in tariff.

Peter Campbell

Links

• Household solar power laws at risk, state warns, Adam Morton, The Age, June 2, 2009
• Feed in tariff, Greenlivingpedia
  

Greens win Fremantle polling over 44% for a new paradigm

Today, Adele Carles, the Greens candidate for the Fremantle byelection, won the seat. This is an event that represents a turning point in Australian politics.

It is the first time a Greens candidate has polled over 44% of the primary vote. The previous record was 38.96% in the 2005 Marrickville by-election.

It is only the second time that that the Greens have come first on primary votes, the first being when the Greens outpolled Labor's primary vote in the NSW state district of Vaucluse in the 2007 election.

Adele Carles defeated the Labor candidate, who polled around 38% of the primary vote. The Liberals did not field a candidate.

This represents a paradigm shift in Australia's political landscape. With both major parties found wanting on critical issues such as climate change and water policy, the Greens platform of reshaping Australia to a sustainable and climate friendly economy has been endorsed by a clear majority of Fremantle voters.

If this is replicated across several other House of Representatives seats in the upcoming 2010 federal election as appears likely, the Greens could well hold the balance of power and enter into a coalition government with one of the major parties.

This would mean pathetic policy such as Labor's 5% emission reduction commitment would be "greened up" to within the 25% to 40% range scientists say we need.

And the 3+ billion gifted to the polluting coal industry by Kevin Rudd would instead be redirected to zero emissions clean energy alternatives.

There is now considerable hope Australia can seriously address the climate emergency that we are confronted with, and contribute to an effective global agreement on reducing emissions and tackling climate change.

Exernal links

• 2009 Fremantle By-election - ABC Elections (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Post script
This is the second time the greens have won a single-member lower house seat in Australia - the first time being when Michael Organ won the federal House of Representatives seat of Cunningham in a 2002 by-election, when the Liberals also did not field a candidate. On that occasion, Organ received 23% of the primary vote and was elected by the preferences of other candidates (as was Adele).

The 2009 federal budget does not move as to a low carbon future

Summarising the environmental & energy items in the 2009 Federal Budget:

The Government will invest $4.5 billion (including $1 billion of existing funding) in a new Clean Energy Initiative, including:

• $465 million for the establishment of a renewable technology innovation body, Renewables Australia (could be good, if they don't sanction burning forests for fuel)
  
• $1.5 billion for a Solar Flagships Program aiming to establish 1,000 megawatts of solar electricity generation (looks good, a step in the right direction)
  
• $2 billion over nine years for investment in large-scale Carbon Capture and Storage demonstration projects (not good - this should be funded by the coal industry, not taxpayers).
  

Additional sustainability programs funded under the Budget include:

• $2.75 billion ($2.45 billion existing funding) to the Climate Change Action Fund under the CPRS, to inform and position business, industry and community on the impacts of a low carbon economy (This looks like a huge amount of greenwash for the CPRS? The money would be better spent on clean energy provision)
  
•  $100 million per annum to establish the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute to inform global action on the development and commercialization of this technology (not good, this is more corporate welfare for the coal industry)
  
• $100 million per annum over three years to the World Bank’s Clean Technology Fund. (not sure about this one, if the the fund delivers genuine clean energy this would be OK).
  

For those that want more detail, the Climate Change Budget Overview 2009—10 provides a summary of the Government's climate change strategy, describing the objectives of each measure and the providing the name of the agencies who will implement them.

Overall, for I give it 2/10 for transitioning us to a low carbon economy and off coal.  There is far too much corporate welfare gifted to the coal industry, and not enough directed to efficiency measures and genuine clean energy.

My speech at the senate candidates event at North Melbourne

I attend another of the series of the "meet the senate candidates" events being held across Victoria for the preselection of the Greens lead senate candidate for the 2010 federal election.

This time, we were given a hypothetical scenarios where, as Senator for Victoria, there were four options to attend events.

These were:

1. The first action of the Swan Hill Climate Action Group
2. The Melbourne Writers Festival, discussing the Parallel Importing legislation removal
3. The inaugural conference of Democracy Watch in Sydney, discussing election campaign funding and transparency
4. Voting in the Senate on a the acquisition of 5 extra jets, following a special extra sitting day to discuss this issue.

I chose option 2 due to the large audience of around 500 people, and the opportunity to reach an audience that shares our values but due to their age and background are statistically less likely to vote for us.

You can read the speech I wrote - as the "Greens Senator for Victoria" at this hypothetical future meeting, here.

Kevin Rudd is playing politics with our climate

So why has Kevin Rudd and Penny Wong just done spectacular backflips and both decided to delay the implementation of their flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction (Reallocation) Scheme by one year?

Why have they also increased the "negotiating range" maximum from 15% to 25% - bringing it inline with the minimum range or 25% to 40% set in Bali in 2008?

Why have they introduced a cap on the carbon price of $10.00 per tonne?

There are two answers to these questions:

1. Politics
2. Business as usual - the grubby links between government and polluting industries.

Politics

The politics is asinine. Kevin Rudd does not want to negotiate with the Greens who have stated they support emission reduction targets in the range of 25-40% that will be negotiated at Copenhagen later this year. So Kevin Rudd has designed the CPRS so the Liberal-National opposition, and Malcolm Turnbull in particular, will be forced to support it.

Turnbull has been saying it should be delayed by 1-2 years; now it has been. Turnbull supports the 5% target. Turnbull is under pressure from the skeptics in his party - such as Nick Minchin and Wilson Tuckey - to support a weak and ineffective CPRS.

Business as usual - links between government and industry

Turnbull is also under pressure from the same industry lobbyists - such as Heather Ridout from the Australian Industry Group, and representatives from the coal/fossil fuel lobby (the "Greenhouse Mafia") - to support a weak and infective CPRS. They will threaten the opposition with hostile advertisements in marginal seats during the next election, and probably a few more dirty tricks too.

The wash up

If Turnbull - and the Liberal National "Opposition" - cave in and vote in the Senate for the CPRS with the Rudd Government we will have a scheme locked in that won't reduce carbon emissions.

Any parliamentarian who votes for the CPRS is playing Russian Roulette with a safe climate future. Kevin Rudd has stated that 450ppm CO2 is acceptable. Sorry Kevin, I disagree.

Scientists tell us that this could result in 3 degree global temperature rise, sea level rises of over 2 metres, and more frequent severe bushfires.

What can we do?

We must maintain hope that our political leaders will act responsibly and take immediate action to reduce climate change. We need to keep telling them that they must.

We need to spread awareness in the community about how "political stitch ups" are endangering our shared future, and that of the planet, by feeding the climate emergency we are now experiencing.

I think we also need to consider how we can get action on climate change informed and driven by science rather than hijacked by short term political motives.

We can also support the Greens' campaign for effective climate change action

I have also sent Don Henry from the ACF an email telling him I am reconsidering my 20+ year membership and support of the ACF, after his totally inappropriate glowing endorsement of Rudd's CPRS backflip. Is he planning to run for a safe Labor seat like Peter Garrett did?

External links

• Has Kevin Rudd "taken a signficant step forward on climate change"?, David Spratt
• Emissions rethink could trigger early election: Greens | theage.com.au
• "Greener, browner, and a lot later", Rudd greenhouse emissions retreat pitched at Coalition, The Age
• Rudd denies ETS delay is reckless | theage.com.au
• Rudd’s ETS backdown is about controlling the debate - Crikey
• Labor spineless on emissions - Crikey
  
  

A video from the Greens

A public bike plan for Melbourne

It is great public bike plan finally take shape in Melbourne. Sharing bikes at convenient locations provides us with an environmentally friendly means of travel in and around the city.

Velib bikes in Paris

Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Velibvelo1.jpg

I suggested a scheme for this to Melbourne City Council back in 2001 after using bikes in the city of Zug in Switzerland back in the 90s. David Risstrom took up the cause back them but it stalled.

It is surprising how long it can take for simple good ideas to happen here. Since they are only calling for tenders, it appears that the bikes won't actually be available until 2009 or 2010.

To make this really work, we need to make Melbourne more bicycle friendly with:

• Many more Copenhagen lanes
• High quality and safe bicycle transit routes - North South, East West and Orbital

The current Principal Bicycle Network, though a step in the right direction, relies too heavily on routes with inadequate bike lanes (often just paint on the road, ignored by many motorists) and shared paths (were conflict and danger between pedestrians and cyclists is growing).

Shared paths can be acceptable for some local and recreational usage, but they are not adequate or safe for significant bicycle transit usage.

The best option would be to put sections of our existing rail and tram networks underground and put linear parks, bike transit routes and some commercial, residential and recreational facilities in their place.

External links

• Budget to peddle $5m bike hire plan, The Age
• Public bicycles, Greenlivingpedia
  

Rudd's CPRS won't solve climate change

Kevin Rudd's flawed emissions trading scheme with its very weak 5% reduction target and ridiculous 15% upper limit is unlikely to be passed by the Senate. I disagree with Michelle Grattan's conclusion (Age 1/5) that the CPRS in its current form is better than nothing.

The CPRS, in addition to grossly inadequate targets, also gifts billions to the worst polluters. In doing so, it removes incentives for the worst polluting industries to clean up their act. It is also way behind the recommendations of scientists and the Bali convention where emission reduction ranges of 25% to 40% were flagged.

Australia would be laggard at Copenhagen with the CPRS, not a leader. Hopefully all parties in the Australian Parliament will agree on effective measures to reduce carbon emissions and tackle climate change that the Australian people are demanding. We need to reframe politics from being part of the problem to being part of the solution.

General Motors, going, going, nearly gone

I haven't yet written about the enormous changes we have seen over the last year or so - when the capitalist system and imploded into a chaotic mess of greed, dishonesty and confusion.

I am talking about the 2008 crash, when the world's financial system and economies unravelled in a very conspicuous manner. More on that later.

I have been watching the demise of General Motors with some interests. The company has been manufacturing mostly large an inefficient cars and trucks over a quite a long period. They have remained seemingly oblivious to the previous oil shocks and more recently, the arrival peak oil.

The crash and subsequent recession in the United States has hit GM hard. Nobody is buying their cars (mostly gas guzzlers) any more. However, GM employs a lot of people in the US and across the globe, including Australia.

So the Obama administration's automotive task force has overseen a massive bailout to try and keep them afloat.

Since late 2008, GM has received $US15.4 billion from the US Treasury to keep it afloat.

On April 22 2009, GM received an additional $US2 billion ($2.8 billion) in federal assistance.

So far, the best they can do is to "ditch the Pontiac brand", while keeping the GMC, Chevrolet, Cadillac and Buick brands.

Who would have thought the United States government (and hence taxpayer) would give a failing corporation over $US 18 billion in bailout payments?

It is clear that to survive, GM needs to reinvent itself and start making cars or other products that people actually want to buy.

They should retool to make electric vehicles and think about getting into transport manufacturing for a low carbon economy future - perhaps very fast trains?

The latest deadline for GM is the threat of a bankruptcy filing if it can't meet a June 1 US deadline. Time will tell if the $18 billion of taxpayers money to keep them afloat is good money after bad.

Links

• GM to ditch Pontiac, gets more aid
• Green cars, Greenlivingpedia
  

Brown Mountain logging finished in this seasons first coupe

The first 20 hectare “coupe” of this season’s logging allocation in Brown Mountain was completed on 22 April 2009. The destruction includes the felling of more trees 600 to 800 years old.

The tree that was radiocarbon dated was 10 metres in girth. Some trees logged have a 12 metre girth - by extrapolation they would be 800 years old.

Here are some photos of the catastrophic effects of this logging.

The stump of another tree over 600 years old

There are two more 20 hectare coupes remaining. The officer of Environment Minister Gavin Jennings apparently now has the DSE report about threatened species and is considering what to do. It is not clear whether this document will be released to the public, or whether the remaining areas of Brown Mountain forest will be protected.

More photos and more information: Brown Mountain old growth forest, Greenlivingpedia

If you have the time, write a letter or email to:

• your local MPs
• Premier John Brumby john.brumby@parliament.vic.gov.au

Ask them to protect Brown Mountain and the remainder of Victoria's old growth forests still allocated and available for logging.

Extreme weather was the main cause of Black Saturday bushfires

I attended a seminar on April 21, 2009 about the catastrophic bushfires in Victoria on Black Saturday. The seminar was organised by the Melbourne School of Land and Environment at Melbourne University.

The speakers and topics were:

Professor David Karoly - Is this climate change?
School of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science

Dr Kevin Tolhurst - Bushfire behavior under extreme climate
Department of Forest & Ecosystem Science, Melbourne School of Land and Environment

Dr Patrick Lane - Implications for subsequent catchment water yield
Department of Forest & Ecosystem Science, Melbourne School of Land and Environment

These talks shed some light on the scientific observations about recent bushfires on February 7 2009 in Victoria and the reasons why they were so severe.

Professor David Karoly stressed that the extreme weather parameters on and leading up to February 7 were the most important factor, including:

• Record low rainfall - 35 days of no rain up to February 7
• Record low relatively humidity on February 7th of 5%
• The hottest recorded temperature of 46.7 on February 7

The strong north winds and the southerly wind change on February 7th were not unusual in themselves, but combined with the above factors, and ignition of the fires, the results were catastrophic.

Bushfire index ratings compared between extreme fires are:

• 100: Black Friday in 1939
• 120: Ash Wednesday in 1983
• 140 to 190: Black Saturday. These figures have never been seen before and are regarded as in the "catastrophic" range.

Professor Karoly also pointed out that CSIRO scientific predictions are that the current rate of climate change were are experiencing will result in 4 times as many extreme fire dangers days like Black Saturday each year by 2050.

He concluded with these observations:

• A tragedy occurred with the bushfires in SE Australia on 7 February 2009
• It is difficult to separate the influences of climate variability, climate change, and changes in fire management strategies on observed increases in fire activity
• Climate change is increasing the likelihood of environmental conditions associated with extreme fire danger in south-east Australia
• Observed increases in forest fire activity have been linked to climate change in the western US, in Canada, in Spain and in Greece.

Dr Kevin Tolhurst provided some scientific research results on the spread and intensity of fires. The scale of these fires has not been modelled to date, and factors such as extreme convection columns have not been studied or modelled to date.

In summary, Kevin stated that:

• Dominant factors affecting fire behaviour change with the scale of the fire
• Fire size and atmospheric instabilty are important to blowup fire behaviour - they enable feedback which increases the fire intensity
• Drought is an important precursor to high intensity fires - previously "wet" forests, gullies and moist slopes burn
• The fire footprint (the overall size of the area burnt) is determined by only a few hours of extreme weather
• Fire behaviour is a dynamic process and therefore needs dynamic modelling.

The forum concluded with a moderated general discussion of the science of bushfires.

I pointed out that many fires active on Black Saturday such as the Bunyip fire burnt large areas of farmland as well as forest areas (two thirds of the Bunyip fire was cleared farmland), and asked whether recent commentary in the media about fuel loads being the major cause of the fires, particularly in forest areas, was correct.

Kevin stated that the extreme weather dominated the fire behaviour rather than fuel loads which played a lesser role. As an example, he mentioned the Lara bushfire on grass paddocks on 8 January 1969 along the Geelong Road that killed 17 people trapped in their cars. In total, 280 fires broke out on the 8th of January 1969. Of these, 12 grass fires reached major proportions and burnt 250,000 hectares. The fires also destroyed 230 houses, 21 other buildings and more than 12,000 stock.

For also stated that less extreme fires, fuel loads can play a greater role in contributing to the extent and heat of the fire.

There was also a question from a member of the "Stretton Group" as to why fuel reduction burning similar to that conducted in Western Australia is not done in Victoria.

Kevin responded that the weather systems, forest types, and flora and fauna impacts are different between WA and Victoria, so the WA burning regime is not directly comparable or relevant to conditions in Victoria.

Around 100,000 hectares of forest has now been burnt twice in succession in 2003 and 2006/7, which has killed the large areas of Mountain Ash forest and the seed for these trees, which cannot now regenerate.

So climate change is contributing to the frequency and severity of bushfires, which are now destroying wet forest that would previously have acted as a natural fire breaks. As theses wetter forests are not adapted for burining, they will now largely replaced with dry schlerophyl forest which is more prone to burning in the future. Increased fuel reduction burning, as advocated by some sectors of the forest industy and associated lobby groups, would further exacerbate this situation.

It is clear that we need to make decisions about land and forest management and bushfire management based on firm scientific evidence rather than pressure from ill informed lobby groups.

Armstrong Creek catchment

Lake Mountain toboggan run

Regenerating tree - Acheron Way

Burnt forest and regenerating tree ferns - Acheron Way

Links

• Bushfires and extreme heat in south-east Australia, David Karoly, RealClimate, 16 February 2009
• 2009 Victorian bushfires, Greenlivingpedia
• Bushfires; Ash Wednesday, Holties House, Friday, December 15, 2006
• Prescribed burns are prejudging the bushfire inquiry , Crikey, Tuesday, 21 April 2009