Google stuffs up Picasa upgrade by removing integration with Picasa Web Albums

BEWARE: The Google Picasa Windows client upgrade from 3.8 to 3.9 REMOVES integration with Picasa Web Albums and replaces this with the inferior Google+ photos. 

I recommend you DO NOT upgrade until they sort this mess out.

Otherwise, if you "upgrade" you will lose the easy ability to:

• embed photos and slideshows from Picasa Web Albums in a blog or Google site etc.
• easily create Picasa Web Albums and upload smaller sized photos

This is a REALLY BAD upgrade as it downgrades your functionality.  Google, please reconsider this.

Rudd on the rampage and its all about him

Honesty in politics is a rare thing.  We don't get to hear about what happens in Cabinet, the Labor Caucus or the Liberal-National Party Room, or the Greens Party Room for that matter.

So it is refreshing that we are now hearing some honest and candidate stories from several Labor MPs and Ministers about what life was really like under Kevin Rudd when he was Prime Minister.

These include:

• Nicola Roxon, Attorney-General "said working with Mr Rudd as Prime Minister could be “a complete joke” [link]
• Craig Emerson, Minister for Trade  "There has been attack on the Prime Minister going back to the last election. There was destabilisation and leaking then; it's been going on since." "Well these things matter, don't they? I mean, whether you run an organised or a dysfunctional government." [link] [link]
• Wayne Swan, Treasurer.  "However for too long, Kevin Rudd has been putting his own self-interest ahead of the interests of the broader Labor movement and the country as a whole, and that needs to stop" "  "He sought to tear down the 2010 campaign, deliberately risking an Abbott Prime Ministership, and now he undermines the Government at every turn."  [link] [link]
• Julia Gillard, Prime Minister. "She said that while Mr Rudd had been an excellent campaigner in 2007, the government had descended into paralysis because of his “chaotic” and dysfunctional” work patterns." [link]
• Stephen Conroy, Communications Minister On poker machine reform: "Well let's be very clear about this. What's been revealed last night on television and over the weekend with Andrew Wilkie is a complete and utter fraud by Kevin Rudd." " He has been pretending that he supported the pre-commitment technology, pretending he supported reform in this area, but his key numbers man just happened to have two meetings and tell Clubs Australia that he would kill it."  [link]
• Stephen Smith, Defence Minister  "I'm articulating it to you from my perspective, and my perspective is that by the time we came to the end of Kevin's term as prime minister, the cabinet, the caucus, the overwhelming majority of the cabinet and caucus had lost confidence in the ability to work through difficult policy or political issues with him."  [link] [link]

On the other side, supporters of Kevin Rudd include:

• Kim Carr, Manufacturing Minister, who was demoted in a Cabinet reshuffle in December, says Mr Rudd is the victim of a "campaign of vilification" by senior members of the Government.  "It's my opinion that the man has a great breadth of vision and a commitment to the future of this country that stands us in good stead."  [link]
• Chris Bowen, Immigration Minister "There's no doubt there's a lot of support in the community for Mr Rudd" [link]
• Martin Ferguson, Resources Minister "Kevin Rudd is best placed to take on Tony Abbott and potentially best position us to win the next election,"   [link] [link] 
• Alan Griffin MP, "I think that should there be a change of leadership what we need to do is get over it and start working together. And that's what the people want, that's what the party wants and that's what we should be doing."  [link]
• Daryl Cheeseman, MP.  "Kevin Rudd is the most popular politician in Australia as opinion polls show. "Kevin is the right person to lead Australia. "I like Julia Gillard, I have a lot of respect for her, but that's the reality. It's important I reflect the views of my community." [link]
• Doug Cameron, Senator "We have to make sure that we stop running these character attacks on Kevin Rudd,'' ''Because it's unfair, it's unprincipled and its not deserved.'' [link]
• Maxine McKew, former MP for Bennelong, "Kevin Rudd is best placed to beat Tony Abbott," "He delivered a 23-seat majority and I think that should be noted," she said. "His appeal is broad and the breadth of his victory in 2007 shouldn't be overlooked." [link]
• Anthony Albanese "called Gillard and informed her I would be voting for Rudd and resigned as leader of the house" [link]

Kevin Rudd (and Doug Cameron) have claimed that the "faceless men" are after Rudd again, but both are  unwilling to say who they are.  So we have "faceless and nameless men" apparently running the country!

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Kim Carr and Alan Griffin were two of the "faceless men", along with Tim Gartrell, that did the preference deal with Family First that resulted in Steven Fielding being elected to the Senate in 2004 at the expense of the Greens. [link]

Some other interesting commentary has emerged, including:

• We need to talk about Kevin, "Kevin Rudd was ultimately responsible for his own downfall, writes his former speechwriter"
• Resurrection of Saint Kevin "No one does victimhood like Kevin Rudd. Forget the fact he's the bloke who calls the Prime Minister "the bitch" - or worse - behind her back, to senior figures in industry, to newspaper editors and to members of the Press Gallery" 
• Labor’s rotten core needs the leadership implosion " This is a party imploding. The word is used carefully: Labor’s internal weaknesses, its ideological drift, its lack of core values, the devolution of the factions in mechanisms for distributing patronage, its reluctance to publicly argue over important issues — the hollowing out of a once vibrant, reformist institution, is causing Labor to cave in on itself."
• Independent MP Tony Windsor "Should Mr Rudd become prime minister again, it would most likely lead to an early election.  And if Mr Rudd did try to command a majority on the floor of Parliament, he could not rely on Mr Windsor's support. "If the Labor Party suddenly want to change arrangements in the middle of the stream all bets are off," [link]

In conclusion

Julia Gillard as Prime Minister was able to from government after the 2010 federal election with support from three independent MPs and the Greens.  Her government has legislation for several import reforms such as the Clean Energy Bill (with a carbon price), the Mining Tax (albiet compromised) to name a few. 

However, she has been unable to garner much support from the Australian public with her wooden style of speaking and continued utterance of media lines.  She has also avoided direct questions about her exact role in the demotion of Kevin Rudd as PM.  Opinion polls indicate that Gillard is on track to lose the next federal election to Tony Abbott.

It has now become clear that Kevin Rudd has been actively destabilising the Gillard government over several months, so she has not been able to get "clean air" to get her message across and demonstrate leadership.

Gillard and her supporters have portrayed Kevin Rudd as a Prime Minister who was almost impossible to work with.  He lost his mojo and backflipped on important initiatives such as the Mining Tax (Resources Super Profits Tax) and his much vaunted but highly compromised Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Kevin Rudd and his supporters say that only he has the personal popularity with and support from the Australian public to beat Tony Abbott at the next election.  Polls indicate he has more support from the public than Julia Gillard (and Tony Abbott).  Rudd has also given assurances that he has "learned from his past mistakes" and is a "change person" with respect to his leadership style.

However, Rudd has also just flagged a review of the Clean Energy Bill, even though it has just been through and exhaustive process with the Multi Party Climate Change Committee and will be legislated in July this year. 

So the choice before the Labor Party is a capable PM who has Cabinet and party support, but looks like losing the next election due to her poor public profile, or perhaps winning the election and a return to Kevin Rudd's autocratic leadership.

It is also likely that Rudd will not be able to form a minority government if Labor doesn't win a majority of seats under his leadership (if he gets it).

Rudd might also spit the dummy completely and resign from his seat.  This would force a by election, and possibly then a general election.

If Rudd loses the leadership ballot, as appears likely, all indications are he will continue to destablise the government.

I don't envy them.

It looks like Tony Abbott will sail into office whatever happens now.

Rudd the wrecker will kill action on climate change and forests

Where there is smoke there is fire.

I have wondering about media reports over the last several months about "Kevin Rudd agitating to be Prime Minister again".  Initially I thought these were a beat up. There seems to nothing some sections of the media like more than political conspiracies and plots to oust political leaders.  It is s a form of virtual blood sport.

With recent reports and comments from Kevin Rudd, and now Daryl Cheeseman (MP for Corangamite) we can see there is some substance to all this speculation.

Rudd wants his old job as Prime Minister back, at any cost.  I think he also wants revenge on those who orchestrated his sacking.

He, assisted by a secret (small?) band of followers, has been systematically undermining Julia Gillard as PM. His "campaign" includes:

• Leaks at strategic times to derail the Gillard Goverment's momentum (including during the last election campaign)
• Making "Presidential" statements and assuming a high profile as Foreign Minister
• Not ruling out contesting for PM if there is a leadership ballot - even though he says he doesn't want on and there won't be one.
• Saying he has "learnt from his mistakes" and is "more humble etc" - when by his current actions clearly this is not true.

So the Labor is in a death spiral.  Gillard cannot lead effectively with all the attention on leadership intrigue. 

Look at the Gonsky report on education - a core issue for Australia.  There has been virtually no coverage of it.  Our public education system is being denied adequate funding and is being run down.  Middle and high income earners are deserting it in droves.  It appears there is more public money going to private and "independent" schools per student than there is going to public schools.  Yet this issue is hardly getting any attention.

I can only speculate on Rudd's motives.  It would seem revenge and ambition are outweighing all other considerations.  If there was a leadership spill and Rudd got to be PM again, all the bad publicity, and his past skeletons in the closet, would mean Labor would lose the election.

Those who think Rudd can be Labor's salvation have short memories. He lost his mojo just before he was deposed. There was the complete stuff up on pink batts - this should have been done by the States, not Peter Garrett. The Australia 2020 talkfest delivered virtually nothing. Then he abandoned his compromised CPRS and adopted Brendan Nelson's policy on climate change! 

Rudd was also operating as a cell within Labor (as Latham did 2004) - this was the real reason he was shafted. However, now some nervous Labor poll-watching MPs think he might win the next election. He won't as he is shitting in his own nest in public. 

The real issue is that 19C (Labor) and 20C (Liberals) institutions are not well equipped to handle the big challenges and transitions we face in 21C as we run out fossil fuel, forests, water and degrade agricultural land. Both parties have their own right and left and are floundering about what to do. Labor has stepped in the right direction under Gillard by supporting a transition to a clean energy economy but they are having trouble selling this (Rudd's antics are not helping) while the Liberals under Abbott have stepped back in time.

If Rudd was more sensible, smart and strategic he would let Gillard lose the next election (as current polls indicate she is on track to do, if you believe them) then sail back in as the "knight in shining armour" with no bad blood and a clean(er) slate.

If Rudd and his followers keep de-stabilising the government, then Gillard will lose the next election.  One of the few things John Howard said that I agree with was "division is death".   While I am not in favour of autocratic rule by an single political party, this axiom is quite true for the game as they play it.

Unfortunately, the consequence of the current Labor-Greens-Indepedant government falling is that Tony Abbott can just sit back, keep pointing out that Labor has lost the plot, is paralysed and can't be trusted, then sail into government.

Once in government he will ditch the price on carbon and just about every other reform and piece of legislation that the current government has achieved.  Abbot would also axe National Disability Insurance, plain packaging for cigarettes, the NBN, education reform, the mining tax (weak though it is).

The Gillard government might just finalise the Intergovernmental Agreement to protection another 400,000 hectares of Tasmania's government.  They might also recognise and act on the opportunity to protect the rest of Australia's native forests subject to logging and reduce Australia's emissions by a further 5%.  An Abbott government would certainly do neither.  

Game on Kevin.  Its a lose-lose scenario.

Rob Oakeshott: native forest biomass is bad for koalas and bad for the climate

An open letter to Rob Oakeshott; federal MP for Lyne (NSW)
via email Robert.Oakeshott.MP@aph.gov.au

Dear Rob,

I have liked your contributions to the Australian parliament to date.

However, I do not support your recent attempts to re-instate burning native forests under the MRET. This is unacceptable. I strongly oppose it.

Our native forests are still being destroyed in NSW, WA, TAS and VIC mostly for woodchips. The export markets for woodchip has collapsed so this destructive industry is about to halt.

But allowing the burning of native forest woodchips in forest furnaces will create a new and perverse "market" for the woodchips, and encourage ongoing destruction of our forests.
The are huge net carbon emissions from logging our native forests. Burning the woodchips m for electricity generation would be also result in significant carbon emissions.

Our native forests, and the carbon they store, should be protected, not turned into woodchips and burnt.

Regards,

Peter Campbell

Greens senate preselection for the next federal election in Australia

The Victorian Greens are preselecting the person who will lead their lead Senate candidate for the next Australian Federal election, that likely to be held in 2013.

It interesting that only about 30% of Greens party members actually get around to voting (via postal ballot that have just been sent to members) in this type of preselection.

If you are reading this and you are a Victorian Greens member, I encourage you to vote!

I am supporting Brian Walters as I believe he has the experience, knowledge and personal attributes to be an excellent Senator for the Greens and the people of Victoria.  He has an excellent understanding of greens policies and the challenges, opportunities and issues for Victoria.   Brian also has considerable experience with environmental campaigns dating back to the flooding of Lake Pedder in Tasmania.

Brian is a founding member of the Greens in Victoria and has made a huge contribution on important issues both in Victoria and nationally, including protection of native forests, providing legal support for environmental protesters over the years and humane treatment of asylum seekers.

Brian also has good recent campaign experience from when he contested the state seat of Melbourne in the 2010 Victorian State election and was unlucky not to win it.

You can view more information about Brian, including some recent videos, on his blog here.

Here is the strong field of people seeking pre-selection that reflects how far the Greens have come in recent years.  There is good mix of people here who have been involved in previous election, party administration and issues-based campaigns.

Tony Kelly
http://tonykellywrites.wordpress.com/

Brian Walters
http://brianwaltersmelbourne.blogspot.com.au/

Jenny O'Connor
Website TBA

Cyndi Dawes
http://cyndidawesforthesenate.wordpress.com/

Josh Fergeus
http://www.joshfergeus.com/default.html

Alex Bhathal
http://alexbhathal.com/

David Collis
http://davidcollis.org/

Janet Rice
http://www.janetrice.com.au/

Kathleen Maltzahn
http://www.kathleenmaltzahn.com/

Trent McCarthy
http://www.riverriver.com/trent/

David Risstrom
http://davidrisstrom.org/

Sue Plowright
http://sueplowright.net/

A wild and woolly Christmas, a tornado and Boxing Day

Chistmas Day in Australia was eventful.  Storm clouds were brewing up during the morning, then late in the afternoon the skies opened up.  High intensity thunderstorm cells dumped very heavy rain at some locations, and hail that broke the windows of parked cars.

Section of train line were badly damaged near Hurstbridge when floodwater washed away the track ballast.

A tornado was even forecast for western Melbourne. It duly arrived at Fiskville and Keilor Downs where it caused some local damage to properties.  This is the only actual tornado in Melbourne that I can recall.

There was some rain early Boxing Day but the storms had subsided.  Lena, Chloe and I did a family to the National Art Gallery of Victoria (curious name!) and visited Picasso's Weeping Woman among many other fine paintings.

We stopped at Waffle On for a nice waffle and a chat with Marc.  Then we visited Myer's famous Christmas windows, which were fun and not too crowded, before heading home on the train.

Chloe asked "why is it called Boxing Day?".  I wasn't too sure so I looked it up.  It turned out to be a good question.  

The exact etymology of Boxing Day is unclear. There are several competing theories. The tradition has long included giving money and other gifts to those who were needy and in service positions. The European tradition has been dated to the Middle Ages, but the exact origin is unknown and there are some claims that it goes back to the late Roman/early Christian era; metal boxes placed outside churches were used to collect special offerings tied to the Feast of Saint Stephen.

In the United Kingdom, it was a custom for tradesmen to collect "Christmas boxes" of money or presents on the first weekday after Christmas as thanks for good service throughout the year. This custom is linked to an older English tradition: wealthy landowners allowed their servants were allowed to take the 26th off to visit their families. The employers gave each servant a box containing gifts and bonuses, and sometimes leftover food.

In many Western countries, Boxing Day has become synonymous with consumption, where many line up at department stores in search of bargains at "Boxing Day sales". Many products are bought for their reduced price rather than for real need.

There is an opportunity for us to rediscover the traditional roots of Boxing Day and give a gift to someone who may need it. Using up leftovers from the Christmas Day dinner is also a good practice.

All the best for the New Year.

Photo slideshow

External links

• Boxing Day, Greenlivingpedia
• Storm toll sparks rail safety fear, The Age 
• Tornado, hail as storms lash Melbourne, The Age 

The Baillieu government must stop logging Victorian rainforest

Local conservationists have yet again had to take court action and use blockades to stop VicForests, the Victorian Government's logging business, from logging protected rainforest in East Gippsland.

VicForests have form. They were found guilty of breaking the law relating the protection of endangered species in Brown Mountain's forest in the Supreme Court in August 2010.  Over a year later, despite a court order, they are yet to pay the court costs awarded against them to Environment East Gippsland.

In July this year, VicForests started logging forest near Sylvia Creek that is home to Leadbeaters Possum. They were stopped by another court order following legal action initiated by local environment group MyEnvironment.  This court case, scheduled to be heard early next year, is again about VicForests ignoring the laws concerned with protecting endangered species.

The Baillieu government's response to VicForest's illegal and unethical practices is to reward them with 20 year contracts for logging our remaining native forests, indemnify their contracts, allow them to determine the amount of forest they can log and allow them to log forests in reserves, parks and water catchments.

The Baillieu government has also announced an intention to change the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act to that a bureaucrat can exempt VicForests from complying with it, thereby allowing them to log forests that are and should be protected.

There is a whiff of cronyism and corruption about VicForests too.  Graeme Stoney, Premier Ted Baillieu's brother in law, has been recently appointed to the VicForests board by the government.  Stoney has also recently been active behind the scenes coordinating the return of cattle to graze in the Alpine National Park under the bogus pretext of "research into the role of cattle in bushfire mitigation".

The native forest logging industry is in terminal decline. Regional Forests Agreements have failed. The global market for woodchips, the major "product" that comes from out native forests, has collapsed.  Despite accelerating logging, jobs continue to decline.  The industry is largely automated now.

In addition, the wholesale conversion of native forests into plantations by continued logging and burning is simply not sustainable, as scientists such as Professor David Lindenmeyer have stated.

There is enough plantation resource available in Victoria right now to supply our timber and pulp needs.  The Victorian government should get out of the logging business, get rid of VicForests, and support our sustainable plantation-based timber and wood products industries.

Our native forests should be protected for the carbon they store, their biodiversity, their function as water catchments and because they are wonderful places to visit.

Links

• Timber gets long-term commitment, The Age, 14 December 2011
• MEDIA RELEASE: Supreme Court orders stop to logging East Gippsland rainforest, 14 December 2011
• MEDIA RELEASE Legal injunction to stop Victorian rainforest logging, 14 December 2011 
• MEDIA RELEASE: Police move in to evict protest at unlawful logging coupe, 12 December 2011 
• MEDIA RELEASE: Conservationists Halt Logging Across Victoria, 5 December 2011 
• Silvia Creek forest - Greenlivingpedia
• Brown Mountain old growth forest - Greenlivingpedia 
• 
  

Durban Climate Change Conference fails miserably with a whimper

After three decades of scientific evidence - and warnings - that we are now experiencing dangerous climate change, I had some hope that the Durban Climate Change Conference (COP17) would at last result in some real global action to tackle carbon emissions - and endorse forest protection.

Unfortunately, this has not happened.

After several days of fraught "negotiations" the outcome (curiously described by some as a "breakthrough") seems to be

"a commitment to develop a agreement between all countries by 2015, that will take effect in 2020".

This quite obviously means no real action on reducing carbon emissions, protecting forests, or addressing the chronic imbalance between First World and Third World economies.

Unfortunately, this is yet another pointer that the end of the world as we know it is looming.

This outcome fails the following key tests: 

• Are global emissions going down? No.
• When will emissions go down and atmospheric CO2 be stabilised or decline? Don't know. 

It appears that for all the rhetoric, the bottom line is that First World countries really don't want to stop excessive emissions and some Developing Nations don't want to give up their "right" to increase them. 

So if Governments, nations and the United Nations can't take action on climate change, it looks like you and I have to.

LETTER: Please maintain New York state ban on fracking and criminalize the practice

Dear Governor Cuomo,

I am writing to demand that you permanently maintain New York State’s fracking ban. Fracking is a completely unacceptable practice that destroys water, land, air and people. It should be criminal.

It is very wrong to blow up Earth, destroying scarce water, for limited fossil fuel energy with no climate benefits as claimed. New York State must not allow ecosystems to be destroyed. The best path is to transition from unsustainable energy use to 100% renewable energy, along with dramatic energy efficiency and energy conservation improvements.

The DEC public comment process has been a deeply flawed sham – asking for public opinion while the decision has already been made to start fracking. The revised draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (rdSGEIS) is little more than greenwash, as it would allow fracking in 85% of New York's Marcellus Shale, injecting hundreds of billions of gallons of toxic fluid that will never be recovered, and will find their way into New York state's water.

Most importantly, it fails to provide long-term protection of drinking water sources. It does not analyze fracking’s health impacts, doesn’t ban the use of known carcinogens, provides no specific plans for disposal of hazardous fracking wastes and may impede local governments from banning this deadly practice.

The practice of fracking will never be environmentally acceptable, much less sustainable, and the temporary ban must become permanent. Failure on your part to do so will make you personally responsible for vast water contamination that will poison the New York citizens you have sworn to serve. It would also certainly have major repercussions for your re-election prospects.

The world is watching – do what is right for the people, water, sustainable livelihoods, and ecology – not the energy oligarchy.

With grave concern,

Peter Campbell


NOTE: You can send your own email on this important issue here: Don’t Frack with Our Water: Support New York State Residents in Maintaining the Ban

Submission on the proposed Basin Plan

TO: Murray Darling Basin Authority
DATE: 6 December 2011

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I have visited the Murray Darling basin on many occasions, from the headwaters of the Murray River at Cowambat Flat all the way to the lower lakes of the Murray mouth and the Coorong.

The river system is remarkable. Its natural systems are unique in Australia and irreplaceable.

It has been obvious for decades that too much water was being drawn from the system, mainly for agricultural use. I studied Agricultural Science at Latrobe university, during which I learnt that much of the irrigation infrastructure was very wasteful of water, including open channels, flood irrigation of dairy pastures, sprinkler irrigation systems and even rice cultivation.

South Australia has born the brunt of the problems with drastic depletion of the river flow in its lower reaches and serious pollution of the water by heavy salt burdens and agricultural chemicals. Adelaide still sources the majority of its drinking wate from the Murray River.

The drastic impacts on the lower Murray, its lakes and the Coorong during the recent 10 year drought were unacceptable. Some lakes drained, exposed soils became acidified and toxic, and sea water threatened to invade the freshwater system and severly impact its freshwater ecosystem.

Regular flushing of the river system - as used to happen during regular floods - is essential for its health.

Appropriate regular ecological flows are essential for preserving the integrity and life of the Murray Darling system. I understand that scientists have recommended a minimum of 4000 gigalitres.

Reducing ecological flows in response to political campaigns and pressure from industries that continue to demand unsustainable quantities of water from the system will damage and even kill the system. When this happens, the industries will be forced to reduce their water use - they cannot use water that is not there.

The 2750GL now recommended by the Authority is not enough to save the system.

In addition, the doubling of extraction from groundwater resources is also likely to deplete aquifers.

The low environmental water flow and more extraction of groundwater will put ecosystems, communities and industries at risk.

The Plan must halt the decline of waterbirds, fish, red gums, flora and fauna, reduce blue-green algae outbreaks and improve water quality. A minimum of 4000 gigalitres is necessary to achieve this.

Peter Campbell

Information about how to make a submission is here: Murray-Darling Basin Authority

Hays Paddock Plan and Pavilion - please conduct proper community consultation

Open letter to Boroondara Councillors

Boroondara Councillors,

I provided input to the Hays Paddock Plan that open space should be maintained and development of the pavilion should comply with Council's Sustainable Building Policy and retain its current footprint. 

The pavilion should cater for all park users rather than being focused on sporting clubs.  I also support improved cycling access to and through the park to make it easier for residents to visit without using a car.

Boroondara Council has ignored the community input to the plan and that of the Steering Committee and is proceeding with expanding the pavilion to accommodate only the interests of the Old Xaverians soccer club.  This will reduce the open space in the park and is quite inappropriate.  Any development of the Pavilion must surely also comply with the Sustainable Building Policy.

I ask the Council to conduct proper community consultation and establish an Advisory Committee that represents all park users, noting that Hays Paddock is not a sports reserve and the majority of usage is walking, dog walking, enjoying the quiet bushland setting, visiting the playground with children and meeting with and relaxing with friends.

I received an information leaflet and feedback form today from Council on the Draft Boroondara Open Space Strategy.  My preliminary and immediate feedback is "please preserve the open space in Hays Paddock that is currently mostly used for nature conservation and passive outdoor enjoyment".

Yours faithfully,

Peter Campbell

Maling Ward resident

The Tarkine wilderness deserves World Heritage Protection now

Dear Minister Burke,

I am writing to ask you to immediately place the Tarkine on the National Heritage List, to ensure that any impacts to national heritage values from the mining proposals currently are properly assessed.

I visited the Tarkine for an extended bushwalk in 2003.  The natural heritage values were obvious and very signficant, including remote coast line, aboriginal relics and massive sand dunes.  Unfortunately, degradation was occuring right in front of our with four wheel drive and all terrain vehicles and trail bikes traversing the highest sand dunes and frequently driving over aboriginal middens.  Cattle grazing was having a signficant impact too.  Their excrement was contaminating creeks, they were causing severe erosion along much of the coast line and they were spreading noxious weeds such as thistles.

You can view photos of our trip here: http://bit.ly/sdnCIc

As you know, the Tarkine has been under consideration for heritage listing since 2004, and while the Australian Heritage Council is finalising its advice to you, the priceless values of the Tarkine may be lost forever unless you grant it an emergency heritage listing.

If you do not list the Tarkine, only potential impacts to federally listed threatened species will be considered, and there will be no assessment or protection for the Tarkine’s renowned wilderness, geological, cultural, flora and fauna diversity and natural history values. None of these matters will be assessed by the state government.

The Tarkine is the last disease-free refuge for the endangered Tasmanian Devil. Because the Tarkine is not on the National Heritage List, damage as a result of mining exploration, including extensive roading and clearing for test drill sites has not been subject to any environmental impact assessment - yet your government has previously recognized that roading poses a significant threat to the Tasmanian Devil, and granted emergency heritage listing for this reason. Why won’t you do so now?

I call upon you as Environment Minister to use the powers available to you to ensure that the Tarkine and the Tasmanian Devil are afforded the highest level of protection. Please place the Tarkine on the National Heritage List, or provide me with the reasons why you as Environment Minister are placing the interests of mining ahead of conservation.

Peter Campbell

Tarkine photos

Victoria must keep the 20% emissions reduction target

Dear Premier Baillieu and Dr Lynne Williams,

CC: Hon Michael O’Brien, Minister for Energy and Resources
Hon Ryan Smith, Minister for Environment and Climate Change
Hon Peter Ryan, Deputy Premier
Hon Kim Wells, Treasurer

Re: Review of Climate Change Act

I support the Victorian Climate Change Act and would be deeply disappointed if Victoria’s target to reduce greenhouse emissions by 20 percent by 2020 was abandoned.

I note that the Climate Change Act 2010 passed both Parliamentary chambers unopposed. The Coalition participated in the Parliamentary debates at length and stated publicly on numerous occasions that it accepted the 20 percent emissions reduction target.

I understand that the current review is a legislative requirement as outlined in the Climate Change Act due to the introduction of a price on carbon. I’m calling on your government to ensure this review strengthens, rather than weakens our state government action on climate change.

I support the Act, and encourage the Baillieu Government to ensure Victoria takes leading action on climate change in addition to the national price on carbon because:

• The 20 percent target will attract investment in clean energy jobs and industries in Victoria;
• There will still be market failures under a price on carbon. We will still need to support energy efficiency measures, remove fossil fuel subsidies, support public good research and development and overcome barriers to clean energy deployment. 
• The price on carbon does not cover all sectors of the economy. In particular we need state policies to address emissions from transport and agriculture;
• Victoria’s 20 percent target is stronger than Australia’s national target and therefore   represents a bridge between where we are now on emissions nationally and where the science tells us we need to be;

I am deeply disappointed by the series of actions the Baillieu Government has taken to dismantle Victorian climate policy since being elected. I call on the Government to take this opportunity to change direction on the environment and climate change. I trust that this review is about developing a policy agenda that faces up to the challenge of climate change and this government’s responsibility to act, rather than shirking our responsibilities to current and future generations.

I have previously provided submissions to the Victorian Government about the urgent need for strong emission reduction targets and am very disappointed to see Victoria is now moving backwards on this.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Campbell

A network of safe cycling routes is needed across Melbourne.

The tragic death of James Cross while cycling (Age 26/11) highlights the urgent need for a safe cycling network across Melbourne.

Improved driver education and a statutory one-metre distance between cars and bikes would help reduce "dooring" and other car-bicycle impacts.

However, many people don't use bikes for local trips and travelling to the city because they don't feel safe on our roads, even if they have rudimentary bike lanes on them.

Building dedicated cycling routes and separating bicycle lanes from cars would encourage many people to cycle who otherwise wouldn't and would greatly improve safety for those who already do.

We need a network of bicycle routes across Melbourne with safe separation between bicycles and cars.

We also need "strict liability" - an automatic assumption in law that responsibility rests with the less vulnerable road user. This is widely implemented in Europe, and means that responsibility for road accidents cascades down the chain from trucks to pedestrians. E.g. trucks -> cars -> bicyles -> pedestrians.

Links

• Cyclist's death a catalyst for change, The Age
• Boroondara BUG

Peter Slipper "sinks the slipper"

Today was an interesting day in Australian politics.  I was out and about when I noticed some tweets coming through about Harry Jenkins resigning as the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Australia's national parliament.

He made an interesting speech which you can read here:  Harry Jenkins' resignation speech

He started with a heartfelt acknowledgement of the Ngunnawal people as the indigenous traditional owners of the land where Canberra is located.

He cited a desire to be able to participate in policy and parliamentary debate as his main reason for resigning. He thanked his staff, his wife and his family for their support.  Finishing with:

I go placidly with my humour intact. I wish you all well.

The political interest came about when Peter Slipper, a Liberal MP, was voted in as his replacement, thereby increasing the numbers of the Labor Government by one (with Harry Jenkins rejoining active duties) and the Coalition losing one (with Peter Slipper leaving the Coalition and not having a vote as Speaker).

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott apparently didn't see this coming and proceeded to do what he always does - attack the Labor Government and Prime Minister Julia Gillard.   I don't agree his interpretation of his role "to provide an alternative government and to criticise the current government".  He and all his fellow opposition member's primary role is to represent their electorates, not keep endlessly carping about the government.

It will be interesting to see how this pans outs.  The Labor government cannot now be held over a barrel by any one of the cross benchers - Windsor, Wilkie, Oakeshott, Katter or Bandt.  They can still collectively influence voting on legislation, but individually they now can't.

Personally, I would like to poker machine restrictions proceed - either mandatory pre-commitment or a $1 maximum bet - as problem gambling is a major concern that government and the gambling industry has been unwilling to address properly to date.

The entire First World financial system is a ponzy scheme

Today, "contagion fears sliced $23b off the Australian stock market".  Australian shares have been up and down tens of billions numerous times over the last year, in fact since the 2008 Global Financial Crisis.

Why should debt concerns in Greece, Italy, Spain or Portugal have such effect on Australia when we are in the middle of a resources boom supplying China's economic growth?

It seems to be all about perception.  If some nations default in Europe then the first world's tangled web of loans and dodgy investments begins to unravel.  Then we get a run on banks and mass "withdrawal of participation" in the financial system, with trust broken.  This could end up in a 1930s style depression.

So the First World's financial system is a giant interconnected ponzy scheme teetering on the brink of collapse.  Last ones out lose all their money.  Banks close their doors.  Countries go broke.  Currencies collapse.

After largesse by various governments and politicians over decades, with unregulated dodgy financial trickery rampant, the solution is "austerity measures" on the hapless populations that pay the taxes.

Another solution is "Quantitative Easing" - which the United States is doing - which effectively means printing more money without producing, making or growing anything.

It seems to we need to redesign our financial system to eliminate speculation, waste, corruption and the endless fixation on endless growth.

In essence, this is a core concern of the Occupy Movement.

Here is a good video from The Guardian that explains some details about wealth and income distribution changes in the United States

Jon Faine vs Robert Doyle on Radio 774 8 Nov

I listened to Lord Mayor Robert Doyle’s interview with Jon Faine on Radio 774 this morning and was very surprised to hear that Robert Doyle does not support an independent inquiry into the Occupy Melbourne eviction and the methods used.

He seemed to get quite angry at Jon Faine’s observations about the eviction of Occupy Melbourne protesters from the Melbourne City Square and was evasive when asked about the violence that occurred.

He was strongly opposed to an independent inquiry into the decisions and events surrounding the the eviction yet he stated that the correct actions were taken by him and the Police and that were “issues of public safety, malcontents, people looking for trouble, elements of professional protest, and people posing a risk to public safety”.

If that is the case, then what does Robert Doyle have to fear from an independent inquiry?  I am left wondering if he has something to hide.   The information I have seen to date does not back Robert Doyle claims.

Doyle even cautioned Jon Faine that he “must be careful about what he says and not over react”

I have seen many images and videos of violence during the eviction.  I think an independent inquiry is essential to determine exactly what happened. Violence against passive protesters is not acceptable in our society.

External links

• Occupy Melbourne - Greenlivingpedia
• Doyle vs Faine - ABC Victoria - Radio 774 (podcast available)

Australia's carbon price arrives

Today, the Australian Senate voted on and passed the suite of Clean Energy Bills that have been a long time coming, and are primarily the work of the Multiparty Climate Change Committee.


This is wonderful news.  It is a shame it has taken so long for us to finally price pollution and provide leadership and and incentives for a clean energy future.

Well done Julia Gillard, The Labor Government, the MPCCC, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott, all the Greens in the senate - particularly Christine Milne and Bob Brown and their advisors - and Adam Bandt in the House of Representatives.

Hard work by all concerned, and a proud and momentous day for Australia.

It was interesting that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott chose to be absent from Australia on this day, despite his vocal and trenchant opposition to pricing pollution.  It was also interesting that Malcolm Turnbull chose to vote against the legislation in the House of Representatives, despite his support of emissions trading and putting a price on carbon.

What our parliamentarians say doesn't matter nearly as much as how they vote.

Links

• Carbon tax passes Senate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
• Finally, carbon tax becomes law - The Age 
• And It Passed! Australia Sets A Price On Pollution - Newmatilda

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