Letter to my local member Petro Georgiou on climate change

I just sent this letter to Petro Georgiou, my local member in the Kooyong electorate.

Dear Petro,

I write to you as a constituent. Thanks for your letter dated 16 May advising of budget matters and the Government's platform for the 2007 election.

I believe that climate change is the number one issue facing Australia and Kooyong at present. I don't think the Government and budget initiatives you mention under "The Environment" are anywhere near enough to address climate change.

For example, nearly all the total $500m Low Emissions Technology Demonstration fund is committed to carbon capture and sequestration research and development. You incorrectly refer to this as "clean coal". There is no such thing, burning coal will always result in carbon emissions. This technology is unproven, and will in any case will not be available in time to address the major cutbacks immediately required in carbon emissions - as identified in the Stern report and recent IPCC reports.

Both these reports indicate that significant expenditure (about 1% of GDP) is required to limit further global temperature rises by one degree. The cost of doing nothing effective now could require over 3-5% of GDP to address later (say in 5 years time).

Your government and the Prime Minister has stated that Australia cannot take action to address climate change as it will affect employment and our standard of living. This is completely the wrong way around. If we don't take immediate action to address climate change, our incomes and standard of living will greatly affected in the near future. We are already seeing the affects of climate change and drought on our agricultural exports and food supply.

I would like to you ensure that Australia:

• Legislates for a renewable energy target of 30% by 2020 to fast-track the shift to a clean energy economy, which could become one of Australia's major sectors for employment and exports.

• Sets a legislated target to stabilise our total energy consumption by 2010. We must reduce our energy consumption through increased efficiency measures to reduce our carbon emissions,

• Achieves reductions of 1.5% on our total electricity use every year to 2020. After stablilising our energy consumption, we must then progressively reduce it through efficiency measures.

• Abolishes the fringe benefit tax concessions for car use. Many leased cars are currently used excessively to meet tax deduction requirements, resulting in large and avoidable carbon emissions.

• Provides $1 billion of additional Federal funding annually for our public transport systems. Public transport, and rail in particular, is much more energy efficient than transport by privately owned motor vehicles. Increased use of improved public transport will reduce our carbon emissions.

• Ends broad-scale land clearing and logging of high conservation value native forests by 2008, to address the greenhouse emissions from these practices.

• Put a price on carbon pollution, either through a tax or an emissions trading scheme. This will ensure that renewable energy can compete with fossil fuel energy on a level playing field. Fossil fuel energy is heavily subsides by the Government. These subsidies must be removed.

• Does not build new coal fired power stations and that we responsibly phase out our involvement in the coal industry.

• Ratifies the Kyoto Protocol immediately. Climate change is a global problem, and it needs a global solution. Australia should become a constructive part of this international process.

• Shifts overseas aid to renewable energy sectors. Australia must integrate climate change risk factors into all relevant parts of our Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) program planning and evaluation. The majority of Australia's ODA energy sector spending should be on renewable energy, demand management and energy efficiency.

• Does not use nuclear power and stops uranium mining. Nuclear power is a dangerous and ineffective response to climate change. Australia’s involvement in the global nuclear cycle should be nil – no uranium mining, nuclear waste dumps, and nuclear power stations for Australia.

• Limits global temperate increases to 2 degrees. Most industrialised nations now accept the imperative of constraining global temperature increase to 2 degrees or less to avoid catastrophic climate change, It is imperative that constraining global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels must underpin Australian government policy responses to global warming.

At local level, can you please:

• Commit to Kooyong becoming carbon neutral? Can you please commit to the target of Kooyong becoming carbon neutral by 2010?

• Provide funding for the Eastern Rail Trail? Increasing bicycle transport is another means of reducing our carbon emissions. A high quality bicycle trail along the Box Hill line through Kooyong would encourage both local and commuter cycling.

Could you please convey my views to the Australian parliament and the Liberal Party room for consideration and action?

I await your response. I will follow this email up with a phone call next week to confirm progress on this. I would also like to meet with you to discuss these matters further.

Regards, Peter

Labor, Liberals and Family First oppose Senate motion on climate change

It is interesting to observe the serious lack of real political commitment from Labor, Liberal and Family First parties to seriously address climate change.

On 10 May 2007, Senator Christine Milne (Greens Senator for Tasmania) moved that the Senate:

(a) notes that most industrialised nations now accept the imperative of constraining global temperature increase to 2 degrees or less to avoid catastrophic climate change; and

(b) agrees that the imperative of constraining global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels should underpin government policy responses to global warming.

7 Senators (Greens and Democrats) voted for the motion, while 44 voted against it.

Labor, the Liberals and Family First all voted against it.

The pre industrial average global temperature was about 16 degrees. The average global temperature has already increased by 0.8 degrees to 16.8 degrees. It is past time for urgent action to address climate change.

The science is clear, and the catastrophic results are increasingly apparent, with yet another Government report about to be released with shocking findings, including major risks to some of our most basic services and necessities - including water, electricity, transport, telecommunications and buildings. Melbourne has just experienced its driest ever year, getting only half its yearly average rainfall as of 15 May 2007.

Unfortunately, most of our politicians are prepared to play games and fiddle while Australia burns.

Links
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds100507.pdf Senate Hansard, 10 May 2007
Climate change: shock findings for Victorians , The Age, 16 May 2007
Melbourne records driest 12 months, The Age, 16 May 2007

Election strategy, political football and climate change

I bumped into Bob Hawke in Melbourne airport just after the 2004 federal election, and asked him what on earth happened with Mark Latham and Labor's strategy for the election. He replied that Latham had earlier sought advice from him and he told him that

“you need to take a lead position on your key strengths and you need to cover the key issues that your opponents will use against you”.

I consider this sage advice.

In 2004, Labor arguably ran on education (e.g. school funding) and health (e.g. Medicare Gold). The Howard governed countered them on education by running a scare campaign on funding for non-government schools being reduced (as per their “hit list”).

The environment has been a differentiator between Labor and the Liberals, but in 2004 Latham played a game of cat and mouse on forests with John Howard. Instead of taking a leadership position on forest protection and taking it up to Howard, Latham was lured into a trap which was deftly sprung when John Howard visited Tasmania and famously hugged members of the CFMEU in Hobart. Labor's Tony O'Connor of the CFMEU denounced Labor's forest policy in favour of John Howard's. While this did not actually cost Labor the election, it certainly did not help them much.

Interestingly, Hawke also pointed out that one of Howard's former key strengths – national security – was effectively neutralised as a campaign issue for him when the “43 eminent people” including retired defence chiefs, diplomats and former senior bureaucrats strongly criticised Howard for deceiving the Australian people over the Iraq war and pointing out that Australia had not become a safer place as a result of the war. However, Labor was not able to capitalise on this, although they did ask a series of questions in Parliament on this topic. See PM shrugs off foreign policy attack for more information on this.

Howard also effectively attacked Labor's economic credentials by running a scare campaign that interest rates would rise under Labor, which Latham was not really able to counter in the public mind despite signing a dubious guarantee that interest rates would not rise under a Labor government .

Latham's earlier wins on policy issues like books for children in schools and reducing parliamentarians superannuation disappeared in the cut and thrust of the campaign and the ensuing media storm.

So what will the strategies for the major parties be for the 2007 Federal election? Here is my take on it.

Labor will run on:

Education

• Increase funding and boost the ailing public education system.
• Position Labor as the “education experts”
• Point out that investing in education is an investment in the future
• In Rudd's budget reply, he has announced significant funding for new technical education, which could enjoy popular support.

Workplace relations

• Campaign on the issue that worker entitlements have been lost via Australian Workplace Agreements and the Howard Government's Work Choices reforms.
• Labor has committed to removing AWAs

Climate change and the environment

• Position themselves as better than Howard on climate change by ratifying the Kyoto agreement and setting targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
• Keep the CFMEU and coal miners happy by committing to grubby coal funding.
• Tread carefully on Tasmanian, Victorian and NSW forest protection to avoid a repeat performance of 2004. Tony O'Connor and Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon have already fired warning shots on this issue.

Infrastructure and long term planning

• Rudd has announced a policy for improving extending the speed and coverage of broadband across Australia to boost Australia's capabilities to use the Internet for competitive advantage.

Labor will seek to mitigate Liberal attacks on:

• Economic management credentials, including keeping interest rates low and running a budget surplus
• Being controlled by the unions and compromising Australia's productivity
• Endangering the economy and our standard of living by reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• Rudd's inexperience compared to Howard

The Liberals will run on:

The economy

• Claim credit for Australia enjoying prosperous times, low unemployment and a healthy economy (even though the minerals boom has been a major contributing factor to this)
• Continuing to run a budget surplus
• Reduce taxation to keep the electorate happy with more money in their pocket
• Position themselves as the only party capable of continuing to run a healthy economy

Education

• Howard has already taken it up to Rudd with the announcement a funding boost for universities with a new $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund, which will initially produce $300 million to $400 million annually for capital works and research facilities.

The environment

• Climate change. $741 million over five years on climate change has been announced, including funding for solar panel rebates, and deductions for the cost of establishing carbon sink forests. There is speculation that Howard will introduce an emissions trading scheme closer to the election date to strengthen their position on climate change
• Water tanks - $200 million over six years to support installing water tanks and other water-saving devices by schools and community organisations.
• Nuclear power and grubby coal. Howard is positioning both nuclear power and grubby coal (referred to by him with the oxymoron of “clean coal”) as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He is on dangerous ground here as neither will address long term energy sustainability, and neither will not be available in time for the immediate reductions we require.

Other items significant for the election in Costello's budget include:

• The aged. Immediate bonuses for about 85 per cent of people over 65, bonuses for carers
• Low -income earners. An extra $1.1 billion paid into the superannuation accounts of low-income earners.
• Child care. Changes include increasing the child-care benefit and fast-tracking the child-care tax rebate
• Defence. An additional $2.1 billion over 10 years to improve recruitment and retention of personnel.
• Road and rail. New budget funding for roads and rail of $22.3 billion over five years.

The Liberals will seek to mitigate Labor attacks on:

• Howard's ongoing commitment to the failed Iraq war, and his reluctance to reveal an exit strategy
• Recent interest rates rises
• A reduction in the growth of productivity
• Australian workers not getting “a fair go” due to Howard's workplaces reforms and AWAs
• The Howard government's lack of real action on climate change, despite growing public concern on this issue. Australia also appears as a pariah nation on climate change, constantly seeking to avoid commitments to setting emission reduction targets, criticising the Kyoto Agreement and failing to ratify it.
• The increased cost of housing – pushing affordabilty beyond the means of most first home buyers

Where I think both major parties will fail:

• Setting the aggressive targets and policies to address climate change. In particular, both major parties will avoid setting strong immediate targets and strong targets for 2020. Both will attempt to buy time on this, and maintain that they are taking appropriate action.
  

• Protection of remain high conservation value forests, including old growth forests not currently protected. The Liberals favour large companies continuing to plunder our forest, even though forest destruction contributes to climate change and loss of water. Labor is locked into a militant CFMEU (Union) position of logging jobs rather than forest protection - even though the logging jobs will go once the remaining forests are destroyed.
  

• Funding for a national high speed rail network similar to that operating in Europe in Japan. This is in the "too hard basket" for both Labor and Liberal who support spending vast amounts of money on the road system instead. This is in spite of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report of February 2007 that states trains use about one third the fuel of trucks per net tonne kilometre.
  

• Funding for cycling transport infrastructure to make it safer and more convenient in both urban and rural areas. Again, this is in the "too hard basket" as multi billion dollar toll roads such as Melbourne's Eastlink are being constructed.
  

• Putting in place effective policies for reducing power consumption and the reducing the requirement for base load electricity.

• Setting an exit strategy for coal burning and exports. The Liberals are addicted to the revenue for coal exports, and Labor is protecting coal miners jobs. But we got of whaling didn't we?
  

So what about the Greens?

This is topic for a separate posting. Some of the above points where major parties may fail could be addressed by them. They will be under strident attack from both Labor and The Liberals who are not keen to lose any votes to newcomers or to share the balance of power with other parties.

Will the Greens be able to counter attacks by the major parties and consolidate growing public support for many of their core policies which have now become mainstream? Or will they be marginalised and characterised again as “extreme”? Will Labor and Liberal really take action on climate change, or will they succeed in just greenwashing themselves?

Stay tuned.

Time for action on water, not more reviews

It is a great concern that Melbourne's water storages have just dropped below 30% for only the second time since the severe 1967 drought.

Looking at Melbourne Water's information on our reservoirs and consumption, we have about 320 days of water until we get to 10% levels if we continue to consume water at our current rate. 10% could be a realistic minimum amount as it could be problematic to get access to or use remaining water below this level. If no significant rain falls, Melbourne will effectively run out of water by March 2008.

Yet with an apparent crisis looming, there is scant provision to address our water shortage in the Victorian State budget just announced by Treasurer John Brumby, despite windfall income from gambling revenue.

The best that Minister Thwaites can tell us is that the Government is still “looking at options”. It is time for action, not more reviews.

Two possible options for managing and conserving our water are:

• Introduction of a “luxury use” premium for water used in excess of normal household usage, or;
• A domestic water trading scheme similar to that used for agricultural irrigators could be introduced for households. Such a scheme could effectively establish a market price for scarce water. Households could have a non-tradeable allocation so that reasonable domestic use is covered, and a tradeable allocation that could be on-sold. Tradeable allocations could also be reduced in times of drought.

At this point in time, there are no significant financial incentives for those who do the right thing and install large water tanks, and people are still topping up domestic swimming pools that lose a lot of water every day due to evaporation.

A family of four can normally get by with about 25,000 litres of water storage. Most domestic swimming pools contain significantly more water than this – up to 50,000 litres is not uncommon.

Perhaps it is time that domestic pools are converted for water storage purposes rather than used for recreation.

Some real action on and funding for addressing the causes of climate change such as reducing our huge greenhouse gas emissions could also help address the causes of the drought.

Note: an edited version of this letter was published in The Australian on Saturday 5 May, 2007

Links

• The Age: Rain not enough to boost dams
• Heraldsun: Labor's plan high and dry
• The Age: Government keeps lid on bleak water warnings

New low energy light bulbs to reduce our footprint further

When we completed our sustainable house renovation in 2001 we had about 8 light globes that were on dimmer switches in two of our main living spaces. At the time, compact fluorescent light bulbs would not operate on dimmers, or you needed a special very expensive dimmer switch. We also had some wall lighting that used small bulbs. We have been running high electrical consumption incandescent bulbs in all these areas, which has bothered me for some time.

Happily, a much larger variety of compact fluorescent are now available.

Today, I visted The Environment Shop in Northcote and bought the following globes:

• Compact fluoro spotlight - for outside (top)
• Dimmable compact fluoros - for inside living areas (left) to replace incandescent bulb (second left)
• Small bayonet compact fluoro (right) to replace small bayonet incandescent bulbs (second from right).

This will dramatically reduce our energy consumption - next I will calculate by how much.

I also plan to install more panels to our solar array. Adding about four 150w panels will hopefully make us net generators of electricity and further contribute to us reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Playing politics with climate change and nuclear energy

So now the worst kept secret in Australian politics out - John Howard has just announced his decision for Australia to "go nuclear" for power generation.

After "calling for a debate" and commissioning some nuclear physicists to write a favourable report on nuclear, and completely ignoring viable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, Howard now leaps to the conclusion, and apparently "makes the decision" to go nuclear.

Were you consulted? Did you have any input to this "decision"? Does Howard have a mandate to do this? Is this the right thing to do? Is this good democratic process at work? Are the Australian publics views and wishes being represented by the elected government?

I think the answer to all these questions are emphatic "NOs".

Nuclear power stations are a bad idea because:

• It is not a renewable energy source
• There is no safe waste storage solution
• Nuclear power stations will take over 10 to 15 years to build and commission, which is far too late to address the immediate emission reductions we need to make over the next 2-3 years
• It isn't greenhouse neutral - huge amounts of greenhouse gases are emitted during construction of plants and the mining, processing and transport of uranium
• Huge amounts of water (which we don't have) are required to cool them
• The cost of decommissioning them are huge
• A clear majority of Australians don't support nuclear power, or want to live near a power station
• An accident could render a large area of Australia, possibly even one of our capital cities, uninhabitable.
• Wind, solar and geothermal are viable alternatives that are being largely ignored
• Reduction in consumption by improved efficiency measures mean that we don't need to build new power stations.

I think Mr Howard is on a real loser with this one. I wonder about his motives.

Is this really an attempt to wedge the ALP who have their own internal tensions on this issue? Is he really trying to shift the focus away from ramping up uranium exports of doing the enrichment processing in Australia? (neither of which have been supported by the Australian people either).

Or is Mr Howard just looking after his mates like Ron Walker, Ziggy Switzkowski and Hugh Morgan, who have all positioned themselves to get generous handouts of Australian taxpayer's (our) money? This would be very inappropriate, and may even be corrupt.

Is this just a giant red herring?

It is high time that Howard stopped playing politics and pushing his increasingly extremist neo-conservative agenda onto the Australian public. It is time he did what he was elected for - to represent us and do the sensible thing.

In the meanwhile, Australia is missing out on the booming world market for renewable energy, and all the vast local employment opportunities this could provide.

The Age: PM flicks switch to nuclear

LETTERS: Seeing through Howard's denial of climate change

Three interesting letters in The Age on Thursday 26 April 2007 are below. It seems that many people see through John Howard's convoluted denials of climate and his increasingly extremist position of refusing to seriously address it causes and his blind and unwavering support for fossil fuel industries and the "Greenhouse mafia".

Just who is 'crazy and irresponsible'?
Graeme Scarlett, East Malvern

JOHN Howard says "it is crazy and irresponsible … to commit to a target when you don't know the impact of the target" (The Age, 25/4). Yet he has committed to short-term targets re jobs and economic growth with no understanding or acceptance of the long-term and irreversible impact his policies have on the ability of our global environment to cope. Nor does he have any understanding of the detrimental impact his policies will have on future jobs and economic stability.

Does this make him crazy and irresponsible? You bet. But as the 18th-century philosopher David Hume might have said in defence of such self-interest: "T'is not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the loss of my job!"

Opportunity knocks
Author: Rowan Dowland, Wonga Park

WHAT'S the point the PM and Opposition Leader arguing whether climate change is Australia's overwhelming moral challenge? It's both a moral and economic challenge, but most importantly it's an economic opportunity.

Solving the climate change crisis with the use of new technologies is something we have control over, can participate in at an international level and generate overwhelming levels of new business, income and jobs for Australians. Get on with it, gentlemen. Business is waiting for a clear vision of your policy framework.

Moral imperatives
Author: Peter Hanley, Townsville, Qld

IN HIS "Australia Rising" speech on Monday, Mr Howard was reported as saying that "maintaining economic prosperity was Australia's greatest moral challenge" (The Age, 24/4).

In our world today, between 400 and 500 million people in Africa exist on less than one dollar a day, while in the European Union every cow is subsidised two dollars a day. Our top climate scientists have warned us that unless decisive action is taken now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, global warming will be out of control. And in Australia the health statistics of indigenous people are worse than those in many Third World countries.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "moral" as "concerned with the distinction between right and wrong". I wonder which dictionary Mr Howard uses — the same one that says "greed is good"?"

Source

LETTER: Balancing act on climate change

Here is another good letter by Peter Christoff published in The Age on April 25, 2007, reproduced in full.

Yesterday's lead story about China and climate change told only half the story.

True, China will become the planet's biggest national greenhouse gas emitter within a decade. But there was no comment that China's per capita emissions are approximately one tenth of Australia's, which are the world's highest and indicate the major difference in living standards between our two countries.

No comment, either, that the UN Convention on Climate Change places the onus and burden of significant initial emissions reduction on developed countries. The United States and Australia, signatories to this treaty, have substantively refused to abide by their commitments.

No mention that China - unlike Australia - will derive 20 per cent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, has rejected nuclear power as a major energy option, and is the world's largest site of emissions-reduction projects, funded through Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism.

Nor that a significant proportion of China's emissions come from manufacturing goods to meet Western demand.

China is confronting both the substantial domestic impacts of global warming and the substantial challenge of overcoming real poverty and underdevelopment. This involves difficult moral and policy choices, not a "hard line".

It is very different from the situation Prime Minister Howard faces as he seeks, inappropriately, to avoid real action on global warming (including significant assistance to China) in order to preserve a completely different level of "economic prosperity".

Author: Dr Peter Christoff, School of Social and Environmental Inquiry, University of Melbourne

LETTER: Praying for rain, or just praying for votes?

Here is a good letter by Peter Kartsounis, Footscray published in The Age on April 23, 2007, reproduced in full.

LAST week delivered one of the saddest ironies in Australian political history. A Federal Government that has spent the better part of a decade being sceptical of the growing accumulation of scientific evidence of climate change has had to tell people to be prepared for one of the direst consequences predicted by that science: that the second driest continent on Earth faces a year without sufficient water to meet all its needs, and that there is no way of predicting when this situation might be alleviated.

It has had to tell people to be prepared for great losses in our national economy, with reduced exports and greater need for imports, and to expect an impact upon the cost of living for ordinary households as the price of foodstuffs rises to unprecedented levels. This from a Government that has sold itself to voters on its supposedly superior credentials in economic management.

And John Howard still just plays politics. His dire announcement is perceived, by many, to be primarily aimed at forcing Victoria to end its resistance to a handover of powers to Canberra — under a "back of the napkin" water plan that has provided no details and appears to reward other states (such as Queensland and NSW) for decades of water mismanagement, compared with the relatively more responsible administration at Spring Street.

We might all be praying for rain. Howard is praying for votes. His administration does not deserve another chance after we, ordinary Australians, have been made to endure the severe consequences of previous years of federal neglect over environmental matters that crucially impact upon the common good.

This year, we might have hardly any local vegetables or fruit in our diets: next year we might simply have no water to drink. Many saw this coming, and we must not reward a Government that consistently failed to heed earlier warnings because of the "economic rationalist" blinkers all its ministers were directed to wear by its leader. We need a government we can trust to act in a more timely fashion to a better set of national priorities than the usual school of "economic rationalists" have.

Author: Peter Kartsounis, Footscray

Source

Murray Darling water and climate change are linked

Prime Minister Howard’s warning today that no water would be available for irrigation in the Murray Darling Basis unless the drought breaks in the next eight weeks is an admission of serious Government policy and process failure.

Howard and Turnbull’s recently announced 10 billion water reform package will not address primary causes of the drought such as climate change.

Howard has repeatedly claimed that Australia cannot reduce carbon emissions or coal exports because it will affect our level of income and standard of living. He is terribly wrong – the reverse is the case.

Ignoring climate change and refusing to address it has now exposed Australia to the very real risk that our food production will be greatly compromised due to lack of water. The Murray Darling Basin provides about 40 percent of Australia’s food production, and relies very heavily on irrigation. If the drought continues, many farmers and rural towns will go broke, and food prices will rise for everyone, which will have a major impact on both incomes and lifestyles.

We cannot afford to have short-term partisan political imperatives compromising our environment and our collective future. Warnings by scientists of an impending crisis have been ignored for over three decades.

We need a vision, long term planning and new approaches for sustainable living. A dedicated taskforce of scientists and community representatives is required to address the technical and social factors outside of the political arena.

Links
Irrigation levels at 'dangerous' lows, warns PM

This was published as the lead letter in The Weekend Australian on April 21-22, titled "An empty Murray is a result of policy and process failure"

The cost of doing nothing about climate change

Here is an excellent letter just published in the Age by Professor Ian Lowe on April 6, 2007

WE ARE continually being told by the Australian Government that we don't know what it would cost to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change last year published the results of independent economic modelling by Allen Consulting. It found that there is no significant difference in future economic outcomes between a responsible approach, cutting emissions by 60 per cent, and the irresponsible do-nothing approach that would increase emissions by 85 per cent. A 2003 government study found cost-effective efficiency measures would achieve 30 per cent cuts. Just half these measures would create 9000 jobs.

What we don't know, but a local Stern report could determine, is how much unchecked global warming would cost Australia. Some estimates suggest it is already costing us over $1 billion this year in lost agricultural production, increased costs of water supply and the costs of extreme events.

Any serious study will confirm that the costs of taking responsible action are small and the costs of continued inaction very large. So setting serious targets makes economic sense. It is also our moral duty to future generations of Australians.

As for the Government's push for nuclear energy, even the Switkowski report, with its pro-nuclear leanings, showed that nuclear energy is too expensive, too slow and makes too little difference to global warming. It is a distraction from the priorities we should adopt: a clear commitment to improving the efficiency of energy use, a price signal for greenhouse pollution and a mix of renewable technologies.

Professor Ian Lowe, President, Australian Conservation Foundation

Well said Professor Lowe. The Howard Government and the Rudd Labor opposition are committing massive funds towards dirty clean coal and are basically ignoring genuine renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Howard is stuck in a 19th century industrial economic paradigm, while Rudd in pandering to both the coal mining industry and the coal mining unions such as the CFMEU.

In addition, Howard is banging on the nuclear drum which will just dig more holes, use non-renewable resources and pose an intractatable hazardous waste problem. In addition, it would not actually lead to a significant reduction in carbon emissions and would not be available within 10 years, which is 9 years too late.

So how do we get climate change addressed outside the political arena, where it is clearly being fudged by short sighted politicians who are prepared to gamble with the future of the planet and our children?

A subway system for Melbourne and less secretive planning

Melbourne urgently needs improvements to its train network to make the city more efficient and liveable. The current radial network was laid out in the 1890s and has served Melbourne well, but no new lines have been built in Melbourne this century with the exception of the city loop. Over this period the Kew branch line and the Outer Circle railway have been closed, and others such as St Kilda have been replaced by light rail services. Melbourne's rail network is now smaller than it was in 1930.

Visiting European cities such as London, Paris and Naples, it is apparent that their subway systems work well to improve transport, particularly in and around the city centres. Melbourne could have a similar subway system that connects the busy regions of South Yarra, South Melbourne, Brunswick, North Fitzroy, North Melbourne, Docklands and Richmond. Travelling to these areas by either tram (or train if there is one) can take up to 30 minutes from central Melbourne. These trips would take about 10 minutes on an efficient subway system.

We need a transparent planning process with public consultation to address opportunities for developing the rail network, rather than the secretive and confidential processes of the Bracks government. For example, Operational Double Fault, the proposal to put sections of the Glen Waverley line underground, appears to be driven by commercial opportunties to develop the real estate that would be created above it. Confidential briefings to the premier and behind the scenes lobbying by commercial interests may not address the concerns of Melbourne residents and rail users, or deliver significant improvements to rail services.

Secret plans have also been prepared by the State Government for a $2 billion cross-city rail tunnel linking North Melbourne station with Caulfield station that would also add eight new inner-city underground stations .

The government only allocated a paltry $61.8 million in the 2006-07 State budget for funding rail services on existing tracks and planning for more services in the future out of total expenditure of 2.6 billion for transport related infrastructure. There are no new rail services planned for Melbourne's growing outer suburbs - the Government only plans to provide bus services to them.

To seriously address issues like climate change and pollution, significantly more investment in rail infrastructure and services is required. A new subway system could cost up to $2 to 3 billion, but the social, enviromental and economic benefits would be huge. It is time that Victorians had some say in such important matters for our future.

Links
$4 billion rail tunnel back on track
$4bn plan to convert rail line into a subway
Bracks' $10.5bn transport plan
The incredible shrinking railway lines
Underground revolution - $2bn secret railway plan
Victorian State Budget 2006-07: Budget Overview

Surrey Hills festival goes sustainable

I spent most of Saturday 3rd March at Surrey Hills festival which was held in the railway station carpark. The Lighter Footprints local climate change action group had an information stall there which was well visited. I have just joined the group, which formed in late 2006 and is based in and around (but not restricted to) Surrey Hills.

There was lots of interest from passers by, with many people expressing interest in having an energy audit in their home and participating in an upcoming tour of a local sustainable house (our house).

It is very encouraging that community awareness about and action on climate change has grown rapidly. Local action groups have also formed in Hawthorn, Kew, Ashburton and Bayside.

The Lighter Footprints information stall

Lighter Footprints founding members Sue King and Carolyn Ingvarson with a graphic visual display

The Alternative Technology Association was there too.

It is time that "alternative technology" and renewable energy became the norm, with roadmaps in place for exiting non-renewable energy such as fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is not renewable either, so it is not a good long term option.

A pair of impressive butterflies dropped by to lend their support

The festival was well attended

The Melbourne Gospel Choir provided some lovely songs

The Greens and a water tank seller were close by too.

Several local politicians stopped by for a chat and were very interested. Robert Clark (above), the member for Box Hill is pointing to an aggressive target. Bob Stensholt (member for Burwood) and Dick Menting (Boroondara Councillor) also expressed their support.

The growing community desire for real action on climate change and sustainability is resulting in some great local intiatives, discussions and information sharing about what we can all do to turn the situation around.

Remove $8.9 billion fossil fuel subsidies to combat climate change

Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull's announcement that all incandescent light bulbs will be banned in Australia from 2009-10 is a step in the right direction and is long overdue. However, we need to do much more than this.

The real problem is that electricity produced in Australia from fossil fuel such as coal is subsidised to the tune of an astounding $8.9 billion, so it is far too cheap. If these subsidies were removed, and a carbon tax applied to polluting energy producers, then renewable energy would successfully compete and the free market would steer us in the right direction of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

This would also provide strong incentives for Australian manufacturers to produce energy efficient appliances that would be competitive in export markets. Australian appliances are lagging global standards on power consumption because electrical power is so cheap in Australia. Currently, if you want a really energy efficient fridge or dishwasher you have to buy one from a European country such as Germany or Sweden.

With renewable energy on a competitive footing, and demand for electricity greatly reduced through the use of more energy efficient appliances, we would avoid building new coal-fired power stations or going down the non-renewable and dangerous nuclear path favoured by John Howard.

It is time for our politicians to display some real leadership on climate change before we reach the looming crisis point.

Overall, this would be cheaper than funding projects across Australia such as building a barrage across the Port Phillip Bay Heads to stop rising seawater levels flooding Melbourne’s bayside regions.

Some further information:

• Canberra sees the light on energy-saving globes The Age
• Hazelwood is the dirtiest power station in Australia and the most polluting power station in the industrialised world (based on CO₂ per megawatt hour sent out)
• Australia is the largest coal exporter in the world, exporting 247.6 million tonnes in 2004, which was more than twice the amount of any other country.
• Research paper on coal subsidies (PDF) which details the scandal of the century.
  

David Hicks should be brought home and Howard and Ruddock should step down

It is totally unacceptable that John Howard supports the continued illegal incarceration in legal limbo of David Hicks by the Bush government of the United States.

John Howard, Philip Ruddock, Alexander Downer and Peter Costello have all made public comments about their opinions on David Hicks' guilt - and that this justifies him being held without trial. The US ambassador to Australia and the US Military have also made recent allegations about Hick's actions, but they have only just laid dubious charges against him after over five years detention. If there is a compelling case against Hicks, surely he would have been charged, tried and convicted 3 years ago.

Philip Ruddock commented recently that he has "no influence over a foreign jurisdiction" so he can't ask the Bush government to release Hicks. He is wrong on both counts - Guantanamo Bay is not a foreign jurisdiction - it is outside of International law. It is a lawless prison run by the CIA and US interrogators who use CIA techniques of subjugation and degradation. The Bush government is holding him there precisely because they can do what they want and ignore international laws such a the Geneva Convention. Ruddock and Howard can of course ask the Bush Government to release Hicks - they are just choosing not to.

Like any Australian, David Hicks has basic human rights to be given a fair trial, not to be detained excessively without charge and not to be tortured. Philip Ruddock recently stated that evidence obtained from him "under coercion" will be admissable. This is unacceptable. I don't think there is a valid distinction between torture and coercion. Hicks appears to have been tortured while detained.

Malcolm Fraser and Jeff Kennett have spoken out against Hicks' detention, and Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty has repeated his call for David Hicks to be tried as quickly as possible. Retired Victorian judge Stephen Charles, QC has joined the attack against the US and Australian governments' treatment of David Hicks, stating he will likely "be charged and tried under procedures amounting to a kangaroo court of the most noxious kind".

David Hicks' ongoing detention is a gross breach of human rights and a complete failure of due legal process. John Howard and Philip Ruddock should both step down from office for dereliction of duty, and David Hicks should be repatriated immediately. Once David Hicks is in Australia, due legal process should then be followed.

As precedents, the United State tried one of their own citizens John Walker Lindh as an "enemy combatant" years ago, and the British asked for and got all their detainees released.

It looks like the prospect of an election this year and rising political pressure will see John Howard take action on this, rather than because it is simply the right and humane thing to do.

More information

• Why? | Bring David Hicks Home
• Hicks 'coming home' | The Age
• Ex-judge slams government on Hicks | The Age
• Hicks evidence strong: Costello | The Age
• Why he can't return (Philip Ruddock) | The Age
• Delay over Hicks trial unfair, says police chief | The Age
• Hicks was tortured says Guantanamo inmate | Sunday Herald Sun
• Australia has betrayed Hicks, says Fraser | The Age
• My previous post on Hicks (nothing has changed)

Use renewable energy, not more coal

Rather that planning to build new coal fired power stations which will further exacerbate global warming, the Bracks Government should address all the factors contributing to the increased use of peak electricity. Poor house design and siting with respect to the sun means that many new homes get too hot, and cheap electricity means that people buy energy-guzzling air conditioners to cool them.

The Government should amend the building code so that sensible energy efficient house designs are used. Our solar efficient house has no air conditioner.

Government subsidies for coal-fired power should also be removed and a carbon tax levied so that the consumers pay the real cost for electricity generated from burning fossil fuel.

Twenty panels on our house generates two thirds of the total electricity we consume, and we put green power back into the grid at peak times when it is needed. We don't need new power stations in Victoria, either coal fired or nuclear. We need sensibile energy policy based on truly renewable energy, and we need the political will to implement it.

Related article: Government wants air conditioners turned off

The real cause of our terrible bushfires

Recent media statements by the logging industry about "the Greens being responsible for Victoria's bushfires" and why they think the solution is "more logging and burning of native forests" are way off the mark.

Here is an example: Locking up precious forest areas is playing with fire

The Department of Sustainabililty and the Bracks government currently determine forest management practices, not the Greens. Current practices include both significant fuel reduction burning and logging. In addition, much of the forest burnt in this year's terrible fires was badly burnt in the fires of Eastern Victorian alpine bushfires of 2003.

Two major contributing factors to the very bad bushfires in Victoria this year are that:

• Logging has actually increased the fire risk in Victoria by progressively replacing cool temperate rainforest pockets with drier and more fire prone eucalypt forests.

• Climate change has now reduced our rainfall, so the forests are much drier than usual

Next the rapacious logging industry will lobby for "salvage logging" of our burnt forests under the pretext that this is also "good management". However, this will further damage our forests, as the logging will disturb and remove many of the trees before they can regenerate, and will destroy many hollow trees that provide habitat for animals that survive the bushfires.

It is time for the logging and woodchipping industry to get out of our native forests and start using the oversupply of plantation timber that is available. There are enough jobs in plantation-based industries to replace all those involved in the rapidly declining native forest industry.

Time to go John, no more lies

Dear John Howard,

Some of the lies you have told during your term of office include:

• That asylum seekers threw their children overboard.
• That there would never ever be a GST.
• That Tasmania's forests would be protected after the 2004 Federal election.
• That David Hicks would be given a fair trial by the United States, and that he is guilty of terrorist acts (for which he has not been tried).
• That Australians don't want a repubic.
• That Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - when you had ASIO reports stating that they did not.
• That the Iraq war would reduce terrorism and make Australia a safer place.
• That the free trade agreement with America would be of benefit to Australia.
• That your workplace reforms make Australia a better place.
• That the sale of Telstra is in Australia's best interests.
• That you knew nothing about AWB's deals with Saddam Hussein's regime.
• That your government would follow a strict code of ministerial conduct and be accountable to the Australian people.
• That nuclear power is the best option for future energy production.
• That changes to the cross-media ownership laws would be in Australia's best interests - when clearly they suit the media barons.
• That coal can be made clean..

Your latest lie about flour being "a biological agent" is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

PM tries to defuse 'powder' keg

"Prime Minister John Howard has denied he distorted test results to claim that a white powder sent to the Indonesian embassy last year was a biological agent."

I think after the succession of lies you have told, it is time you stepped down as Prime Minister of Australia. You simply cannot be trusted and are not fit for office.

Major party politics are compromising our values

Midnight Oil is one of my favourite bands. I particularly like the poignant song "River runs red" with the lyrics:

"So you cut all the tall trees down,
You poisoned the sky and the sea,
You've taken what's good from the ground,
But you left precious little for me".

I feel Peter Garrett has now greatly compromised his environmental credentials by campaigning in the Victorian State election against the Greens, and putting his name to a deceitful letter sent to Melbourne and Northcote electorates suggesting that the Greens were directing preferences to the Liberals. Labor told these lies to smear the Greens and pull back their primary vote, a tactic that was successful.

The truth is that:

• The Greens directed preferences to Labor in 60 of the 88 lower house seats, including all Labor marginal seats.
  
• In the remaining 28 seats, the Greens left the choice on preferences to voters by offering split or open tickets, as they have done in the past.
  
• Labor retained many seats due to Greens preferences, and lost none due to split or open tickets.
  
• The Greens did not preference the Liberals in any seats.

The Liberals used a different tactic - they widely distributed a green leaflet titled "A vote for the Greens" which contained several incorrect assertions about Greens policies on taxation, drugs and animal welfare. Many of these assertions were sourced from newspaper articles. The author of the leaflet was printed in tiny barely legible print - Julian Sheezel (Liberal Party). This scare campaign was also designed to pull back the Greens primary vote, and was also successful.

Here is one side of the Liberal anti-Green leaflet.

So both major parties now use well orchestrated political tactics to attack the Greens rather than engaging in a fair and reasonable debate about policies. Both major parties ruled out any preference negotiations on issues. For them the political game is penultimate, not climate change, forests, water, public education or industrial relations.

I don't believe that the means justifies the end, and I think that major party politics is compromising our values, our environment and our society.

Be careful who you vote for, what you see is not always what you get.

Climate: Strike while the iron is hot

Below is a timely letter published in The Age. I think that the Howard government's reluctant and equivocal response to climate change will be remembered as his major legacy. And stop whinging about Kyoto not being tough enough John - it is better than nothing. Get over it John, just sign it, then get Australia involved in an international process to put tougher measures in place that apply to all nations.

Australia should be leading by example, and right now our example is unfortunately that of a recalcitrant skeptic, along with the United States. However, with recent admissions from John Howards that 6,000 scientists worldwide can't be wrong - that climate change is occurring - our example is now shifting toward sheer and breathtaking incompetence in the face of impending crisis.

Peter Campbell

Climate: Strike while the iron is hot
David Cambell, Byron Bay, NSW
Letter to The Age, 8/11/06

The window is open for political action on climate change, with the majority of Australians concerned and willing to bear their part of the global burden ("Voters call for action on warming", The Age, 7/11). But action has to come immediately to ensure that the peaked concern does not turn into resignation - a scenario warned of by climate change communication researchers.

Fortunately, recent weeks have built public pressure up to a peak just at the right time: the poorly reported United Nations Climate Summit this week in Nairobi is offering the international stage to our Federal Government to put its recent commitment to tackle climate change into a binding treaty.

If John Howard has really heard the wake-up call and his recent concern on climate change is more than a PR exercise, he will use this international opportunity. The problem is too big and serious to be dealt with merely on the back of a national election campaign.

And while the creation of a ministry for climate change, as proposed by the PM and Kim Beazley, might look good, it won't stop the planet from warming. Signing on to the international Kyoto Treaty would. None of the about 150 signing countries needed a ministry for that: a responsible government will do.