Tsunami in Japan
Effects of Tsunami in Hawaii
Links
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Sunday, March 13, 2011
Oil price rises and natural calamities threaten the global economy
It is interesting to note the effect of oil price rises and natural disasters on the global economy, and Western economies in particular.
Three recent examples are:
Three recent examples are:
- The 2011 Australian floods
- Increased oil prices due to unrest and regime change in the Middle East and North Africa, particularly the civil war in Libya
- The devastating Japanese earthquake of 11 March 2011
Oil price rises put immediate pressure on items like:
- Retail expenditure - household disposable income drops when fuel prices rise and people stop spending
- Inflation - price rises effectively devalue the currency
- Increase transport costs - leading to an increase in business costs and price rises for many other good and products, including food.
- A negative impact on exporters
In summary, higher oil prices act as a brake on global economic growth. This may not be a bad thing as unlimited growth is clearly not sustainable.
However, it seems that governments and policy makers are not dealing with the reality of peak oil, rising oil prices and transitioning to the low-oil and low-carbon economies we need to cope with depletion of fossil fuels and emission reductions to help combat climate change.
Petrol has reached around AUD $1.50 a litre in Australia.
What will the impacts be when it reaches $3.00, then $5.00, and eventually $10.00 a litre? Very serious, it would appear.
Australia's oil and gas industry is worth $28 billion in the 2009-2010 year. We would be better off spending a large proportion of this money on transitioning to sustainable transport and energy use.
The devastating Japanese earthquake of 11 March 2011 has caused jitters throughout the global economy. While the earth quake is not associated with climate change, it demonstrates how disruptive natural calamities can be.
It is clear that we should reduce carbon emissions locally and globally to help reduce or prevent events linked by science to climate change such as floods, droughts and bushfires.
External links
- Petrol price just barrels along, The Age
- Japan quake causes market jitters , Herald Sun
- 2011 Australian floods - Greenlivingpedia
- The end of the world as we know it, Greenlivingpedia
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Libya: No-Fly Zone
Dear United Nations Security Council delegates,
I call on you to take immediate steps to impose a no-fly zone under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to stop the aerial bombings of civilians in Libya and restore access for humanitarian flights to Libyan air space.
Only through robust international action and oversight can the bloodshed in Libya be stopped.
Sincerely,
Peter Campbell
You can send the United Nations a letter about this here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_no_fly_zone_1/?cl=974061205&v=8575
I call on you to take immediate steps to impose a no-fly zone under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to stop the aerial bombings of civilians in Libya and restore access for humanitarian flights to Libyan air space.
Only through robust international action and oversight can the bloodshed in Libya be stopped.
Sincerely,
Peter Campbell
You can send the United Nations a letter about this here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_no_fly_zone_1/?cl=974061205&v=8575
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
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:
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
- 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 |
 |
| 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
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
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Grand Prix support continued by Baillieu Liberal government
Melbourne has hosted the Australian Grand Prix car race since 1996. The race moved to Melbourne from Adelaide under the then Kennett Liberal government. At the time, there was much controversy about the financial benefits of the race at the time, and the environmental and social impacts of holding it on a street circuit around Melbourne's Albert Park lake.
Subsequent Bracks and Brumby Labor governments continued to provide unconditional support for the race. The Victorian government has consistently refused to disclose the amount of public money provided to race organisers and promoters. It is in the range of tens of millions of dollars.
Successive governments have also claimed that the benefits to Melbourne and Victoria outweigh the costs, but have provide no evidence of this.
This is public money, so the public has the right to know how it is spent, and on what basis. Hiding this expenditure is simply not acceptable.
It is therefore very disappointing that the recently elected Baillieu government has chosen to continue funding the Grand Prix, holding it on the Albert Park circuit, and to also withhold the information on public money spent on the race.
This is after Ted Baillieu's claim to provide "transparent and good government".
Successive governments have simply failed to assess public opinion on this issue. Majority community opinion remains untested, and our democratic system has failing to provide and opportunity for anyone to vote on this matter.
We need a plebiscite on this issue now.
Subsequent Bracks and Brumby Labor governments continued to provide unconditional support for the race. The Victorian government has consistently refused to disclose the amount of public money provided to race organisers and promoters. It is in the range of tens of millions of dollars.
Successive governments have also claimed that the benefits to Melbourne and Victoria outweigh the costs, but have provide no evidence of this.
This is public money, so the public has the right to know how it is spent, and on what basis. Hiding this expenditure is simply not acceptable.
It is therefore very disappointing that the recently elected Baillieu government has chosen to continue funding the Grand Prix, holding it on the Albert Park circuit, and to also withhold the information on public money spent on the race.
This is after Ted Baillieu's claim to provide "transparent and good government".
Successive governments have simply failed to assess public opinion on this issue. Majority community opinion remains untested, and our democratic system has failing to provide and opportunity for anyone to vote on this matter.
We need a plebiscite on this issue now.
125 scientists condemn basis for "alpine grazing trial"
A letter to Robert Clark (MP), Ted Baillieu (Premier), Ryan Smith (Minister for Environment and Climate Change), Peter Walsh (Minister for Agriculture and Food Security)
Robert, Ryan, Peter and Ted,
Robert, Ryan, Peter and Ted,
I note that 125 scientists have now stated that your the "trials of alpine grazing to test bushfire mitigation" lack scientific integrity. This includes 11 professors and nine associate professors.
The also state, correctly, that government has potentially broken federal environment (EPBC) law.
As per my previous correspondence, this pre-emptive and ill-considered move is bad for everyone other than a few select families (about 12 I think).
It is also quite obvious to all that cattle don't eat eucalyptus trees or leaf litter, and any "trampling effect" is negligible.
Your government should act for the people, and base decisions on good practice and good process. Re-introducing cattle to National Parks under a sham pretext fails on all these counts.
I urge you to reconsider this action immediately.
Regards, Peter
See also: Cattle grazing in Victoria's alpine areas is not acceptable, previous post
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Strategies for dealing with Queensland and Victorian floods
Here is a post I put on Facebook recently, and the comments it attracted. It is interesting to note divergent opinions on the responsibilities of state governments and developers.
It is however very clear that a lot of homes have been built on areas known to be subject to regular flooding, with little or no effective measures to protect the.
What about marking the highest water levels of recent floods then elevating houses on posts above this where possible (e.g. up to say 4-5m max height above ground level) and consider carefully what to do about the rest. Perhaps they should be rezoned as high flood risk and residents assisted to relocate to higher ground?
15 Jan 2011
Glenn It seems that developers have the final say on what land is to be developed. They are in the business of making money. If they can get away with building houses on flood prone land then they will. They call it capitalism. I call it greed.
Kieran When it comes to developers, everyone calls it GREED.
Peter Campbell Yes, its greed. But what is the cost? At around $10b+ for the Queensland floods, this money would be better spent preventing future flood impacts and another $10b+ costs for the next flood(s). Governments should regulate this.
Heather What has happened in Aust, Brazil, Sri lanka,Bangladesh etc is tragic -but now wait for class actions in negligence against developers and those issuing planning and building permits,particularly by those with insurance probs.The one positive to come out of this situation is that finally authorities are realising that the statistics haven't lied-what all of us have known for 20 years-climate change is happening and proactive preparations need to be undertaken to ensure that societies are protected as best they can be.Smart developers will realise this and develop accordingly.
Simon Developers fault? Developers greed? What? It is a failure of regulation and politicians...the developers can only do what they are allowed to so to blame them is simply ignoring (or absolving) the real issue that it is a failure of government. And after our recent decade long experience in Victoria it also isnt a simple political 'left' or 'right' wing issue either...it comes down to the morals and values of those who set policy.
Harriett Many Brisbane residents were offered buy-backs of their property by the council and they refused.
Danny Developers aren't passive victims of government regulations. Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments and get zoning regulations overridden or modified to suit them. Half the problem with the "morals and values of those who set policy" comes from corruption, in which property developers have a starring role.
Simon " Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments " No, they may 'attempt' to but if they succeed it is due to those that allow it to happen!! The kind of thinking that says it is all the ‘big bad property developer’ is the real problem as we are not making the policy and regulation makers responsible for their actions!! All vested interest groups try and influence and sway policy, the greens certainly do, as do the pro lifers etc. etc. So the issue is with the policy makers and regulators and it is they who need to be held accountable…to do otherwise (and/or blame the vested interest group trying to sway them) is to absolve them of the very responsibility they should be held to account for.
Danny Problems with the political process can't be separated from the rest of society. It's not a coincidence that the most corrupt and least transparent countries in the world also have massive levels of wealth and income inequality. We need to regulate corruption at _both_ ends, by coming down on the people who pay bribes as well as those who take them.
Tom Wrong Simon. 4 years at Waverley Council says you are wrong, wrong, wrong and talking through your hat as well. The donors control the govt who monster the local councils, and the NSW EP&A Act - you could drive a B double through it - and take over planning controls when it doesn't work. Latest example is state govt sell out of Wagga Wagga planning to smear campaign of the developers.
Michael "Transparent Ted" is a property developer by trade isn't he. Maybe he'll make everyone relocate to Dinner Plain, with all the cattle?
Peter Campbell I thought the "other John Howard" in Sea Change was an accurate simile of real life. He wdas busy flogging off Porpoise Spit to Japanese Developers (pre Japan's recession), and ramming through developments regardless of local and environmental impact. In our society, money buys votes, and developers pressure councils and even get their candidates onto them. I agree with Danny, about taking action against bribe takers and givers. Lets see if the anti-corruption commission deals with this.
Simon I agree with Danny too...as the politicians set the process then so to they need to set the standard, leaders set the standards not society. Every time a person says no to being lobbied, coerced or worse they set a higher standard and challenge the (sad) theories of the like who say it is all the nasty developers/donors and nobody else has any power...bollocks, if the NSW govt. grew some stones, if the local govt. wouldn’t be bullied then the issues of Tom's concern wouldn’t occur. That they do is an indictment on those who allowed it. Leadership starts from the top down. If we follow the logic of the power is all with the donor/developer etc. then the Greens are now at the behest of their political donor?? I would like to think not...
Simon Agree Peter, we do need adequate oversight and appropriate bodies to control these sorts of dubious and even fraudulent activities…but it will still come down to those who set the terms of reference and those who actually act/are appointed to those bodies to be moral centered. Sorry to bang on about it ;)
Heather Like Simon I have extremely strong views about the need for an anti-corruption commission which can deal with local govt and govt departments. Yes, I have had an unpleasant experience and all that I can say is thank goodness for the independence of VCAT!
External links
It is however very clear that a lot of homes have been built on areas known to be subject to regular flooding, with little or no effective measures to protect the.
What about marking the highest water levels of recent floods then elevating houses on posts above this where possible (e.g. up to say 4-5m max height above ground level) and consider carefully what to do about the rest. Perhaps they should be rezoned as high flood risk and residents assisted to relocate to higher ground?
15 Jan 2011
Glenn It seems that developers have the final say on what land is to be developed. They are in the business of making money. If they can get away with building houses on flood prone land then they will. They call it capitalism. I call it greed.
Kieran When it comes to developers, everyone calls it GREED.
Peter Campbell Yes, its greed. But what is the cost? At around $10b+ for the Queensland floods, this money would be better spent preventing future flood impacts and another $10b+ costs for the next flood(s). Governments should regulate this.
Heather What has happened in Aust, Brazil, Sri lanka,Bangladesh etc is tragic -but now wait for class actions in negligence against developers and those issuing planning and building permits,particularly by those with insurance probs.The one positive to come out of this situation is that finally authorities are realising that the statistics haven't lied-what all of us have known for 20 years-climate change is happening and proactive preparations need to be undertaken to ensure that societies are protected as best they can be.Smart developers will realise this and develop accordingly.
Simon Developers fault? Developers greed? What? It is a failure of regulation and politicians...the developers can only do what they are allowed to so to blame them is simply ignoring (or absolving) the real issue that it is a failure of government. And after our recent decade long experience in Victoria it also isnt a simple political 'left' or 'right' wing issue either...it comes down to the morals and values of those who set policy.
Harriett Many Brisbane residents were offered buy-backs of their property by the council and they refused.
Danny Developers aren't passive victims of government regulations. Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments and get zoning regulations overridden or modified to suit them. Half the problem with the "morals and values of those who set policy" comes from corruption, in which property developers have a starring role.
Simon " Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments " No, they may 'attempt' to but if they succeed it is due to those that allow it to happen!! The kind of thinking that says it is all the ‘big bad property developer’ is the real problem as we are not making the policy and regulation makers responsible for their actions!! All vested interest groups try and influence and sway policy, the greens certainly do, as do the pro lifers etc. etc. So the issue is with the policy makers and regulators and it is they who need to be held accountable…to do otherwise (and/or blame the vested interest group trying to sway them) is to absolve them of the very responsibility they should be held to account for.
Danny Problems with the political process can't be separated from the rest of society. It's not a coincidence that the most corrupt and least transparent countries in the world also have massive levels of wealth and income inequality. We need to regulate corruption at _both_ ends, by coming down on the people who pay bribes as well as those who take them.
Tom Wrong Simon. 4 years at Waverley Council says you are wrong, wrong, wrong and talking through your hat as well. The donors control the govt who monster the local councils, and the NSW EP&A Act - you could drive a B double through it - and take over planning controls when it doesn't work. Latest example is state govt sell out of Wagga Wagga planning to smear campaign of the developers.
Michael "Transparent Ted" is a property developer by trade isn't he. Maybe he'll make everyone relocate to Dinner Plain, with all the cattle?
Peter Campbell I thought the "other John Howard" in Sea Change was an accurate simile of real life. He wdas busy flogging off Porpoise Spit to Japanese Developers (pre Japan's recession), and ramming through developments regardless of local and environmental impact. In our society, money buys votes, and developers pressure councils and even get their candidates onto them. I agree with Danny, about taking action against bribe takers and givers. Lets see if the anti-corruption commission deals with this.
Simon I agree with Danny too...as the politicians set the process then so to they need to set the standard, leaders set the standards not society. Every time a person says no to being lobbied, coerced or worse they set a higher standard and challenge the (sad) theories of the like who say it is all the nasty developers/donors and nobody else has any power...bollocks, if the NSW govt. grew some stones, if the local govt. wouldn’t be bullied then the issues of Tom's concern wouldn’t occur. That they do is an indictment on those who allowed it. Leadership starts from the top down. If we follow the logic of the power is all with the donor/developer etc. then the Greens are now at the behest of their political donor?? I would like to think not...
Heather Like Simon I have extremely strong views about the need for an anti-corruption commission which can deal with local govt and govt departments. Yes, I have had an unpleasant experience and all that I can say is thank goodness for the independence of VCAT!
External links
- 2010 Australian floods - Greenlivingpedia, a wiki on green living, building and energy
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Cattle grazing in Victoria's alpine areas is not acceptable
A letter to Robert Clark MP, copied to Premier Ted Bailleu.
===========
Dear Robert
Congratulations on winning government.
I am however not pleased to be writing to you as my local member about the Baillieu government's ill-considered actions in allowing cattle to return to graze in Victoria's Alpine National Park.
Cattle have no place in sensitive alpine environments. They cause far too much damage trampling sensitive streams and bogs and their excrement pollutes the environment and water supplies. I have seen this destruction at first hand in the Victorian Alps.
I assisted a PhD student in 1984 whose thesis researched and measured the impacts of alpine grazing. Unsurprisingly, his published results stated that cattle grazing had major impacts on sensitive alpine ecosystems.
This action by the Baillieu government is not supported by a majority of Victorians. It benefits very few people. Our Alpine National Park should be protected from cattle grazing, as the adjacent Kosciusko National Park in NSW has been for decades.
This action will compromise Victoria's alpine environments and jeopardise their World Heritage listing.
I strongly urge you to reverse this decision and provide our Alpine National Park the protection from cattle grazing that science has confirmed in requires. Can you please table my concerns in both your party room and the Victorian parliament about this on my behalf?
Regards, Peter Campbell
============
External links
I am however not pleased to be writing to you as my local member about the Baillieu government's ill-considered actions in allowing cattle to return to graze in Victoria's Alpine National Park.
Cattle have no place in sensitive alpine environments. They cause far too much damage trampling sensitive streams and bogs and their excrement pollutes the environment and water supplies. I have seen this destruction at first hand in the Victorian Alps.
I assisted a PhD student in 1984 whose thesis researched and measured the impacts of alpine grazing. Unsurprisingly, his published results stated that cattle grazing had major impacts on sensitive alpine ecosystems.
This action by the Baillieu government is not supported by a majority of Victorians. It benefits very few people. Our Alpine National Park should be protected from cattle grazing, as the adjacent Kosciusko National Park in NSW has been for decades.
This action will compromise Victoria's alpine environments and jeopardise their World Heritage listing.
I strongly urge you to reverse this decision and provide our Alpine National Park the protection from cattle grazing that science has confirmed in requires. Can you please table my concerns in both your party room and the Victorian parliament about this on my behalf?
Regards, Peter Campbell
============
External links
- Alpine grazing resumes - Weekly Times Now
- Grazing returns to high country - The Age
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
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
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
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
What is Labor up to with the NBN?
Labor's policy initiative for implementing a high speed National Broadband Network arguably was a decisive factor in them forming minority government after the hung 2010 Australian federal election.
Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor both stated that the delivery of fast internet access to rural regions in Australia was a key consideration in their decision to support the minority Gillard government.
So far so good. Many of Australia's regional areas - even close to major cities - have very slow Internet access. This hampers local businesses and makes it difficult for them to compete with city-based businesses, particularly when websites need updating and eCommerce transactions are conducted.
Spending money - say $20b - on providing fast broadband Internet access to rural areas would go a long way to providing services and opportunities to rural areas. This could have the following benefits
Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor both stated that the delivery of fast internet access to rural regions in Australia was a key consideration in their decision to support the minority Gillard government.
So far so good. Many of Australia's regional areas - even close to major cities - have very slow Internet access. This hampers local businesses and makes it difficult for them to compete with city-based businesses, particularly when websites need updating and eCommerce transactions are conducted.
Spending money - say $20b - on providing fast broadband Internet access to rural areas would go a long way to providing services and opportunities to rural areas. This could have the following benefits
- Companies could conduct business relying on Internet services at any location, not just major cities
- Regional employment opportunities could increase, attracting people to live in regional areas rather than continue to go to cities such as Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane that are becoming crowded and congested
- Innovative health services using video conference and remote surgery could be provided in regional areas, and mean that people living there don't always have to travel to Melbourne for complex or specialist medical treatment
- Young people in rural areas would have the same sort of access to online media and social network that their city counterparts have.
I think all this is good.
However, the notion of providing fibre to every household in major cities is questionable. The vast majority of people who currently have ADSL2+ are happy with their speed of access and download volumes. Our household manages well with 15GB per month and two fairly heavy Internet users find the speed more than acceptable.
Friends with teenage children downloading lots of media operate on plans up to 150GB per month and find this meets their needs.
The notion that extremely high speed (and expensive) optical fibre is required to every home is simply not true. The notion that "it will be needed in the future" is highly questionable too. Given the rate of innovation and change in computing and the Internet, when the future arrives it will be different, and more often than not cheaper.
Politicians like Stephen Conroy know virtually nothing about technology and networks, yet they are presiding over major decisions like the scope and technology solution(s) for the National Broadband Network.
Most of these decisions are happening behind a veil of secrecy, with "commercial in confidence" being trotted out as the excuse for this. This is just not good enough. There has been no community consultation regarding the NBN requirements that I am aware of.
There has been no open industry consultation about it either.
Now Stephen Conroy and Julia Gillard are sitting on the "business case". Why? It is because it doesn't stack up? Do the significant costs of providing optical fibre to every home not have any tangible benefits?
Right there are more questions than answers.
I support proceeding with a rural high-speed Internet solution (say $20b) but think we should delay any expenditure on implementing optical fibre to the homes in our cities.
Optical fibre is already in use within the "Internet backbone" and further investment in this would be appropriate and cost effective.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Liberal, Nationals and Labor converge to shut out Greens
When political parties lodge their "group voting tickets" with the Electoral Commission, their distribution of preferences reveals deals that have been done between them. These "group voting tickets" number all candidates in order and determine the order of voter's preferences for those who vote "above the line" by putting a "1" in a single party's box.
Looking at the "group voting tickets" lodged for the 2010 Victorian State election, the following preference deals are evident:
Labor and the Country Alliance
Labor has a directed preferences to the Country Alliance in Northern Victoria and Eastern Victoria regions - which could result in a right wing candidates getting elected who would oppose new National Parks, support native forest logging and support duck shooting and hunting.
Labor and the Sex Party
Labor has directed preferences to the Sex Party in Northern Metropolitian ahead of the Greens. This is likely to have no effect as the Greens are most likely to win a seat on first preferences. In exchange, the Sex Party is directing lower house preferences in some seats such as Melbourne to Labor ahead of the Greens.
Liberals and the Sex Party
A deal has been done between the Sex Party and the Liberals, making them strange bedfellows. The Liberals have given the Sex Party second preferences in Northern Metropolitan. The Sex Party give immediate preferences to the Greens in South Metropolitan, but as the Greens are likely to have a full quota, the next preference to be effective is to the Liberals ahead of Labor, defeating Labor's Jennifer Huppert and electing Liberal Georgie Crozier (source: Antony Green).
The Sex Party may have even put the Greens last everywhere. The are looking like "the porn and pimps party" run by the big money of the adult industry and are supporting Labor.
Labor and the Greens
Labor has directed second preferences to the Greens in five of the eight upper house seats. In exchange, the Greens have directed preferences to Labor in 11 of Labor's 13 most marginal seats (Mount Waverley 0.3%, Gembrook 0.7%, Forest Hill 0.8%, Mitcham 2.0%, South Barwon 2.3%, Frankston 3.2%, Mordialloc 3.5%, Prahran 3.6%, Burwood 3.7%, Ripon 4.3%, Bendigo East 5.4%, Bentleigh 6.3%, Ballarat West 6.5%)
Labor has also directed preferences to the Greens in 79 of 88 lower house seats, but this is of no real benefit to the Greens as the only seats where they are likely to get elected are direct contests between Labor and the Greens, which means Labor preferences will not be distributed.
The Greens appear to have withdrawn preferences in two of the 13 (possibly Gembrook and one other) in retaliation for Labor directing preferences to the Country Alliance in the upper house. The Greens have stated that they did not direct preferences to Labor in lower house seats in regions where Labor preferenced the County Alliance.
Liberals and the Greens - no deal
The Liberals announced their decision to put the Greens last in all lower house seats across the state. This breaks with their practice in past elections of putting the Greens ahead of Labor on their how to vote cards.
There appears to be four possible reasons for this. The first reason is that the Greens were apparently not offering the Liberals anything they wanted - such as more open tickets (no preference direction) in key Labor marginal seats.
The second reason appears to be ideology. John Howard stated that the Coalition had nothing to gain by helping the Greens take seats from Labor. This was due to perceptions that the Greens would always support Labor and their agenda was more extreme. "I think my side of politics has got to be very careful about giving preferences to the Greens. In my view the Greens are worse than Labor". "The Greens are fundamentally anti free enterprise. They have terrible foreign policy attitudes and they have a lot of social policy attitudes that a lot of Labor people would find abhorrent." Senator Helen Kroger expressed similar views.
It is interesting to note however that both Howard and Kroger participated in previous decisions to preference the Greens ahead of Labor.
However, there was a split within the Liberal party on this. Ex-Treasurer Peter Costello stated that it made good political sense for the Coalition to direction preferences to the Greens in the four inner city seats of Melbourne, Richmond, Northcote and Brunswick as Labor losing these seats would make it easier for the Coalition to win government, and because Labor would be directed campaign resources on two fronts - the inner city contest with the Greens and the other Labor marginals mostly in the outer Eastern Suburbs.
Ex Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett weighed in with an attack on Helen Kroger, stating the Liberals should direct preferences to Labor in the inner city seats, but then later backed Ted Baillieu's decision not to.
Premier John Brumby also made an extraordinary direct appeal when he begged for Liberal voters preferences for Labor ahead of the Greens, stating that Liberal voters should realise a Labor government would be better placed to tackle the big policy challenges than a minority government with the Greens holding the balance of power. ''For the Liberal Party to de facto elect Greens members of parliament is quite anathema to the Liberal Party,'' Brumby said.
The third reason is that it seems there were perceptions within the Liberals that the Greens would not form a minority government with them in the event of a hung parliament, which would have been likely if the Greens won four inner city seats. The Liberals were possibly thinking "if we have got nothing, we have got nothing to lose", or they may prefer staying in opposition to the prospect of entering a minority government with the Greens.
The fourth reason, probably the most likely, is that Labor got onto its big business mates and used them to persuade the Liberals to put Labor ahead of the Greens.
Mandatory preferences are not good for democracy
The electoral requirement for parties and candidates to specify "preference flows" for Upper House voting in Victoria (and the Australian Senate) opens up the playing field for parties and candidates to do all manor of "preference deals", which sometimes results in candidates being elected from a tiny percentage of the vote as Stephen Fielding (Family First) and Peter Kavanagh (DLP) were from Labor preference deals.
This is anti-democratic as voters are not involved in or even aware of such deals, yet their votes go where the party apparatchiks have decided.
A solution is to give voters the right to decide NOT to distribute the any or all of their preferences. For above the line voting this would mean that a "1 Liberal" vote would go only to the Liberal candidates and not "flow on" to others. For voters who do wish to allocate their preferences they could go 1, 2, 3, 4 etc above the line, or number any desired squares below the line in sequence - stopping when they want to.
In the lower house, how-to-vote cards favour political parties who have the resources to (people and/or money) to have them printed and handed out. This provides a heavy bias against any independent candidates who don't have the resources to do this.
A solution would be ban handing out of how to vote cards, and provide fixed printed versions in every polling booth. This would have the added benefit of eliminating the massive waste of paper from the hundreds of thousands how-to-vote cards printed and mostly discarded.
In conclusion
The Liberal-National coaltion's decision to direct preferences to Labor has certainly have impacted the Greens chances in all four inner city seats, but a lot still depends on the voters, many of whom may not follow their party's how to vote cards and choose where their preference goes.
If Liberal voters in these seats follow the Liberal how to vote card, then a vote for the Liberals will be a vote for Labor.
If you live in the seat of Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick or Northcote (or any other seat for that matter) you would do well to allocate your own preferences and not follow any how to vote card.
It is also possible that Labor preferences may elect the Country Alliance to the Upper House, and that they may hold the balance of power in the upper house. Yet another right wing group could hold the government to ransom.
Links
Note that some of the articles below would have been written by party apparatchiks and fed to the media, and may bear no semblance to the truth!
Looking at the "group voting tickets" lodged for the 2010 Victorian State election, the following preference deals are evident:
Labor and the Country Alliance
Labor has a directed preferences to the Country Alliance in Northern Victoria and Eastern Victoria regions - which could result in a right wing candidates getting elected who would oppose new National Parks, support native forest logging and support duck shooting and hunting.
Labor and the Sex Party
Labor has directed preferences to the Sex Party in Northern Metropolitian ahead of the Greens. This is likely to have no effect as the Greens are most likely to win a seat on first preferences. In exchange, the Sex Party is directing lower house preferences in some seats such as Melbourne to Labor ahead of the Greens.
Liberals and the Sex Party
A deal has been done between the Sex Party and the Liberals, making them strange bedfellows. The Liberals have given the Sex Party second preferences in Northern Metropolitan. The Sex Party give immediate preferences to the Greens in South Metropolitan, but as the Greens are likely to have a full quota, the next preference to be effective is to the Liberals ahead of Labor, defeating Labor's Jennifer Huppert and electing Liberal Georgie Crozier (source: Antony Green).
The Sex Party may have even put the Greens last everywhere. The are looking like "the porn and pimps party" run by the big money of the adult industry and are supporting Labor.
Labor has directed second preferences to the Greens in five of the eight upper house seats. In exchange, the Greens have directed preferences to Labor in 11 of Labor's 13 most marginal seats (Mount Waverley 0.3%, Gembrook 0.7%, Forest Hill 0.8%, Mitcham 2.0%, South Barwon 2.3%, Frankston 3.2%, Mordialloc 3.5%, Prahran 3.6%, Burwood 3.7%, Ripon 4.3%, Bendigo East 5.4%, Bentleigh 6.3%, Ballarat West 6.5%)
Labor has also directed preferences to the Greens in 79 of 88 lower house seats, but this is of no real benefit to the Greens as the only seats where they are likely to get elected are direct contests between Labor and the Greens, which means Labor preferences will not be distributed.
The Greens appear to have withdrawn preferences in two of the 13 (possibly Gembrook and one other) in retaliation for Labor directing preferences to the Country Alliance in the upper house. The Greens have stated that they did not direct preferences to Labor in lower house seats in regions where Labor preferenced the County Alliance.
Liberals and the Greens - no deal
The Liberals announced their decision to put the Greens last in all lower house seats across the state. This breaks with their practice in past elections of putting the Greens ahead of Labor on their how to vote cards.
There appears to be four possible reasons for this. The first reason is that the Greens were apparently not offering the Liberals anything they wanted - such as more open tickets (no preference direction) in key Labor marginal seats.
The second reason appears to be ideology. John Howard stated that the Coalition had nothing to gain by helping the Greens take seats from Labor. This was due to perceptions that the Greens would always support Labor and their agenda was more extreme. "I think my side of politics has got to be very careful about giving preferences to the Greens. In my view the Greens are worse than Labor". "The Greens are fundamentally anti free enterprise. They have terrible foreign policy attitudes and they have a lot of social policy attitudes that a lot of Labor people would find abhorrent." Senator Helen Kroger expressed similar views.
It is interesting to note however that both Howard and Kroger participated in previous decisions to preference the Greens ahead of Labor.
However, there was a split within the Liberal party on this. Ex-Treasurer Peter Costello stated that it made good political sense for the Coalition to direction preferences to the Greens in the four inner city seats of Melbourne, Richmond, Northcote and Brunswick as Labor losing these seats would make it easier for the Coalition to win government, and because Labor would be directed campaign resources on two fronts - the inner city contest with the Greens and the other Labor marginals mostly in the outer Eastern Suburbs.
Ex Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett weighed in with an attack on Helen Kroger, stating the Liberals should direct preferences to Labor in the inner city seats, but then later backed Ted Baillieu's decision not to.
Premier John Brumby also made an extraordinary direct appeal when he begged for Liberal voters preferences for Labor ahead of the Greens, stating that Liberal voters should realise a Labor government would be better placed to tackle the big policy challenges than a minority government with the Greens holding the balance of power. ''For the Liberal Party to de facto elect Greens members of parliament is quite anathema to the Liberal Party,'' Brumby said.
The third reason is that it seems there were perceptions within the Liberals that the Greens would not form a minority government with them in the event of a hung parliament, which would have been likely if the Greens won four inner city seats. The Liberals were possibly thinking "if we have got nothing, we have got nothing to lose", or they may prefer staying in opposition to the prospect of entering a minority government with the Greens.
The fourth reason, probably the most likely, is that Labor got onto its big business mates and used them to persuade the Liberals to put Labor ahead of the Greens.
So the Liberals announced their decision to direct preferences to Labor in the four inner city seats, and attempted to claim the high moral ground by claiming "voters now have a clear choice" and that "a Labor majority government is better than a Greens-Labor minority government. Brian Walters, the Greens candidate for Melbourne stated that in doing so, "The Liberals and Labor seem to have formed a grand conservative coalition to shut out the Greens".
The electoral requirement for parties and candidates to specify "preference flows" for Upper House voting in Victoria (and the Australian Senate) opens up the playing field for parties and candidates to do all manor of "preference deals", which sometimes results in candidates being elected from a tiny percentage of the vote as Stephen Fielding (Family First) and Peter Kavanagh (DLP) were from Labor preference deals.
This is anti-democratic as voters are not involved in or even aware of such deals, yet their votes go where the party apparatchiks have decided.
A solution is to give voters the right to decide NOT to distribute the any or all of their preferences. For above the line voting this would mean that a "1 Liberal" vote would go only to the Liberal candidates and not "flow on" to others. For voters who do wish to allocate their preferences they could go 1, 2, 3, 4 etc above the line, or number any desired squares below the line in sequence - stopping when they want to.
In the lower house, how-to-vote cards favour political parties who have the resources to (people and/or money) to have them printed and handed out. This provides a heavy bias against any independent candidates who don't have the resources to do this.
A solution would be ban handing out of how to vote cards, and provide fixed printed versions in every polling booth. This would have the added benefit of eliminating the massive waste of paper from the hundreds of thousands how-to-vote cards printed and mostly discarded.
In conclusion
The Liberal-National coaltion's decision to direct preferences to Labor has certainly have impacted the Greens chances in all four inner city seats, but a lot still depends on the voters, many of whom may not follow their party's how to vote cards and choose where their preference goes.
If Liberal voters in these seats follow the Liberal how to vote card, then a vote for the Liberals will be a vote for Labor.
If you live in the seat of Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick or Northcote (or any other seat for that matter) you would do well to allocate your own preferences and not follow any how to vote card.
It is also possible that Labor preferences may elect the Country Alliance to the Upper House, and that they may hold the balance of power in the upper house. Yet another right wing group could hold the government to ransom.
Links
Note that some of the articles below would have been written by party apparatchiks and fed to the media, and may bear no semblance to the truth!
- Antony Green's Election Blog: Legislative Council Preference Tickets
- Kennett Attacks Kroger Over Green Preferences | AustralianPolitics.com :
- John Howard urgers Liberals not to give preferences to Greens :
- Liberals In Conflict Over Preference Deals :
- Preferencing Greens may be Libs' best option | The Australian :
- Victorian Liberals Put Greens Last On How To Vote Cards The Age
- How-to-vote cards awaken the rebel in inner-city voter The Age
- Coalition Puts Greens Last | Greens On The Outer : The Age
- Deal founders on Greens' arrogance | The Australian :
- Greens cling to lower house hopes :
- Of course the Liberals prefer the right-wing Labor party to the progressive Greens | An Onymous Lefty :
- Greens still positive despite preference deals - iPRIME Albury :
- Antony Green's Election Blog: Implications of the Liberals putting the Greens last in the Lower House :
- Preference snub renders Greens 'a lost cause' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) :
- Labor’s Greens obsession on show over preference deals | Crikey :
- Liberals split on Greens preference snub | The Australian :
- Lateline - 15/11/2010: Greens lose Coalition preferences :
Friday, November 19, 2010
Has Melbourne's property bubble burst?
After a long sustained period of dramatically rising house prices in Melbourne, and across Victoria, the market seems to have flattened out at last. Many house prices in metropolitan Melbourne have doubled over the last 10 years.
I think the major factors contributing to this are:
I think the major factors contributing to this are:
- Tax free status of the place of residence. Home owners pay no capital gains tax when they sell their house. This is one of the last easy ways to avoid tax.
- Negative gearing for investors. Investor can write off interest on loans for investment properties as a tax deduction. This is also easy tax avoidance.
- First Home Buyers Scheme grants puts money in the pockets of first home buyers which allows them to pay more for a house
- Ongoing volatility in the share market creates doubts about shares being a good investment
The first three factors are all dependent on and associated closely with continually rising house prices. Nobody wants to take out a big loan, buy a house, then see its value decline. As soon as there is a perception that house prices are flat (or even worse falling), we risk entering a negative feedback loop of the kind seen recently in the United Kingdom and the United States.
We could end up with a rush to sell houses to avoid losing capital value, which in turn floods the market and would drive the price down. In addition, if unemployment rises and/or interest rates keep increasing, some people can no longer make their home loan repayments so they would be forced to sell their house.
Money borrowed to buy houses at inflated prices only benefits the banks and other lenders who reap a windfall in interest payments over a long time period. This money would be better spent on improving the energy efficiency of our housing stop so the we use less energy and save money on bills.
Factors one, two and three are "sacred cows" where no politician will go. Unfortunately, I fear these factors have combined to create a huge bubble in house prices which is based on peoples perceptions about wealth without having any real basis.
The other big problem is affordability and provision of housing for people and families on low incomes. Many are simply priced out of the market. They cannot afford to buy a house, or pay inflated rents that landlords charge to offset their large loans. This is not good for the long term cohesion of our society.
By coincidence, the Australian has also published a prominent article on this topic.
Update 24/1/11
Apparently Melbourne's house price bubble is no longer growing. I wonder if it will burst?
In the last two decades, we have gone from affordable housing for most to the world's most expensive housing for the wealthy elite, under the gaze of our politicians.
See also
By coincidence, the Australian has also published a prominent article on this topic.
Update 24/1/11
Apparently Melbourne's house price bubble is no longer growing. I wonder if it will burst?
In the last two decades, we have gone from affordable housing for most to the world's most expensive housing for the wealthy elite, under the gaze of our politicians.
See also
- 5 star rated houses in Victoria, Australia - Greenlivingpedia
- Sustainable house design features checklist - Greenlivingpedia
- Treasury warning on home price 'bubble' - The Australian
- Will ninjas burst the Great Australian Housing Bubble? - Prosper Australia
- Melbourne housing now 'severely unaffordable', The Age
- House prices to flatline this year: ANZ, The Age
Friday, October 22, 2010
A better solution for water
Here is a copy of our domestic water bill for 2 February 2010.
We have 23,000 litres of water tanks in Surrey Hills and are almost completely self-sufficient for water - as you can see by the information on this bill, including:
We have 23,000 litres of water tanks in Surrey Hills and are almost completely self-sufficient for water - as you can see by the information on this bill, including:
- 4 litres per person per day for November to Jan 2010 (compared with the government target of 155)
- 0 liters per person per day over the periods may to October 2009.
Yet the Victorian Minister Tim Holding has stated that "water tanks are not an effective solution" and Premier John Brumby as stated that "water tanks would have higher carbon emissions than the desalination plant".
Neither have responded to my letters informing them that they are wrong on both counts - despite me providing evidence that proves my point.
The Brumby government panicked during 2008-2009 when the drought was severe, and threw 10 years of water strategy and community consultation focused on recycling water and conserving it in the bin.
Instead the Brumby government has:
- Built the north-south pipeline at considerable cost that takes water from the deprived Murray Darling basin.
- Commissioned the world's largest desalination plant which will cost around $5 billion to build, and residents will have to pay the private consortium "returns" even if they don't produce water
There was no community consultation about either project and the huge environmental impacts of both have been basically ignored. "Parliamentary rule" from Spring Street is not democracy - its dodgy business deals that deliver really bad outcomes that we all have to end up paying for decades to come.
If the government had commissioned recycling and storm water capture instead, we could have avoided the expense and environmental impacts of both these projects.
Links
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Agreement to exit native forest logging in Tasmania
An historic deal that will end logging of Tasmania's native forests was reported today.
Following lengthy talks between industry, union and environment groups, an agreement between them has just been struck, and a joint statement of principles issued, that includes:
Links
Following lengthy talks between industry, union and environment groups, an agreement between them has just been struck, and a joint statement of principles issued, that includes:
- Recognising the need to protect high conservation value forests and end ''industrial forestry'' of them in a timeframe to be agreed
- Restricting the burning of timber as biomass fuel to material sourced from plantations only
- Moving to ''a strong and sustainable industry based on a range of plantation-based industries including a pulp mill"
- The logging of some specialty timbers from these forests for purposes such as craftwood is allowed.
This is great news for Tasmania's remaining native forests, and potentially ends decades of conflict over the logging of native forests.
It is interesting to note that no politicians were involved in brokering the agreement. Forests have been a "political football" for some time, with both Labor and Liberal governments supporting their ongoing destruction for decades and ignoring the wishes of over 80% of the Australian population that want them protected.
There are many factors that have contributed to this outcome, including:
- Continued job losses within the native forest logging industry, despite ongoing access to native forests
- Gunns Corporation exiting native forest logging due to the unwillingness of Japanese buyers to purchase woodchips that are not subject to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified forestry practices
- The rising strength of the Australian dollar making export of woodchips unprofitable.
- Declining availability of native forests has forced governments to move loggers into highly contentious forest areas, which has provoked serious ongoing conflicts.
- A realisation that plantations can provide a much more reliable supply of wood with greatly reduced environmental impact - but only if they are appropriately managed.
- There is enough hardwood and softwood plantation resource currently available to enable industry transition out of native forests.
This follows the end of industrial-scale native forest logging in Queensland and Western Australia in the late 90s.
This agreement clearly sets a precedent for exiting native forest logging in Victoria and New South Wales too, where factors very similar to those in Tasmania are also relevant.
It is to be hoped that industry, union and environment groups in New South Wales and Victoria can achieve a similar excellent outcome after years of similar conflict and declining jobs in the native forest logging sector.
Forest protection is big issue in the upcoming 2010 Victorian State election. The Brumby government protected around 41,000 hectares of forest in September 2010, but this included many areas that were not high conservation-value forests (only around 11,000 hectare were old growth forests), and left many other high quality forest areas such as Brown Mountain unprotected from logging.
A compromised political outcome that only protects Melbourne's water catchments (less than 2% of Victoria's native forests logged annually) - will not be good enough.
Links
- Era of protest ends in a principled peace, Sydney Morning Herald
- Historic deal on forests, The Age
- Forest Letter Watch
- Historic agreement to protect Tasmania's ancient forests, The Wilderness Society
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Water and the Murray Darling river system
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.
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.
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
Monday, September 13, 2010
John Brumby approves a new coal fired power station
Premier John Brumby and the Victorian Labor government has just approved a new coal fired power station to be build by a Chinese company in the Latrobe Valley.
More carbon emissions will obviously result - despite claims that it is somehow "clean".
We should only be building solar thermal power stations with molten salt energy storage, and wind farms.
Update 17 September 2010
Marius Kloppers, the CEO of BHP, today called for Australia to bring in a carbon tax to put a price on carbon and to plan for a transition off coal [link]
In California, the world's largest solar power station has just been given approval to proceed. It will cost US$6b and provide 1000 MW of power. [link]
Links
More carbon emissions will obviously result - despite claims that it is somehow "clean".
We should only be building solar thermal power stations with molten salt energy storage, and wind farms.
Update 17 September 2010
Marius Kloppers, the CEO of BHP, today called for Australia to bring in a carbon tax to put a price on carbon and to plan for a transition off coal [link]
In California, the world's largest solar power station has just been given approval to proceed. It will cost US$6b and provide 1000 MW of power. [link]
Links
- Coal station deal raises eyebrows, Adam Morton, The Age, September 13, 2010
- Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan
- Move on climate, BHP Billiton urges
- Calif. solar plant, to be world's largest, wins key approval
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Nationals go feral and a disgruntled Opposition and media
After hearing nothing from the National Party during the election, we have been treated to the unedifying spectacle of Barnaby Joyce and Warren Truss launching strident and savage attacks against the two independent MPs who decided to support Labor in a minority government. This behaviour is quite inappropriate and demonstrates the worst of "politics as usual" by MPs who should know better.
Tony Abbott, to his credit, has attempted to reign them in but has not been able to do so. So much for a "stable opposition". We have also seen attacks on the minority government by Joe Hockey and Christopher Pyne, who labelled it as "illegitimate". This was also inappropriate and was just more attack-dog style politics.
We also see the Coalition (all 74 of them) now committed to more whining and carping and incessant criticism of the minority government. Imagine trying to run a company where 49% of the workers were sitting back and doing nothing other than finding fault, often for no good reason, with the other 51% working for the good of the company! There is certainly no new paradigm being displayed here.
The response from large sections of the media is also curious. Some seem outraged by the lack of a "winner takes all" result and subsequent autocratic behaviour of a particular political party.
As many observers have noted, minority government and power sharing arrangements are the norm in most modern democracies. There is nothing wrong with this, and there are several advantages as we have already seen - such as better decision making, getting a wider range of issues considered by government and parliamentary reform to improve its function to name a few.
I was impressed by Tony Windsor's and Rob Oakeshott's short speeches when they announced their decision. They made several excellent points and also provided a clear and considered basis for their decision to support a minority government with Labor, the Greens Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie.
Bob Katter had his moment in the sun and predictably swayed in the conservative direction of his constituents in Far North Queensland to support Tony Abbott and the Coalition. Even though he displayes a visceral hate for a couple of the current national party members. But then he knew they were not going to form government.
Some other points of interest are:
Tony Abbott, to his credit, has attempted to reign them in but has not been able to do so. So much for a "stable opposition". We have also seen attacks on the minority government by Joe Hockey and Christopher Pyne, who labelled it as "illegitimate". This was also inappropriate and was just more attack-dog style politics.
We also see the Coalition (all 74 of them) now committed to more whining and carping and incessant criticism of the minority government. Imagine trying to run a company where 49% of the workers were sitting back and doing nothing other than finding fault, often for no good reason, with the other 51% working for the good of the company! There is certainly no new paradigm being displayed here.
The response from large sections of the media is also curious. Some seem outraged by the lack of a "winner takes all" result and subsequent autocratic behaviour of a particular political party.
As many observers have noted, minority government and power sharing arrangements are the norm in most modern democracies. There is nothing wrong with this, and there are several advantages as we have already seen - such as better decision making, getting a wider range of issues considered by government and parliamentary reform to improve its function to name a few.
I was impressed by Tony Windsor's and Rob Oakeshott's short speeches when they announced their decision. They made several excellent points and also provided a clear and considered basis for their decision to support a minority government with Labor, the Greens Adam Bandt and Andrew Wilkie.
Bob Katter had his moment in the sun and predictably swayed in the conservative direction of his constituents in Far North Queensland to support Tony Abbott and the Coalition. Even though he displayes a visceral hate for a couple of the current national party members. But then he knew they were not going to form government.
Some other points of interest are:
- Penny Wong may be replaced as the minister responsible for climate change by Greg Combet. Wong has been a dismal failure in the role, but Combet has previously launched intemperate attacks on the Greens.
- Peter Garrett is missing in action. Off to the back bench I think, never to be seen again.
- Rudd looks like he will be the next foreign minister - he would be the best for this role and Stephen Smith has graciously stepped down to vacate it
- Wilson Tuckey has lost his seat to an "independent National". Bye bye Wilson.
- Stephen Conroy seems to still be pursuing his ill-considered "clean feed Great Firewall of Australia" despite the fact he won't get support in either house for it. Drop it Stephen.
- I still think Malcolm Turnbull should be offer the job as Treasurer. Wayne Swan really doesn't seem to know what he is doing.
- What will be become of Martin Fergusan? Will he retain his job as Minister for Coal and Oil? He had a massive swing against him in favour of the Greens Alex Bhathal.
- "Border security" and "the population debate" have both disappeared off the radar, and so they should. If Labor and the Coalition ramp up this sort of dangerous and errant nonsense in future elections then the Greens will pick up even more votes and more will get elected. No more dog whistles please.
Hopefully we will see a rejuvenated political system with less gumpf from the mainstream media and opposition, and we will at last see some positive steps to the future, including steps to transition to a clean and safe energy future.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Gunns exits native forests, they should now be protected in Tasmania, NSW and Victoria
Gunns has exited from logging native forests in Tasmania, and have stated that "native forest is not part of our future" and that they are moving to a plantation-based business.
Gunns acknowledged that the vast majority of Australians want their native forests protected.
However, Tasmanian native forests, and native forests in Victoria and New South Wales, are not protected from logging as a result of this.
The Victorian Labor government promised in 2006 to "immediately protect remaining significant stands of old growth forest currently available for timber harvesting" but they have not yet done so.
The 40,000 hectares of "forest" they did commit to protect included low quality regrowth forest and even some cow paddocks. They did not protect other designated old growth forests such as Brown Mountain.
Following legal action by Environment East Gippsland, the Victorian Supreme Court ruled that Brown Mountain forest must be protected due to the presence of endangered species and the requirements of the law, and found the Victorian Government and Vicforests to be at fault.
It is now up to state and federal governments to recognised the will of the people and ensure that remaining native forests are protected and that the logging and woodchip industries fully transition to plantation resources.
The very significant benefits in protecting our remaining native forests include preserving their biodiversity, safeguarding the carbon they store and the water they produce, and providing an excellent resource for local and international eco-tourism.
Links
Gunns acknowledged that the vast majority of Australians want their native forests protected.
However, Tasmanian native forests, and native forests in Victoria and New South Wales, are not protected from logging as a result of this.
The 40,000 hectares of "forest" they did commit to protect included low quality regrowth forest and even some cow paddocks. They did not protect other designated old growth forests such as Brown Mountain.
Following legal action by Environment East Gippsland, the Victorian Supreme Court ruled that Brown Mountain forest must be protected due to the presence of endangered species and the requirements of the law, and found the Victorian Government and Vicforests to be at fault.
It is now up to state and federal governments to recognised the will of the people and ensure that remaining native forests are protected and that the logging and woodchip industries fully transition to plantation resources.
The very significant benefits in protecting our remaining native forests include preserving their biodiversity, safeguarding the carbon they store and the water they produce, and providing an excellent resource for local and international eco-tourism.
Links
- Timber giant concedes defeat in decades-old logging war, The Age
- Time for loggers to leave Victoria's forests, Brian Walters
- Victoria no longer in Gunns' sights, Melissa Fyfe, The Age
- Brown Mountain old growth forest, Greenlivingpedia
Thursday, September 02, 2010
A well hung parliament is healthy for Australia
Negotiations are proceeding to form a stable government in Australia, with neither of the "major" (or "old") parties getting enough seats in the House of Representatives to form government on their own. The magic number is 76 seats.
Currently the Liberal - National coalition have won 73, which includes a National MP in Western Australia who has not yet fully committed to supporting the Coalition.
Labor have won 72 seats. The Greens had previously committed to supporting a minority Labor goverment [link], bring Labor's total to 73.
Andrew Wilkie, the indepedent who has just won the seat of Denison in Tasmania, committed to supporting a Labor minority government today [link]. Wilkie's commitment boosts Labor to 74.
There are three remaining independents yet to decide who they will support.
Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott appear to share similar views on matters of policy and the conduct of government. The recent revelation of serious errors in Coalition budget estimates and promised found by Treasury means they are either incompetent or liars, which does not auger well for a future Abbott government.
Both Windsor and Oakeshott have stated that a price on carbon is needed as one of the measures to tackle climate change [link]. Abbott ruled this out during the election campaign and stated his government would not bring in either a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.
For these reasons (and a few more), I think Windsor and Oakeshott will support Labor too, which would give Labor 76 seats.
Bob Katter comes across as a rough diamond passionate about protecting the interests of rural Australia. There is no doubt that services and economic conditions in much of rural Australia have been neglected by political parties (and governments) intent on winning elections focussed on marginal seats. Katter was quoted today saying the "Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut are lightweights" along with some mutterings about climate change [link] - which seems to indicate he is the camp of politicians gulled by carbon industry PR.
Katter's background and the views of voters in his electorate would seem to push him towards supporting Abbott, but he may go along with his other two independent colleagues and support Labor too.
We should know by the end of this weekend coming.
The hung parliament has been the best possible result for the election, as our political system was being gamed by the major parties leading to many perverse policies, including unfair treatment of asylum seekers, avoidance of any real action on climate change to name a couple.
The benefits of this hung parliament are already clear. They include:
Currently the Liberal - National coalition have won 73, which includes a National MP in Western Australia who has not yet fully committed to supporting the Coalition.
Labor have won 72 seats. The Greens had previously committed to supporting a minority Labor goverment [link], bring Labor's total to 73.
Andrew Wilkie, the indepedent who has just won the seat of Denison in Tasmania, committed to supporting a Labor minority government today [link]. Wilkie's commitment boosts Labor to 74.
There are three remaining independents yet to decide who they will support.
Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott appear to share similar views on matters of policy and the conduct of government. The recent revelation of serious errors in Coalition budget estimates and promised found by Treasury means they are either incompetent or liars, which does not auger well for a future Abbott government.
Both Windsor and Oakeshott have stated that a price on carbon is needed as one of the measures to tackle climate change [link]. Abbott ruled this out during the election campaign and stated his government would not bring in either a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme.
For these reasons (and a few more), I think Windsor and Oakeshott will support Labor too, which would give Labor 76 seats.
Bob Katter comes across as a rough diamond passionate about protecting the interests of rural Australia. There is no doubt that services and economic conditions in much of rural Australia have been neglected by political parties (and governments) intent on winning elections focussed on marginal seats. Katter was quoted today saying the "Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut are lightweights" along with some mutterings about climate change [link] - which seems to indicate he is the camp of politicians gulled by carbon industry PR.
Katter's background and the views of voters in his electorate would seem to push him towards supporting Abbott, but he may go along with his other two independent colleagues and support Labor too.
We should know by the end of this weekend coming.
The hung parliament has been the best possible result for the election, as our political system was being gamed by the major parties leading to many perverse policies, including unfair treatment of asylum seekers, avoidance of any real action on climate change to name a couple.
The benefits of this hung parliament are already clear. They include:
- reform of question time in parliament so that it real questions get asked and properly answered (3 independents)
- two-and-a-half hours of allocated debate for private members' bills (Greens)
- an independent speaker in the House (3 independents)
- bans (or limits) on donations to political parties (Greens)
- some tightening of policies relating to poker machines and problem gamblers (Wilkie)
- the scrapping of Labor's ill advised "Citizens Assembly on Climate Change" and establishment of a Climate Change Committee to replace it (Greens)
- a referendum on recognising Indigenous Australians (Greens)
- access to Treasury analysis of government and coalition budget estimates and statements (the three independents).
- the formation of a climate change committee
- a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan (Greens)
- legislation on truth in political advertising (Greens)
- the establishment of a Parliamentary Budget Committee (Greens)
- a parliamentary integrity commissioner (Greens)
- improved processes for release of documents in Parliament
- a leaders debates Commission (Greens)
- a move towards full three-year parliamentary terms (Greens)
Saturday, August 28, 2010
The evolution of personal computers - what I have owned
Here is a list of "primary" personal computers that I have owned in order of purchase. The evolution of the technology and specifications - particularly the hardware - is spectacular.
1. Kaypro, circa 1989
1. Kaypro, circa 1989
- 1 MB RAM (640K used by DOS)
- 20 MB Hard Disk
- Intel 8088-2 Processor - 5 MHz, turbo mode 8MHz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8088
- 5.2 inch floppy disk drive
- Cost $4,000 (approx)
- Status: in storage
Software:
- MS DOS
- MS Windows 1.4 (ran like a dog, basically useless)
- MS Word for DOS v4
This was my first PC. The processor was on a board that plugged into the motherboard so in theory it could easily upgraded, but in practice CPU and bus design superseded this feature.
The RAM above 640KB could be configured and used as a RAM disk.
2. Microarts 486, circa 1993
- 8 MB RAM (8 * 1MB modules)
- 120MB Hard disk (upgraded to 1.2GB eventually)
- Intel 486 processor - 50 MHz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_486
- Video: Tseng ET4000 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tseng_Labs_ET4000
- Cost $4,000 (approx)
- Status: Disposed of.
- MS DOS 5
- OS/2 version 2.1 and version 3.0
- MS Word for Windows 2.0
3. Landmark AMD K6, circa 1997
- 256 MB RAM (2 * 128 MB modules)
- ??? Hard disk
- AMD K6 processor - 233 MHz http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K6
- Video ???
- Cost $2,500 (approx)
- Status: Given away
Software:
- Windows 95
4. Dell Optiplex, circa 2001
- 512 MB RAM, upgraded to 768MB RAM (3 * 256 MB modules)
- 100 MB Hard disk (?)
- Pentium III processor - 600 MHz (?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_III
- Video onboard
- Cost: $1,250 (approx)
- Status: Returned at end of lease deal.
Software
- Windows 2000
This machine was purchased as part of a "PC at home" via the company I worked for at the time. They took a long time to get the program running so it was a substandard spec by the time it arrived. I upgraded the RAM and hard disks over time.
5. Homebuilt Pentium IV, circa 2003
- 2GB RAM
- 100 MB Hard disk (?)
- Pentium IV processor - 2.4 GHz (upgraded to 2.8 GHz) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_IV
- Video: nVideo GE Forece 4 440, upgraded to ATI Radeon 9600 512MB
- Cost: $1,500 (approx)
- Status: Still in use
Software
- Windows 2000
I built this machine as a longer term proposition. It had double the RAM that was common at that time. I also fitted a SCSI card to run a Nikon Coolscan III scanner. I started with a RAID configuration then reverted to normal disk management.
6. Asus F3JM Laptop - Core 2 Duo, circa 2006
- 2GB RAM
- 250 MB Hard disk (upgraded to 500 MB)
- Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 processor - 2.53 GHz
- 2 cores
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_2_Duo
- Video nVidia Geforce GO 7800 512MB
- Cost: $2,700 (approx)
- Status: In use.
Software
- Windows XP
- Kubuntu 9.10
The concept here was to use a lower power machine as my primary workstation that I could also lug around when required. The processor has enough grunt to do video editing. However, over time the boot time has increased and the performance has degraded. It never ran Adobe Premiere Elements very fast. I also ended up with several large (1TB +) which cluttered up my desk space a bit.
7. Custom built Core i5, mid 2011
- 8GB RAM (4 * 2 GB modules) DDR3
- 3 TB Hard disk (2 * 1.5 TB hard disks)
- Intel Core i5 750 m IV processor - 2.67 GHz
- 4 cores
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_i5-750#.22Lynnfield.22_.2845_nm.29
- Video: 1GB Radeon HD 5450 DDR3
- Cost: $1,300 (approx)
- Status: In use.
- Windows 7 Home Premium
- Sun Virtual Box - Linux Mint 8 and Fedora Core 13
This machine has good processor power for encoding videos and more than enough for general office tasks. There is enough memory to run additional operating systems in virtual machines too.
Mobile and secondary computers
Fujitsu Lifebook 2120
- 256MB RAM (on board)
- Transmeta Cruseo processor
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta_Crusoe
- 120 MB hard disk
- Cost: $2,500 (approx), on special
- Status: in the cupboard
Software
- MS Windows XP
- Kubuntu 9.10 Linux
This very compact laptop ran the low voltage and low power Transmeta Crusoe processor. It was a pioneer of the segment that later become known as Netbooks. It has been very reliable, but the processor speed is a bit slow and the memory cannot be upgraded.
MSI Wind U100 Netbook
- 2GB RAM
- Intel Atom N270 processor
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmeta_Crusoe
- 250 GB hard disk
Software
- MS Windows XP Home Edition
- Linux Mint 8.0
- Kubuntu 9.10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)