THE Brumby Government has shelved its controversial plans to allow the mining and export of Victorian brown coal to India, amid fears of a voter backlash.
Three months after plans to allow Melbourne-based Exergen to launch a $1.5 billion coal export scheme were revealed, Energy Minister Peter Batchelor has now ruled it out.
From The Age.com.au
Posted in Uncategorized
Demonstrations have taken place around the UK to urge action on climate change ahead of the Copenhagen summit.
Organisers Stop Climate Chaos want world leaders to reach a tough new deal on cutting emissions.
In London, police originally said about 20,000 people had taken part – but did not contradict claims by the organisers that the actual figure was over 40,000.
Gordon Brown praised the protesters for "propelling" leaders to reach the "first world climate change agreement".
The prime minister, who met some of the demonstrators in Downing Street, said it was essential that a deal be reached in Copenhagen and leaders had to be "ambitious".
Mr Brown said he and the "vast majority of people" were convinced by the scientific evidence for man-made global warming.
The above is from the BBC.CO.UK/NEWS website. Compare the attitude of the British Prime Minister, who is engaging with protesters and who is using the strength of public feeling in the UK to galvanise world leaders into action at Copenhagen. Compare this to the attitude of the Australian government, who wont even agree to meet with us to allow us to deliver the results of our petition.
Posted in Uncategorized
Tomorrow 56 newspapers in 45 countries take the unprecedented step of speaking with one voice through a common editorial. We do so because humanity faces a profound emergency.
Unless we combine to take decisive action, climate change will ravage our planet, and with it our prosperity and security. The dangers have been becoming apparent for a generation. Now the facts have started to speak: 11 of the past 14 years have been the warmest on record, the Arctic ice-cap is melting and last year’s inflamed oil and food prices provide a foretaste of future havoc. In scientific journals the question is no longer whether humans are to blame, but how little time we have got left to limit the damage. Yet so far the world’s response has been feeble and half-hearted.
Climate change has been caused over centuries, has consequences that will endure for all time and our prospects of taming it will be determined in the next 14 days. We call on the representatives of the 192 countries gathered in Copenhagen not to hesitate, not to fall into dispute, not to blame each other but to seize opportunity from the greatest modern failure of politics. This should not be a fight between the rich world and the poor world, or between east and west. Climate change affects everyone, and must be solved by everyone.
The science is complex but the facts are clear. The world needs to take steps to limit temperature rises to 2C, an aim that will require global emissions to peak and begin falling within the next 5-10 years. A bigger rise of 3-4C — the smallest increase we can prudently expect to follow inaction — would parch continents, turning farmland into desert. Half of all species could become extinct, untold millions of people would be displaced, whole nations drowned by the sea. The controversy over emails by British researchers that suggest they tried to suppress inconvenient data has muddied the waters but failed to dent the mass of evidence on which these predictions are based.
Few believe that Copenhagen can any longer produce a fully polished treaty; real progress towards one could only begin with the arrival of President Obama in the White House and the reversal of years of US obstructionism. Even now the world finds itself at the mercy of American domestic politics, for the president cannot fully commit to the action required until the US Congress has done so.
But the politicians in Copenhagen can and must agree the essential elements of a fair and effective deal and, crucially, a firm timetable for turning it into a treaty. Next June’s UN climate meeting in Bonn should be their deadline. As one negotiator put it: "We can go into extra time but we can’t afford a replay."
At the deal’s heart must be a settlement between the rich world and the developing world covering how the burden of fighting climate change will be divided — and how we will share a newly precious resource: the trillion or so tonnes of carbon that we can emit before the mercury rises to dangerous levels.
Rich nations like to point to the arithmetic truth that there can be no solution until developing giants such as China take more radical steps than they have so far. But the rich world is responsible for most of the accumulated carbon in the atmosphere – three-quarters of all carbon dioxide emitted since 1850. It must now take a lead, and every developed country must commit to deep cuts which will reduce their emissions within a decade to very substantially less than their 1990 level.
Developing countries can point out they did not cause the bulk of the problem, and also that the poorest regions of the world will be hardest hit. But they will increasingly contribute to warming, and must thus pledge meaningful and quantifiable action of their own. Though both fell short of what some had hoped for, the recent commitments to emissions targets by the world’s biggest polluters, the United States and China, were important steps in the right direction.
Social justice demands that the industrialised world digs deep into its pockets and pledges cash to help poorer countries adapt to climate change, and clean technologies to enable them to grow economically without growing their emissions. The architecture of a future treaty must also be pinned down – with rigorous multilateral monitoring, fair rewards for protecting forests, and the credible assessment of "exported emissions" so that the burden can eventually be more equitably shared between those who produce polluting products and those who consume them. And fairness requires that the burden placed on individual developed countries should take into account their ability to bear it; for instance newer EU members, often much poorer than "old Europe", must not suffer more than their richer partners.
The transformation will be costly, but many times less than the bill for bailing out global finance — and far less costly than the consequences of doing nothing.
Many of us, particularly in the developed world, will have to change our lifestyles. The era of flights that cost less than the taxi ride to the airport is drawing to a close. We will have to shop, eat and travel more intelligently. We will have to pay more for our energy, and use less of it.
But the shift to a low-carbon society holds out the prospect of more opportunity than sacrifice. Already some countries have recognized that embracing the transformation can bring growth, jobs and better quality lives. The flow of capital tells its own story: last year for the first time more was invested in renewable forms of energy than producing electricity from fossil fuels.
Kicking our carbon habit within a few short decades will require a feat of engineering and innovation to match anything in our history. But whereas putting a man on the moon or splitting the atom were born of conflict and competition, the coming carbon race must be driven by a collaborative effort to achieve collective salvation.
Overcoming climate change will take a triumph of optimism over pessimism, of vision over short-sightedness, of what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".
It is in that spirit that 56 newspapers from around the world have united behind this editorial. If we, with such different national and political perspectives, can agree on what must be done then surely our leaders can too.
The politicians in Copenhagen have the power to shape history’s judgment on this generation: one that saw a challenge and rose to it, or one so stupid that we saw calamity coming but did nothing to avert it. We implore them to make the right choice.
This editorial will be published tomorrow by 56 newspapers around the world in 20 languages including Chinese, Arabic and Russian. The text was drafted by a Guardian team during more than a month of consultations with editors from more than 20 of the papers involved. Like the Guardian most of the newspapers have taken the unusual step of featuring the editorial on their front page.
Posted in Uncategorized
One of the most common things we hear when discussing a low-carbon future is that our standard of living is threatened by the huge increases in prices that would ensure.
However, a recent article in New Scientist says that this is a myth. Whilst it is true the the price of electricity will rise, most items will be hardly influenced. This is because the energy cost component in most goods is a lot less than people realise.
‘But electricity and other forms of energy make up only a fraction of the price of most goods. Other factors – raw materials, labour and taxes – are far more important. The energy that goes into producing food, alcoholic drinks and tobacco, for example, makes up just 2 per cent of the consumer price. For motor vehicle purchases and hotel stays, the figure is 1 per cent. Only for energy-intensive industries does the contribution climb above 3 per cent: for example, energy’s share of land and air travel costs is 6 and 7 per cent respectively.’ Given the above, the pernicious lies that are peddled by the polluter lobby, that we can’t afford a low-carbon future, are shown to be invalid. Given then that moving to a low-carbon future will hardly impact on the wallet of consumers, why wouldn’t we do it? It won’t cost the earth to invest in renewable energy. It will cost the earth if we don’t.
The full article is here -
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427373.400-lowcarbon-future-we-can-afford-to-go-green.html
And, for those who spout the nonsense that the world is cooling, the BBC has put together a very simple and snazzy visual presentation. It is simple enough for even the most idiotic climate change sceptic to follow.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2009/copenhagen/8386319.stm
Posted in Uncategorized
Well, another successful day collecting photo petitions at the Abbotsford Convent Market.
Plenty of takers, and it is never a hard sell when we ask ‘would you like to send a message to the Government about investment in renewable energy’?
One thing that always makes me smile. So many people initially say ‘Oh, I dont know what to write’, and yet, given a moment, the words seem to flow very easily.
The great thing about this style of campaigning is that it motivates people to have their say, and it gives them an opportunity to get involved in a dialogue with politicians, rather than just receiving messages from them.
After all, you can’t complain about the government unless you have actually told them what you want.
Posted in Uncategorized
And article from The Guardian newspaper in the UK.
Posted in Uncategorized
Herewith is an email that I received from the 350.org organisers. A candlelit vigil sounds like an excellent idea. Any suggestions where we can host one?
Nick
Forwarded message
From: Bill McKibben – organizers>
Date: Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 9:33 AM
Subject: Copenhagen Strategy – action not rhetoric
To: nickjpettitt
Dear Friends,
We don’t organize events for their own sake–there needs to be a strategy to make them worth your effort, because your time is this movement’s most precious commodity.
Here’s our sense of what will be happening at the UN climate talks in Copenhagen, and why we’re hoping some of you will start or join a candlelight vigil at a strategic or iconic location in your community on Dec. 11th or 12th.
The weekend for these vigils falls smack in the middle of the two-week Copenhagen talks. President Obama just announced that he will visit Copenhagen on December 9th–and there’s no doubt that he’ll deliver a rousing and eloquent speech. The following day, December 10th, he’ll go on from Copenhagen to Norway to collect his Nobel prize.
We need to send a signal to say that speeches and prizes are good, but action is what’s really required–enough action to head us back towards 350 parts per million.
Obama will bring an emissions target to the table in Copenhagen, a bittersweet development in this political drama. Sweet because having any sort of commitment from the U.S. increases the chances of global collaboration on a climate deal, bitter because US emissions target represents a paltry 3% reductions below 1990 levels–far from the ambitious cuts scientists say are necessary to get back to 350.
The United States now holds a big key to unlock this process, and we need Obama and the U.S. Congress to turn that key–which is why many of the candlelight vigils will take place at U.S. senate offices, and at U.S. embassies and consulates around the world.
The timing here is crucial: the vigils are part of a huge mobilization on the weekend of December 12th, mid-way through the negotiations. The climate talks will build to a head a few days later, as our allies and champions–people like President Nasheed of the Maldives–struggle to get a document that represents "a survival pact, not a suicide pact." They have said repeatedly that their survival depends on getting back to 350, and it will help them immensely if delegates from other nations know that back home people are keeping up the pressure and demanding a real deal. I’ll be in Copenhagen on the weekend of December 12th to help organize a vigil with the 350.org team–and my hope is that you can join this effort by organizing a vigil locally.
Click this link to start a local vigil: www.350.org/vigil
Or this link to search for one near you: www.350.org/map
These vigils don’t need to be enormous–a gathering of young people, community members, or faith leaders will be plenty in many cases. Light candles, bring signs, and display any 350 action photos you might have–and consider spelling out a big illuminated 350 somehow. Send a message for your local media to see: after all, they’ll be interested in a local angle on the big international story. This is a symbolic act, but when it comes to making political change, symbolism counts.
Here’s the deal: the huge day of action on October 24 was a tremendous start, and it’s hard to believe that it was only a month ago that you created what’s being called "the most widespread day of political action in history." It took the most important number on earth and made it one of the most well-known.
Copenhagen continues that process–with the whole world paying attention, we need to remind our leaders that we don’t need rhetoric, we need change. Fast.
Onwards,
Bill McKibben, 350.org
P.S. We need to build the movement now more than ever–can you spread the links to the candlelight vigils to at least 35 friends via e-mail, Twitter, and Facebook. Click the links above to share the movement in 30 seconds with two clicks.
Posted in Uncategorized
Hopefully you have seen this week’s copy of The Melbourne Times. There is a double page spread devoted to us and our campaign. It is worth hunting down a copy, as it is interesting to see the work we have been doing from ‘outside’.
Speaking about our work, things keep rolling along. Yesterday lunchtime we were part of a flash demonstration at the State Library to vent our disgust at the shape of the CPRS, the huge payouts it locks in for polluters, with promises of more to come.
Where is the money for individuals trying to reduce their carbon footprint by joining the micro-generation revolution? Where is the money for direct investment in large and small scale solar, wind and wave technology?
Last night GetUp! volunteers met at Donkeywheel to phone Senators, both Labour and Liberal, to tell them how we feel. The certainly got the message. To see Ailene in full flight, expressing her outrage clearly and forcefully, is a sight to behold!
Over the next week there are more events planned. Our campaign ends with the Walk on Warming on the 12th, so I am hoping that everyone gets involved in the last week or so, and helps send a strong message to our government and governments worldwide, that anything less than binding targets at Copenhagen is not acceptable.
Posted in Uncategorized
Where logic doesn’t work in the way you expect it too?
Extracts from the two lead articles in this mornings TheAge.com.au
‘KEY climate change measures are tracking near or beyond worse-case scenarios predicted just two years ago, according to a science update drawing on more than 200 recently published studies.’
‘Mr Robb, who was the Opposition’s climate spokesman until he stepped aside because of a depressive illness, declared in a crucial intervention at the first of yesterday’s meetings that the deal the Opposition extracted was not good enough.’
Not good enough? He is right. It is no where near good enough. When scientists are telling us that the climate crisis is worse than we thought, we don’t need to be introducing laws that will reward big polluters with massive payouts, and tying the government into possible further payouts down the line if targets are raised.
Government action should have the twin aims of boosting investment in clean energy, and closing down old, filthy fossil-fuel burning power plants. Not in 20 or 30 years time, but now.
We will be meeting tonight, Wednesday, at 7.30, at 673 Bourke St to tell our politicians what we think of this sell-out legislation.
Nick
Posted in Uncategorized
So this is when you know that you’re involved in the thick of political future-making. Our strategy for the last 2 weeks of the campaign is double pronged – firstly to ensure that the strongest possible CPRS is passed by the senate this week, and secondly; to ensure that Australia stands up at Copenhagen.
But this latest press release from Bob Brown has shaken things up:
Canberra, Sunday 22 November 2009:
Legal advice show billions more could flow to big polluters
The Greens today released legal advice from barristers Brian Walters SC (Melbourne) and Matthew Baird (Sydney) confirming that any attempt to strengthen pollution reduction targets after the emissions trading scheme (ETS) legislation is passed could trigger a constitutional requirement for more multi-billion dollar compensation to be paid, “The Rudd Government’s targets have failure written all over them. Yet the ETS legislation will lock them in until 2020 since any increase will trigger compensation claims worth billions of dollars,” Australian Greens Leader, Senator Bob Brown said.
The barristers advise that: “once the CPRS Bill is passed, if a Government later seeks to implement more progressive emissions reductions targets, the Commonwealth will be exposed to claims under the Australian Constitution from polluters for substantial additional compensation, possibly in the order of billions of dollars. “This puts paid to the flimsy notion that we can pass this failure of a scheme now and easily improve it down the track,” Australian Greens Deputy Leader, Senator Christine Milne said. “The CPRS’s targets, imbedded in the object of the Act, are so weak and the compensation so generous that it is already predicted to trigger investment in coal. If, a few years down the track, an Australian government finally bites the bullet and adopts science-based targets, those coal investments will become financially unviable and billions more taxpayers’ dollars will have to be handed to polluters to compensate.
The CPRS classifies emissions units as personal property. Under the Constitution, if the government changes the value of personal property, it must be done on ‘just terms’.
“The Australian community is crying out for leadership on the climate crisis, but all Kevin Rudd has given them is spin, reciting climate rhetoric while presenting a polluter reward system that will fail the climate and the community,” Senator Milne said.
“Undoubtedly the Government’s deal with the Coalition will include some attempted environmental veneer on ‘voluntary action’. Any such move that did not allow for state, local and community action to be counted towards the reduction target would be a failure, ” Senator Brown said.
So if we keep fighting for a strong CPRS; we are fighting against politicians who are trying to get an effective CPRS. If we fight against it, we are, in one sense, joining forces with the coal lobby. What do we do?
Kate
Posted in Uncategorized
