Occupy Melbourne protest removed with Police force

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

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

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

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

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

Links

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

Australia finally gets a price on carbon

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

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

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

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

Here is an interesting quote from Crikey:

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

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

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

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

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

External links

• Gillard, Rudd celebrate as carbon bills pass - ABC News

A 4 week nightmare with Telstra

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

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

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


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

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

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

Dear Mr Thodey,

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

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

Connection

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

Ongoing dropouts not resolved

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

More service disruption

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

Backup Telstra Wifi Modem failed and not replaced.

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

Service restored, but widespread problems apparent in suburb

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

Network techs visit for the first time

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,


Peter Campbell.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

This represents a win for Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion.

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

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

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

External links

• US debt deal wins approval, The Age

We need to transition from coal to 100% renewable energy

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

Michael,

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Peter Campbell

Why do we lock up asylum seekers?

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

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

2. For political reasons.

Why should we NOT lock them up?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Robert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Peter Campbell

Fast Trains for Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely,
Peter Campbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Both Gillard and Abbott really need to lift their game.

Links

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

Dramatic video from helicopter of tsunami in Japan

Tsunami in Japan



Effects of Tsunami in Hawaii



Links

• Amateur video captures Tsunami horror, Reuters

Oil price rises and natural calamities threaten the global economy

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

Three recent examples are:

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

Oil price rises put immediate pressure on items like:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links

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

Libya: No-Fly Zone

Dear United Nations Security Council delegates,

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

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

Sincerely,

Peter Campbell



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

Tropical cyclone Yasi - Australia's worst cyclone?

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

My thoughts are with FNQ friends.  Stay safe folks.

Cyclone Yasi details:

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

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

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

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

Pressure chart - 0800 Wed 2 Feb 11

Pressure chart - 0200 Thursday 3 Feb 11

Sea Level pressure chart prognosis

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

Satellite photo - NASA Modis Rapid Response

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

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

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

External links

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

Grand Prix support continued by Baillieu Liberal government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We need a plebiscite on this issue now.

125 scientists condemn basis for "alpine grazing trial"

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


Robert, Ryan, Peter and Ted,

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

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

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

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

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

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

I urge you to reconsider this action immediately.

Regards, Peter

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

Strategies for dealing with Queensland and Victorian floods

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

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


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

15 Jan 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links

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

Cattle grazing in Victoria's alpine areas is not acceptable

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

===========

Dear Robert

Congratulations on winning government.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards, Peter Campbell

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

External links

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

Australia must lead on forests at Cancun

Dear Minister Combet,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

What is Labor up to with the NBN?

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

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

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

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

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

I think all this is good.

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

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

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

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

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

There has been no open industry consultation about it either.

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

Right there are more questions than answers.  

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

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

Liberal, Nationals and Labor converge to shut out Greens

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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