EcoRadio

Category: General news

Managing director of Ebono Institute and major sponsor of The Generator, Geoff Ebbs, is running against Kevin Rudd in the seat of Griffith at the next Federal election. By the expression on their faces in this candid shot it looks like a pretty dull campaign. Read on

  • [New post] Do our state Electoral Commissions have enough to do the job?
    Click here to enable desktop notifications for Gmail.   Learn more  Hide
    More

    1 of 29

    [New post] Do our state Electoral Commissions have enough to do the job?

    Inbox
    		 x

    The Tally Room <donotreply@wordpress.com> Unsubscribe
    9:35 AM (2 minutes ago)
    to me

    New post on The Tally Room

    Do our state Electoral Commissions have enough to do the job?

    by Ben Raue

    Last week, while we were all distracted by the NSW election, the Tasmanian Electoral Commission (TEC) made a submission to a parliamentary inquiry warning that cuts to its funding may affect its ability to administer Tasmanian elections.

    The TEC has been hit by funding cuts from the Tasmanian state government, down $35,000 in the last year. The organisation also relies on fees from local councils to fund its operations, and these fees have been reduced due to council terms being extended from three years to four.

    Australian elections have genuinely been conducted to a very high standard, and a big part of this standard has been the administration of elections by independent, competent electoral commissions at a state and federal level. Yet government cost-cutting threatens this high-quality standard. Electoral commissions need to not only be independent, but have the resources to not just do the bare minimum when running an election, but to ensure that redundancies are built in to the system to catch problems, that staff are well-trained, that mistakes are not made, and that the entire process can be conducted in a way which is above reproach.

    When you cut budgets, you threaten this capacity. Sure, electoral commissions will continue to do the basics – set up polling booths, take votes and count them – but the things that will take a hit will be the things you don’t always see, and they could well be the things that cause problems when everything doesn’t go to plan, which happens quite regularly in such a big operation as running a large election.

    We’ve seen the problems with the NSW iVote system in recent weeks: errors on the ballot paper, security problems, and problems with small parts of the ballot paper being visible on the screen. I’ll return to iVote tomorrow, but it is part of the story of cost-cutting. iVote was in part very popular amongst overseas voters thanks to the closure of numerous overseas polling places in major cities.

    While the standard of elections in Australia is still very good in most cases, there’s a bunch of small ways in which our state Electoral Commissions fall short of the Australian Electoral Commission that I certainly notice when attempting to use electoral data for this website.

    Of course, it should be noted that in my experience most of the professional full-time staff at state Electoral Commissions are very professional, take their jobs very seriously and generally do good work, and from time to time you see some good innovations by state electoral commissions. The implementation of limited electronic voting in the ACT seems to have been handled well, and the ACT has also been successful in using optical character recognition (OCR) scanning of handwritten ballots to eliminate counting errors and speed up the counting process for large ballots of the type that take so long to count for the Senate and various Legislative Councils. Further down I’ll also discuss one new exciting innovation from the NSW Electoral Commission at this election.

    If you’re someone looking to access electoral data at a federal level, it’s very easy. In addition to results data in a format easy for casual viewers to read, the AEC provides a ‘results downloads’ page (here is the page for the House of Representatives in 2013).

    This data includes basically anything you might want to analyse the results. Full lists of candidates, full lists of polling places, including latitude and longitude for mapping purposes, enrolment statistics, and election results broken down in a bunch of ways – primary votes, two-candidate-preferred, two-party-preferred (there’s a difference), by booth, by vote type, by division, by state.

    If only the same was available for each state election.

    In most cases, it’s possible to get most of the same information, but there are usually gaps in the data. The most common problem is that data is only publicly available in an HTML format designed for casual readers – this includes keeping booth results on a separate page for each seat, so if you want the whole state’s data you need to use some kind of web-scraping tool or spend all day with copy and paste, and even then it’s a big hassle to combine data from different seats.

    Quite often, data that is posted at the time of the election is taken down afterwards, making it hard to reconstruct results. In at least two jurisdictions (Victoria and South Australia) I had to email the electoral commission to get the full list of booths, and these didn’t include latitudes and longitudes, and in the Victorian case the data was organised in a way that required a lot of reorganisation before it was ready to be analysed. Other states do it better – the ECQ has their data on their website, and the NSW Electoral Commission always publishes a CSV file of all booths, including their estimates of how many voters are expected at each booth (here is the 2015 page, although who knows where this data will reside when the temporary 2015 election minisite is reorganised).

    Even if booth lists are available, there’s often a problem matching lists of booths to the actual results. If you want to make a map, you need to match each individual booth on a list of booth addresses (and possibly geolocations) to the results of the election in each of those booths. Usually this is done by matching up a “unique name” – if there is more than one booth in a suburb, you add qualifying words, such as “Blacktown North” and “Blacktown South”, or sometimes the booths are named after the booth premises “Sackville Street Public School”, or the road the booth is on. The key is each booth has a unique name.

    In the case of previous Tasmanian Electoral Commission booth lists, for both Legislative Council and House of Assembly elections, it has been difficult to find a booth list that actually matches the list of addresses to the results. Thankfully this seems to not always be the case – I have just downloaded the 2009 Legislative Council booth lists to prepare for May’s elections, and this list provides everything I need.

    There are also big problems when it comes to actual vote figures.

    Again, most state jurisdictions provide this data as a single HTML table on a separate page for each seat, which is accessible but time-consuming if you’re interested in numerous seats.

    In Tasmania, this data is even less accessible. For statewide House of Assembly elections, the data is posted as large PDF files, which requires a substantial effort to clean up before you can begin analysing. For the Legislative Council it’s even worse: results are posted as PNG image files (such as this one). In order to use this data in a spreadsheet, to calculate percentages or add up votes for multiple booths, it’s necessary to painstakingly data-enter these results into a new spreadsheet, which is time-consuming and completey unnecessary.

    In other states, there are various issues, many of which revolve around the provision of the appropriate two-candidate-preferred counts for each booth.

    For federal elections, the Australian Electoral Commission provides accurate two-candidate-preferred (2CP) counts for every booth in every seat. Where the two-party-preferred count is different (where either of the top two candidates is not Labor or Coalition), they also provide the 2PP count by booth as well. Where the AEC wrongly guesses the top two candidates before election day, a fresh 2CP count is completed as soon as possible.

    In various states, these counts aren’t as comprehensive. In Queensland, all two-candidate-preferred counts by booth are pulled down only a few days after the election and are not subsequently available. Even if you save this data before it’s taken down, in most seats the data does not exist for special votes, such as absentee, postal and pre-poll.

    All electoral commissions need to guess which two candidates they think will come in the top two before election day, so that vote counters can proceed straight to the preference count after counting primary votes, but sometimes this guess is wrong. It’s not uncommon that booth counts are simply never conducted if the guess is wrong, and we are left guessing about the two-candidate-preferred count until the final distribution of preferences. In the seat of Prahran in Victoria in 2014, we only have a two-party-preferred booth count between the losing Labor and Liberal candidates, but no candidate including the successful Greens candidate.

    The NSW Electoral Commission has had similar problems in the past – in a bunch of seats in NSW in 2011 there exists no count between Greens and Coalition by booth, which would reflect the top two parties. In many of these seats, such as Ballina, Lismore and Vaucluse, the Greens maintained their top-two finish but still the count was conducted between Labor and Liberal/Nationals.

    In seats like Vaucluse there’s no particular urgency in producing the corrected figures, but in seats like Ballina and Lismore it was substantially harder to predict the result because the NSWEC chose not to conduct a fresh 2CP count between the correct candidates.

    The NSWEC is solving this problem in the long-term thanks to their new process whereby all ballots are data-entered into the computer. This will allow the NSWEC to eventually release two-candidate-preferred counts for all conceivable combinations in each seat, which will give even more information than is provided currently by the AEC, and we’ve been promised that data in coming weeks. But it’s still a problem about how they rectify the problem where the NSWEC conducts the wrong 2CP count in a close race.

    Of course, there are also problems with how the Australian Electoral Commission conducts elections. In addition to the unusual circumstances of lost ballot papers that triggered the Senate re-election in 2014, the 2013 Senate recount revealed the number of votes changing in a large number of booths across Western Australia. It’s an ongoing problem about how to improve the accuracy of vote-counting, and ensure that temporary election staff are well-trained.

    Whatever you think is the cause of these problems, imposing tighter budgets on our electoral commissions won’t help them solve their problems.

    I’m considering taking all of the candidate, booth and vote data I have collected over the years and putting them together into a central data repository in a format easy to use for data analysts. Let me know in comments if you would find this useful.

  • Legislative Council Count Updates antony green

    « Could NSW be facing a second Legislative Council election? | Main

    April 08, 2015

    Legislative Council Count Updates

    1pm 12 April – My latest estimates are below. The check count has reached about 70% and my estimate is based on combining the initial count of ticket votes with the percentages from the progressive count of below the line votes. There are currently 50,827 below the line votes counted of my estimate of 80,000 below the line votes.

    Using the progressive below the line party percentages, my current estimates are –

    • Coalition still slipping, now on 9.3953 quotas, electing nine but probably falling short on the tenth seat
    • Labor 6.8627 quotas, electing seven members.
    • Greens rising to 2.1832 quotas, electing two members with 0.1832 quotas distributed as preferences
    • Shooters and Fishers on 0.8441 quotas and electing one member
    • Christian Democrats on 0.6247 quotas and electing one member
    • No Land Tax rising to 0.4109 quotas
    • Animal Justice Party on 0.3864 quotas.

    So the first 20 seats are clear, 9 Coalition, 7 Labor, 2 Greens and one each for the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party.

    Nine seats for the Coalition is enough with its 11 continuing seats plus two Christian Democrats to allow the government to negotiate passage of legislation including electricity privatisation.

    The race for the 21st seat remains close. On my estimates No Land Tax have 80,072 votes, the tenth Liberal candidate 77,037 and Animal Justice 75,312. No Land Tax is favoured to win the final seat.

    The Greens have a surplus of around 35,000 votes, but flows between parties of more than 10% are unusual in the NSW Legislative Council system. Green preference may favour Animal Justice, but not by enough to put them ahead of No Land Tax.

    If there are more than 80,000 BTL votes then No Land Tax will be further advantaged. Less than 80,000 the race for the final seat becomes much closer.

    Earlier comments below

     

    2pm 11 April – My latest estimates are below. They are based on using the initial count totals on the NSWEC website as the likely ticket vote totals. I am then using the progressive check count of below the line totals to work out what percentage of first preference BTL votes each party will receive. There are currently 44,000 BTL votes counted and I am estimating based on there being around 80,000 BTL votes at the end of the count.

    The current estimates are –

    • Coalition slipping to 9.3960 quotas, electing nine but probably falling short on the tenth seat
    • Labor 6.8621 quotas, electing seven members.
    • Greens rising to 2.1847 quotas, electing two members with 0.1847 quotas distributed as preferences
    • Shooters and Fishers on 0.8433 quotas and electing one member
    • Christian Democrats on 0.6247 quotas and electing one member
    • No Land Tax rising to 0.4121 quotas
    • Animal Justice Party on 0.3868 quotas.

    So the first 20 seats are clear, 9 Coalition, 7 Labor, 2 Greens and one each for the Shooters and Fishers Party and the Christian Democratic Party.

    Nine seats for the Coalition is enough with its 11 continuing seats plus two Christian Democrats to allow the government to negotiate passage of legislation including electricity privatisation.

    The race for the 21st seat remains close. On my estimates No Land Tax have 80,312 votes, the tenth Liberal candidate 77,172 and Animal Justice 75,375. No Land Tax is favoured to win the final seat.

    The Greens have a surplus of around 35,000 votes, but flows between parties of more than 10% are unusual in the NSW Legislative Council system. Green preference may favour Animal Justice, but not by enough to put them ahead of No Land Tax.

    The Coalition ticket vote on the progressive check count is currently about 0.6% above the initial count total which suggests the Coalition vote will continue to fall.

    If there are more than 80,000 BTL votes then No Land Tax will be further advantaged.

     

    10am 10 April – My estimates were based on about 80,000 below the line votes. I’ve been informed the number might be much higher, but I’ve questioned that information. If the figure is higher, and the current trend in BTL votes continues, then No Land Tax will win the final position relatively easily and the tenth Liberal candidate will finish behind both No Land Tax and Animal Justice.

    In 2011 there were around 91,500 BTL votes, a rate of 2.2%. The current NSWEC figures indicate a BTL rate of 1.7% which would indicate the number of BTL votes should be down on 2011, not substantially up.

    7pm 9 April – The initial counts are now complete and the Coalition total is 9.50 quotas. However, having re-assessed the NSWEC data, it now appears that the below the line vote is 1.7% rather than my initial estimate of 1.2%. If this higher figure is correct, then my current projection has the tenth Liberal candidate falling behind No Land Tax. My new estimates based on this higher rate of below the line voting is  –

    • Coalition slipping to 9.4069 quotas, electing nine with the tenth candidate still in the race
    • Labor 6.8655 quotas, electing seven members.
    • Greens rising to 2.1810 quotas, electing two members with 0.1810 quotas distributed as preferences
    • Shooters and Fishers on 0.8428 quotas and electing one member
    • Christian Democrats on 0.6226 quotas and electing one member
    • No Land Tax rising to 0.4109 quotas
    • Animal Justice Party on 0.3861 quotas.

    At some point in the count six candidates will remain to fill four vacancies. These candidates will be from the Coalition, Labor, Shooters and Fishers, Christian Democrats, No Land Tax and the Animal Justice Party.

    It is unlikely that party preferences will have much impact, except for Green preferences which may flow towards Animal Justice.

    With six candidates remaining, and assuming no change in order, Animal Justice would be excluded, and No Land Tax would probably win the last seat. If Animal Justice pass either No Land Tax or the tenth Liberal candidate, then the last seat is between Animal Justice and No Land Tax.

    There is more counting to come, but the 21st seat is now looking much more in doubt than it was previously.

    Amongst BTL votes, No Land Tax is polling 7.4% and the Coalition 19.4%. That’s why my current projection has No Land tax increasing its vote and the Coalition vote falling. If the BTL rate continues at 1.7% then the last seat is a real toss up with No Land Tax having improved its position. It would also make any Court of Disputed Returns case much more complex.

    My prediction at the moment is that we will not know who wins the last seat until the button is pressed to distribute preferences.

    Earlier comments below.

    5pm 9 April – The Liberal lead continues to narrow as the final declaration votes are entered. My current projected quotas are  –

    • Coalition slipping to 9.46 quotas, electing nine and probably still leading to elect a tenth member
    • Labor 6.88 quotas, electing seven members.
    • Greens rising to 2.16 quotas, electing two members with 0.16 quotas distributed as preferences
    • Shooters and Fishers on 0.84 quotas and electing one member
    • Christian Democrats on 0.62 quotas and electing one member
    • No Land Tax rising to 0.40 quotas
    • Animal Justice Party on 0.38 quotas.

    Earlier comments below.

    6:30pm 8 April – Using the initial count of ticket (above the line) votes that can be found at this link, and mixing these figures with preliminary tallies of below the line votes, the Legislative Council count will continue to see a decline in the Coalition vote.

    The first below the line figures have the Coalition on 9.9 quotas, which is much higher than the current group totals. I do not have knowledge of which electorates are included, but it clearly overstates the Coalition’s vote.

    On the current party totals at the above link, and factoring in the first below the line numbers, I am projecting the following final quotas

    • Coalition slipping to 9.48 quotas, electing nine and probably a tenth member
    • Labor 6.89 quotas, electing seven members.
    • Greens rising to 2.15 quotas, electing two members with 0.15 quotas distributed as preferences
    • Shooters and Fishers on 0.83 quotas and electing one member
    • Christian Democrats on 0.62 quotas and electing one member
    • No Land Tax rising to 0.40 quotas
    • Animal Justice Party on 0.38 quotas.

    Of the data released, the below the line vote rate is 1.1%, down on the 2.2% in 2011. Nearly a third of below the line votes in 2011 were for Independents Pauline Hanson and John Hatton, both of whom had much greater pulling power than any party at the 2015 election. The 2015 ballot paper was also longer than the 2011 ballot paper and had an additional 83 candidates.

    The Liberal/National below the line rate is the lowest at 0.5%, Labor 0.8%, the Greens 2.7%, Christian Democrats 2.5%, Shooters and Fishers 1.3%, Animal Justice 2.1% and No Land Tax 4.7%.

    Of all below the line votes, the Liberal/National Parties are polling only 19.4%, Labor 21.0%, the Greens 22.4% and No Land Tax 8.1%. That is why the Green and No Land Tax vote is rising with below the line votes and the Liberal/National vote is falling.

    If these trends hold up, there may be enough Green preferences to get Animal Justice ahead of No Land Tax, but not enough to close the gap on the Liberal/National group.

    The one caveat on this is that the totals are still short of many Absent votes, and these may yet cause a further decline in the Liberal/National total.

    As I explained in this post this morning, the Animal Justice party needs to get the gap between it and the tenth Liberal candidate down under 700 votes, at the outside about 1,000 votes. If the gap is wider than this, it is unlikely that the Court of Disputed Returns would judge the iVote error as enough to affect the result of the election.

    With the quota being about 190,000 votes, this means the quota gap at the end of the count would have to be under 0.005, or under 0.024% of the vote. At the moment the result does not look that close and the Coalition would be favoured to win the final seat.

    Posted by on April 08, 2015 at 06:49 PM in New South Wales Politics |

    Comments

    Why do we persist with this quota system for the Legislative Council and the Senate? Why not simply allow each voter to vote for the number of candidates that the LC or Senate is to elect? So, for the Senate, each voter from each state votes for 12 candidates. (each voter from each territory votes for 2 ). For the NSW LC each voter would vote for 21 (half) or 42 (full). The 12 senate candidates or the 21/42 LC candidates with the highest number of votes are elected. fair and simple.

    COMMENT: What you are describing is block system, a voting method that became useless as soon as formalised parties appeared. It used to result in one party winning all vacancies. It was abandoned for the Senate in 1919, though an equivalent preferential bot non-quota system was used until 1949. So after the 1946 election the Chifey government had a majority of 33-3. What would be the point of having a Senate if it could end up with one party having a 76-0 majority. Or in the case of the Scullin government in 1929 or Cook government in 1913, have a government facing a massive opposition majority in the Senate.

    Posted by: JOHN PRITCHARD | April 08, 2015 at 07:14 PM

    Antony, great coverage and commentary as usual.

    Much of the calculation of where the AJP will end up relies on predictions of how many Green (and other minor party, e.g. No Parking Meters, Bicycles, VE) voters preference them. What history do we have to rely on about this percentage?

    You have indicated you expect it will be less than 50% following the Greens HTV. Why?

    COMMENT: Because in the past barely 25% of Green voters have indicated any upper house preference, meaning individual flows are even weaker. I don’t expect that rate to more than double at the 2015 election.

    I did some analysis of what preferences existed at the 2011 election in the following post. http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2011/08/measuring-the-performance-of-the-new-nsw-legislative-council-electoral-system.html

    Overall at past elections, as the last candidate of each party was excluded, 80-85% of preferences exhausted. I don’t expect that rate to be much different in 2015.

    Posted by: Bruce Poon | April 09, 2015 at 09:22 AM

    Off topic: It seems to me electing someone for an eight-year term on a statewide “list” isn’t very democratic or accountable no matter who wins.

    After Victoria went to an election tying the whole of the Legislative Council to the term of the of the Legislative Assembly, using STV to vote for five MLCs each in eight districts, just as Western Australia elects six MLCs each in six districts, has New South Wales or South Australia ever considered switching to a similar model as Victoria and Western Australia have?

    Has there been any move to establish an elected LC in Queensland of late?

    Your analysis is appreciated by professional and amateur psephologists everywhere.

    COMMENT: Queensland requires a referendum to re-create a Legislative Council. NSW and South Australia would both require referendums to end the staggered terms. South Australia has discussed the subject without getting anywhere. NSW moved from four rotations to three in 1978 by referendum, and three rotations to two in 1991 by referendum. There has been no proposal yet to go further with change.

    Posted by: Dan W. | April 09, 2015 at 10:02 AM

    Antony, where have the preliminary BTL figures come from? I can’t find them on the NSWEC website.

    COMMENT: Some data is now on the website.

    Posted by: Ben Raue | April 09, 2015 at 11:26 AM

    Hi Antony,
    Great information however I have a question slightly off topic. Penny Sharp ran for a lower house seat and was defeated. How can she now get a seat in the upper house?

    COMMENT: Both Penny Sharpe and Steve Whan resigned from Legislative Council seats that did not face election on March 28. When the new parliament sits, both vacancies have to be filled. There is nothing to stop Sharpe being re-appointed to the vacancy created by her resignation.

    This has happened in the past. Fred Nile resigned from the Council in 2004 to contest the Senate. When he was unsuccessful he was re-appointed to the vacancy his resignation created.

    Posted by: Graham Ianson | April 09, 2015 at 05:38 PM

    If there was to be a re-run of the LC election, due to this (minor error), what would it cost the State of NSW?

    COMMENT: A lot!

    Posted by: Michael Cox | April 09, 2015 at 09:33 PM

    It seems very strange that NLT would be polling at 7.4% in BTL votes? Why would the vote for NLT be over 4 times higher BTL, especially when their people handing out on polling day were advocating a vote 1 above the line? Do Donkey Voters favour BTL?

    COMMENT: The same happened in 2007 when there was an unnamed group in Column A. The group had easily the highest rate of below the line voting.

    Posted by: Jack | April 10, 2015 at 10:44 AM

    While I fully get the concerns of the parties in relation to missing out as a result of the missing squares abobove the line on the ballot paper . Is there not a requirement that they check it themselves to see that all is correct beofre it is printed/uploaded?
    If not why not. Sounds a bit like sour grapes to me and the cost – absolutely astronomical – I am amazed at the number of people that actutally think that the people crossong out namnes and running the election across the state are VOLUNTEERS. Which of course they are not!

    COMMENT: The requirement is on the electoral commission to correctly publish ballot papers, not the candidates and parties.

    Posted by: Jason | April 11, 2015 at 01:36 PM

    Hi Antony,

    If No Land Tax wins the final seat would the Animal Justice Party be in a position to request a re-run election?

    COMMENT: In my view, only if the gap between the two parties is under 700 will the Animal Justice Party have a case. Read my previous post which still applies in part even if the No Land Tax party now outpolls the tenth Liberal. http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2015/04/could-nsw-be-facing-a-second-legislative-council-election.html

    Posted by: Sophie | April 11, 2015 at 09:12 PM

    Hi Antony. Great info. You have in your article Labor as getting 7 Upper House seats. The last I heard, Labor was in line for 8. I assume that the 1 less seat is because of BTL voting? Furthermore, does this mean that Courtney Houssos misses out?

    COMMENT: I don’t know where you heard that information. The Labor vote has never been above 7 quotas in the time I’ve been following it.

    Posted by: Daniel | April 11, 2015 at 11:56 PM

    Post a comment

    Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

    (URLs automatically linked.)

    Your Information

    (Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

  • Philip Morris against all of us AVAAZ

    Click here to enable desktop notifications for Gmail.   Learn more  Hide
    1 of 30

    Philip Morris against all of us

    Inbox
    		 x

    Emma Ruby-Sachs – Avaaz Unsubscribe
    6:15 PM (35 minutes ago)
    to me

    Big tobacco is suing Uruguay for their anti-smoking laws. If they win, it will threaten public health laws everywhere and prove one corporation can trump the public good, even when its product kills! But if we launch a giant call and Avaaz hires a world class legal team to carry our voices into the courtroom, the judges won’t be able to turn a blind eye. Click to join now:

    SIGN THE PETITION
    Dear friends,

    The tobacco giant Philip Morris is suing Uruguay for having some of the best anti-smoking laws in the world, and there’s a good chance it could win, unless we step in.

    It’s a scary reality: a single company, with a product that kills, could overturn laws that protect our  health. This court has already come under fire for not listening to the public in similar lawsuits. Let’s ensure they listen now: if we launch a giant call and work with a world class legal team to carry our voices into the courtroom, the judges won’t be able to turn a blind eye.

    Let’s tell the court that this doesn’t just affect Uruguay — if Big Tobacco gets their way, it opens the door for challenges everywhere — at least 4 other countries are in the legal crosshairs, and many more have anti-smoking laws at risk.

    We have to move fast — the court is already hearing arguments. Click to protect our public health and our democracies from corporate greed — each of our names will be submitted to the court:

    https://secure.avaaz.org/en/uruguay_vs_big_tobacco_loc_2/?bhPqncb&v=56805

    Dear friends,

    The tobacco giant Philip Morris is suing Uruguay for having some of the best anti-smoking laws in the world, and there’s a good chance it could win, unless we step in.

    It’s a scary reality: a single company, with a product that kills, could overturn laws that protect our  health. This court has already come under fire for not listening to the public in similar lawsuits. Let’s ensure they listen now: if we launch a giant call and work with a world class legal team to carry our voices into the courtroom, the judges won’t be able to turn a blind eye.

    Let’s tell the court that this doesn’t just affect Uruguay — if Big Tobacco gets their way, it opens the door for challenges everywhere — at least 4 other countries are in the legal crosshairs, and many more have anti-smoking laws at risk.

    We have to move fast — the court is already hearing arguments. Click to protect our public health and our democracies from corporate greed — each of our names will be submitted to the court:

    https://secure.avaaz.org/en/uruguay_vs_big_tobacco_loc_2/?bhPqncb&v=56805

    Uruguay requires 80% of the cigarette package to be covered with medical warnings and graphic images. Smoking had reached crisis levels, killing around 7 Uruguayans each day, but since this law was put in place smoking has decreased every year! Now tobacco giant Philip Morris is arguing that the warning labels leave no space for its trademarks.

    It’s all part of a global Philip Morris strategy to sue and intimidate countries. The company already slapped an expensive lawsuit on Australia — and if it wins against Uruguay, it could run cases against more than a hundred other countries including France, Norway, New Zealand, and Finland who are all considering new life-saving legislation.

    Experts say Philip Morris has a good chance of winning because it’s using a closed door international tribunal that ruled for corporations two-thirds of the time last year. And their rulings are binding, even though many of the judges are private citizens with corporate ties instead of impartial legal experts. It’s up to us to force them to consider the devastating effect their ruling could have on health across the world.

    Uruguay has its own legal team, but they’re rightly focused on arguing their individual defence. We can submit a unique legal argument about how this ruling would set a precedent for every country with smoking laws and a similar trade agreement. And we can show the court that public opinion is behind them if they rule in favour of Uruguay and health protection everywhere.

    The more of us sign, the harder it is for the court to ignore us. Click below to join the call and forward this email to everyone:

    https://secure.avaaz.org/en/uruguay_vs_big_tobacco_loc_2/?bhPqncb&v=56805

    When big corporations launch deadly attacks on our public good, our community has jumped into action — from Monsanto to H&M, we’ve made sure that profits don’t come before people. This is our chance to do it again, for all of us.

    With hope,

    Emma, Maria Paz, Katie, Mais, Alice, Ricken, Risalat and the whole Avaaz team

    MORE INFORMATION

    Uruguay sued by cigarette makers over anti-smoking laws (BBC)
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-30708063

    Philip Morris Sues Uruguay Over Graphic Cigarette Packaging (NPR)
    http://www.npr.org/blogs/goatsandsoda/2014/09/15/345540221/philip-morris-sues-uruguay-over-graphic-cigarette-packaging

    Big Tobacco puts countries on trial as concerns over TTIP deals mount (The Independent)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/big-tobacco-puts-countries-on-trial-as-concerns-over-ttip-deals-mount-9807478.html

    The Secret Trade Courts (New York Times)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/27/opinion/27mon3.html?_r=1&

    Recent Trends in IIAs and ISDS (UN Conference on Trade and Development)
    http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2015d1_en.pdf

    The arbitration game (The Economist)
    http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration

  • Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions – Issues Paper

    Publication author(s):

    Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet

    Release date:

    28th March 2015

    Publication abstract:

    Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. The Australian Government has committed to review Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and settings this year. This review is in the context of negotiations for a new global climate agreement to be concluded at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties in Paris in late 2015 (30 November to 11 December).

    All countries have agreed to propose a post-2020 emissions reduction target well in advance of the Paris conference. Australia will announce a post-2020 emissions reduction target in mid‑2015.

    Attachment File type File size
    Setting Australia’s post-2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions – Issues Paper PDF 167.52 KB

    Full publication:

    Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. The Australian Government has committed to review Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets and settings this year. This review is in the context of negotiations for a new global climate agreement to be concluded at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties in Paris in late 2015 (30 November to 11 December).

    Countries have agreed to propose a post-2020 emissions reduction target well in advance of the Paris conference. Australia will announce a post-2020 emissions reduction target in mid‑2015.

    A strong and effective global agreement, that addresses carbon leakage and delivers environmental benefit, is in Australia’s national interest. The latest climate information from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the Bureau of Meteorology indicates that Australia has warmed by 0.9°C since 1910, with most of the warming since 1950. There has been a rise in sea levels of about 20 centimetres over the past century, increased ocean acidification and a shift in rainfall patterns.[i]

    Australia’s climate will continue to have high variability. Nevertheless, average temperatures are projected to continue to increase and extreme rain events are projected to become more intense. Average rainfall in southern Australia is projected to decrease.[ii]

    Australia is taking strong action on climate change. Between 1990 and 2014 the economy nearly doubled in size and our population grew strongly, while greenhouse gas emissions remained broadly the same. Australia’s emissions per capita have reduced by 28 per cent since 1990 and by 20 per cent since 2000 and emissions per unit of gross domestic product have fallen by 52 per cent since 1990 and by 35 per cent since 2000.

    The Australian Government is committed to achieving a five per cent reduction on 2000 emissions levels by 2020. This target is equivalent to a reduction of 13 per cent below 2005 emissions levels and a 19 per cent reduction from projected business as usual emissions.[iii]

    The Government’s focus is on taking direct action, including through the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund, which is a market-based scheme. Actions by state and local governments, business, farmers and the broader community are, and will continue to be, critical to Australia’s climate efforts.

    International efforts to address climate change

    Australia plays a constructive role in international climate change efforts. Since its formation in 1992 the UNFCCC has been an important forum for countries to cooperate on climate change. Australia was one of the first countries to join the UNFCCC and it now has almost universal membership. In 1997 Australia, alongside other countries, adopted the Kyoto Protocol which established binding emissions reduction targets for developed countries.

    Australia performed well over the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period (2008-2012). During that time Australia’s emissions were limited to 103 per cent of 1990 levels, which was considerably less than Australia’s target of 108 per cent. Australia’s target under the second commitment period, which began in 2013 and ends in 2020, is 99.5 per cent of 1990 levels. Australia is on track to meet this target, which is consistent with our UNFCCC target of a five per cent reduction on 2000 emissions levels by 2020.

    The Paris Agreement

    Australia is working with the international community to conclude a new global climate agreement at the Paris conference. The Paris Agreement will set out how countries will tackle climate change after 2020, when current emissions reduction commitments under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol lapse.

    Commitments by all countries to reduce or limit their greenhouse gas emissions are needed to make a genuine impact globally. To do this, the Paris Agreement must encourage full participation and commitments to take serious, coordinated action from all countries. Australia, together with all UNFCCC Parties, has agreed that new commitments should be appropriate to countries’ national circumstances so these can work alongside plans for strong economic growth, jobs and development.

    Australia’s national circumstances

    In setting their post-2020 emissions reduction targets, all countries will consider what would represent a fair and appropriate contribution to tackling climate change in light of their particular national circumstances. Compared with other developed countries, Australia has stronger economic and population growth, and our economic structure is different. Our resource and agricultural industries represent a significantly larger share of national economic output. These factors affect the emissions intensity of our exports and economy. This is putting upwards pressure on our greenhouse gas emissions, in particular:

    • The economy is projected to grow approximately 17 per cent over the five year period 2014 to 2019 (or at an annual average of about 3.3 per cent)[iv], compared to around 12 per cent (or an annual average of 2.4 per cent) for other advanced economies.[v]
    • Australia’s population is growing more quickly than comparable countries, at around 1.6 per cent in 2014.[vi] The average annual rate of population growth in the developed world was around 0.4 per cent over the period 1980-2013 and this is projected to decline further over the coming decades.[vii]
    • Coal accounts for nearly 60 per cent of our total primary energy supply, against an average in other developed countries of 20 per cent.[viii]
    • 95 per cent of Australia’s energy consumption comes from fossil fuel sources[ix], compared to an OECD average of 81 per cent.[x] This is primarily the result of Australia’s abundant energy and mineral resources and limited scope to harness hydroelectricity.
    • In 2013, iron ore and concentrates, coal and natural gas made up around 40 per cent of Australia’s exports at a value of around $124 billion.[xi]

    For the foreseeable future, Australia will continue to be a major supplier of crucial energy and raw materials to the rest of the world, especially Asian countries. At present, around 80 per cent of the world’s primary energy needs are met through carbon-based fuels. By 2040, it is estimated that 74 per cent will still be met by carbon-based sources because of growing demand in emerging economies.[xii]

    Australia’s action on climate change

    Australia will continue to play its part to tackle climate change. A new target will build on current efforts and policy, including direct action through the $2.55 billion Emissions Reduction Fund.

    Research, development and deployment of new technologies will underpin global emissions reductions. Australia has long supported the development of alternative energy sources as part of Australia’s energy mix and has invested heavily in the development of both renewable energy supply and low-carbon technologies. The Australian Government is providing $588 million for low emissions fossil fuels programmes. Collectively these are designed to support a range of low emissions technologies, including carbon capture and storage (CCS) demonstration projects. Other important initiatives include the Government’s investment of over $1 billion in 200 projects across a range of renewable energy technologies. The Australian Government will continue working with industry to promote research and development of new technologies to reduce emissions from carbon-based energy production.

    Across Australia all levels of government, business, farmers and the broader community are continuing to take action in ways that make critical contributions to Australia’s emissions reduction efforts.

    Australia also continues to support other countries to take climate action and build resilience and capacity to adapt to a changing climate through our aid programme. Most recently, this included a contribution of $200 million to the Green Climate Fund which will be targeted to assist Indo-Pacific neighbours meet their climate goals.

    Australia’s strong advocacy and implementation of the Montreal Protocol is another way Australia can play a key role in global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Montreal Protocol is the logical forum to take action on synthetic greenhouse gas emissions.

    It has worked with industry to reduce emissions of ozone depleting substances, and has the expertise to phase down hydro-fluorocarbon gases.

    Setting Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target

    The Australian Government will set its post-2020 emissions reduction target within the framework of the UNFCCC and its objectives. At the UNFCCC’s Lima conference in December 2014, all Parties confirmed they would bring forward intended nationally determined contributions setting out the targets they will adopt from 2020 onwards. The expectations for intended nationally determined contributions include that they be a progression beyond the country’s current undertaking and be transparent, easy to understand and announced well in advance of the Paris conference.[xiii]

    Countries are expected to describe the key parameters of their target, including a reference point (e.g. base year) and coverage of greenhouse gases and sectors. They are also expected to explain how the target is fair and ambitious in light of their national circumstances, and how it contributes to achieving the UNFCCC’s objective of stabilising emissions at a level that would avoid dangerous climate change.

    Australia’s current undertakings are a five per cent reduction on 2000 emissions levels by 2020 under the UNFCCC, and our target under the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions to 99.5 per cent of 1990 levels from 2013-2020. These undertakings cover all sectors of the economy and all seven Kyoto Protocol greenhouse gases, and are expressed as an absolute reduction from an historical base year.

    The Australian Government will announce Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target in mid-2015, well ahead of the Paris conference at the end of the year.

    Australia’s target must provide certainty to business and the Australian community to facilitate decision making and investment.

    The target will represent Australia’s fair share of the global effort needed to respond to climate change.

    The Australian Government will consider a range of factors in determining Australia’s post‑2020 target, including:

    • Australia’s national circumstances – our economic structure, projected economic growth, resource endowments, geography and demography – will have implications for Australia’s emissions reduction opportunities. Different targets have different costs and benefits for Australia.
    • The scope and nature of other countries’ targets – so that our target represents Australia’s fair share and does not put Australia at a competitive disadvantage to our key trading partners and the major economies.

    Australia’s post-2020 target will be consistent with continued strong economic growth, jobs growth and development in Australia.

    Identifying the policies that will help achieve a post-2020 target is also important. The Australian Government’s preference is for direct action and it recognises there is a range of effective and cost-efficient options for actions supplementary to the Emissions Reduction Fund and its safeguard mechanism. These could include fuel efficiency standards for light and heavy vehicles, building and appliance energy efficiency standards and measures to reduce synthetic greenhouse gas emissions. Before taking decisions on such policy measures, the Australian Government will consult with business and the community.

    The Australian Government values your views. You are invited to make a submission on Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target, and in particular on the following issues:

    • What should Australia’s post-2020 target be and how should it be expressed? In responding to this question you could consider the base year (e.g. 1990/2000/2005), the end year (e.g. 2025/2030), the type of target and why the suggested target is preferred.
    • What would the impact of that target be on Australia? In responding to this question you could, for example, consider the impact on our economy, jobs, business and on the environment.
    • Which further policies complementary to the Australian Government’s direct action approach should be considered to achieve Australia’s post-2020 target and why?

    You can make a submission at https://www.dpmc.gov.au/taskforces/unfccc/

    Submissions close 3pm AEST on Friday 24 April 2015.

     

    [i] CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, State of the Climate Report 2014.

    [ii] CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology, State of the Climate Report 2014.

    [iii] Department of the Environment, Australia’s Emissions Projections 2014-15.

    [iv] The Treasury, 2015 Intergenerational Report.

    [v] International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, January 2015.

    [vi] Australian Bureau of Statistics, 3101.0, December 2014.

    [vii] United Nations, World Populations Prospects, 2012 Revision, Table I.3.

    [viii] Climate Change Authority, Reducing Australia’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Targets and Progress Review Final Report, February 2014.

    [ix] Australian Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics, Australian Energy Statistics 2014, Table O.

    [x] World Bank, World Development Indicators, Fossil fuel energy consumption 2014.

    [xi] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Trade at a Glance, 2014.

    [xii] Based on the new policies scenario. World Energy Outlook 2014, International Energy Agency.

    [xiii] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Decision –/CP.20.

     

    © Commonwealth of Australia 2015

    ISBN 978-1-925237-47-4 (PDF)

    ISBN 978-1-925237-48-1 (HTML)

    Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication

    Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia (referred to below as the Commonwealth).

    Creative Commons licence

    With the exception of the Coat of Arms, this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence.

    Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work. A summary of the licence terms is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/deed.en. The full licence terms are available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode.

    The Commonwealth’s preference is that you attribute this publication (and any material sourced from it) using the following wording:

    Source: Licensed from the Commonwealth of Australia under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence.

    The Commonwealth of Australia does not necessarily endorse the content of this publication.

    Use of the Coat of Arms

    The terms under which the Coat of Arms can be used are set out on the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet website (see http://www.dpmc.gov.au/guidelines/).

    Show full publication

  • Australia’s climate change ‘debate’ all talk and no action

    cities development

    australia
    world
    opinion
    sport
    football
    tech
    culture
    lifestyle
    fashion
    economy
    travel
    media

    all
    Climate change
    Australia’s climate change ‘debate’ all talk and no action

    Climate policy has become more untenable over the past nine months as the Coalition built its rhetorical smokescreen
    drought
    A crippling drought near Mingenew, in Western Australia, in January as the eastern states suffered the nation’s costliest floods in its history. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images
    Lenore Taylor

    Lenore Taylor Political editor
    @lenoretaylor

    Friday 10 April 2015 14.40 AEST
    Last modified on Friday 10 April 2015 18.17 AEST

    Share on Facebook
    Share on Twitter
    Share via Email
    Share on LinkedIn
    Share on Google+
    Share on WhatsApp

    Shares
    352
    Comments
    184

    Australia’s climate “debate” screamed itself out nine months ago and fell over in exhaustion, having smashed a workable policy and failed to produce an alternative.

    People who care about the subject, which you’d think would be most people considering what is at stake, struggled to maintain a rational conversation, given that the former government’s policy had been taken down by rhetorical nonsense – Whyalla wipeouts and $100 lamb roasts and the like – and the Abbott government’s still sketchy policy was propped up by the same.

    But eventually facts challenge nonsense rhetoric, and the past nine months have made it clear just how untenable Australia’s position is. Here are seven sadly ridiculous things about our current situation.

    Emission reduction businesses that used to sell greenhouse gas abatement to polluters will start selling the same abatement to the government next week, for about the same price the polluters would be paying for it if we still had an emissions trading scheme. The first auction under the Abbott government Direct Action policy’s $2.55bn emissions reduction fund will be held on 15 and 16 April. Experts say the most likely winners are companies like Greencollar, that gather up land-clearing permits from farmers who promise not to clear the land, so the farmer and the company get paid for the emission reduction from avoided deforestation, and companies that capture methane from places like garbage dumps.
    Those same companies were selling their abatement to polluters under the old ETS and its carbon farming scheme. By now the old carbon price would have been floating close to the European price of about $10 a tonne. Norton Rose Fulbright partner Elisa de Wit said she expected next week’s auction price to be between $10 and $20 a tonne. Same abatement – as far as it goes – similar price, except we pay instead of the companies doing the polluting.
    Manufacturers, miners and electricity generators (that together produce more than 60% of Australia’s emissions) won’t have to reduce their emissions under Direct Action and may in fact be able to increase them, which could cancel out the emissions reductions the government is spending billions trying to achieve. Direct Action included something called a “safeguards mechanism” that was supposed to stop this from happening. In fact, if the emission “baselines” under the “safeguards mechanism” were tough, it could have potentially forced industrial emissions down and turned the policy into something halfway workable.
    But a recent discussion paper revealed the safeguards mechanism had been designed not to safeguard that emissions were reduced, but to effectively safeguard against industry having to do anything. The Carbon and Environment Daily newsletter has calculated that the system described could allow Bluescope steel to double its emissions without suffering a penalty. The exceptions and out clauses mean it is unlikely to force any change in any company’s behaviour. The South Australian senator Nick Xenophon, who provided one of the six votes that got Direct Action through the Senate on the understanding that the safeguards would be rigorous, feels dudded, and is protesting. It’s probably too late for that, although the discussion paper is seeking feedback.
    Successive governments have negotiated special emission reduction deals for Australia and, together with reduced electricity use – mostly because of the decline in manufacturing – this might take us close to our pretty easy emission reduction targets. But that does not mean we are pulling our weight, as we seem to be claiming. In 1997 in Kyoto, having threatened not to sign, Australia managed to get a special deal to increase our emissions by 8% in the first period – ending in 2012 – and to count changes in land use.
    Almost every other country had to reduce emissions over the same period. Effectively this meant we knew we had already almost achieved the target when we signed up to it because of land-clearing restrictions already in place. In fact we overshot that super-easy target, which meant we got to “carry over” the excess to the second commitment period – ending in 2020. Both major parties promised a 5% reduction by 2020 (actually that was supposed to be a bare minimum but the pledges to do more seem to have slipped by the wayside while we were all arguing about the future of lamb roasts) but if you take away the “carry over” from the first target then the 5% becomes 1%, according to calculations by the Climate Change Authority.
    And if that 1% is achieved it will be mostly because of declining electricity use. We wouldn’t be the only country claiming credit for emission changes that happened for other reasons – European countries looked good when their coal industries closed for reasons that had nothing to do with climate change – but it doesn’t mean we can claim to be model global citizens and it doesn’t mean we should be deluded into thinking we have made any of the necessary changes to reduce the emissions-intensity of our economy, because we haven’t.
    The government appears to be working out Australia’s post-2020 emissions reduction target based on figures that assume global warming of almost four degrees, when the whole point of global negotiations is to try to limit global warming to two degrees. Its recent discussion paper does not mention the 2C goal, but does mention a scenario that could result in almost 4C global warming. Discussing Australia’s special “national circumstances”, the discussion paper says that “for the foreseeable future, Australia will continue to be a major supplier of crucial energy and raw materials to the rest of the world … At present, around 80% of the world’s primary energy needs are met through carbon-based fuels. By 2040, it is estimated that 74% will still be met by carbon-based sources.”
    A footnote confirms that estimate comes from the “new policies scenario” of the International Energy Agency’s world energy outlook 2014, which was a baseline calculation of what would happen if countries implemented only the policies announced at that time, a scenario seen as unacceptable because it would pave the way for at least 3.6C of global warming. All governments try to wrangle themselves a good deal in these kind of global negotiations, and the foreign affairs minister, Julie Bishop ,and her team are taking an active role in the negotiations. But Australia will have to agree to something like a fair share of the globally-accepted starting point.
    The government will set a post-2020 emissions reduction target without a policy to get there. The discussion paper also asks what policies might be implemented to achieve a new target that were “complementary” to Direct Action. Independent modelling has suggested Direct Action might not have enough money to meet even the 5% target, and all analysis suggests it would be extremely difficult to “scale up” to a higher target. Modelling has also found that cutting emissions further than 5% would be prohibitively expensive, the same charge levelled by the Coalition minister Malcolm Turnbull when he explained in 2011 that continuing to use a big government taxpayer-funded scheme to reduce emissions in the long term would “become a very expensive charge on the budget in the years ahead”.
    The government is not including climate change in long-term planning exercises that really should be planning for climate change. The recent intergenerational report – supposedly an economic planning document for the next 40 years – claimed that some economic effects of climate change “may be beneficial – where regions become warmer or wetter this may allow for increased agricultural output, while others may be harmful”. It was otherwise largely silent on the economic consequences of climate change, saying its focus was “primarily on government expenses that are affected by demographic change”.
    Previous intergenerational reports didn’t see it that way. Global warming changes rainfall patterns, drought frequency and the frequency of extreme weather events, but the recent agriculture green paper didn’t really mention it either. “We’ve put billions of dollars on the table to try to address the issue of climate variability … In fact, I would love to have some the money that’s been invested by previous governments in so-called ‘changing the temperature back’. If we’d had that invested in agriculture, we’d be an agricultural superpower,” the agriculture minister, Barnaby Joyce, said at the time. And this week’s energy white paper – the long-term planning document on Australia’s energy supply – didn’t mention it as a policy driver either, even though electricity generation and transport fuels are major sources of emissions.
    The government is refusing to accept a political compromise on the renewable energy target (backed by Labor, the renewables industry and big business) because it thinks the industry won’t be able to reach the target, but the only reason industry wouldn’t reach the target is the absence of a political compromise. This fight has been going on ever since the government accepted that it wasn’t going to be able to ram through the findings of the review by self-professed climate sceptic and businessman Dick Warburton, to gut the RET –which was supposed to ensure 41,000 gigawatt hours of renewable energy by 2020.
    Negotiations with Labor have been dragging on. Now Labor, the renewables industry, big business and energy users have all agreed on a compromise plan for 33,500 gigawatt hours. The industry minister, Ian Macfarlane, says he won’t budge from 32,000 gigawatt hours because the industry can’t build any more. The industry says it certainly can, but the biggest risk is the investment drought during this endless wait for some kind of political compromise.

    Climate policy is complicated, but it’s also really simple. We have to find a way to gradually reduce emissions, including from industry, transport and electricity generation. Most experts think some kind of carbon price is the most cost-effective way. There are other ways – direct government regulation, for example. But trying to hide this basic goal behind a smokescreen of rhetoric or the creative manipulation of complicated concepts and numbers cannot avoid the inevitable.

  • The John James Newsletter 54 Inbox x

    The conversation has been marked as not important.

    1 of 32

     

    The John James Newsletter 54

    Inbox x

    John James
    		5:45 AM (2 hours ago)

    The John James Newsletter 54
    10 April 2015

    Power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.Thomas Jefferson

    Is this why our weather in Australia has become so interesting?The map shows that much of ocean warming in the past decade has occurred in the Southern Hemisphere. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_long_can_oceans_continue_to_absorb_earths_excess_heat/2860/
    Greece draws up drachma plans, prepares to miss IMF payment‘We are a Left-wing government. If we have to choose between a default to the IMF or a default to our own people, it is a no-brainer.’ Greece is drawing up drastic plans to nationalise the country’s banking system and introduce a parallel currency unless the eurozone takes steps to defuse the simmering crisis and soften its demands. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11513341/Greece-draws-up-drachma-plans-prepares-to-miss-IMF-payment.html
    Is The Hidden Hand Behind the Islamic State Militants Saddam Hussein’s?Theold-regime Iraqi officers are in command: they make the tactics and the battle plans.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41447.htm
    Why is Assad Still in Power?Syria is split along geographic and demographic divides grow ever more intractable. There is no realistic prospect of a military victory for any side. The plight of ordinary Syrians gets more desperate as extremist groups take advantage of the chaos. The only solution is a negotiated political settlement that includes the ruling regime that represents the central state, the Syrian army and a sizable chunk of Syrians. At the end of the day, it is the enemy you negotiate with to end war, not your friends.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article41421.htm
    What Would Happen If Martial Law Was Declared In America?A WELL-REFERENCED HISTORY OF A TRENDThere is concern that an upcoming eight week military exercise on US soil known as “Jade Helm” is a dress rehearsal for the imposition of martial law when you would have no rights, and the federal government would be able to do just about anything it wanted to do.http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/what-would-happen-if-martial-law-was-declared-in-america Army Manual Outlines Plan To Kill Rioters and Demonstrators In Americahttp://www.infowars.com/army-manual-outlines-plan-to-kill-rioters-in-america/
    Studies conclude climate change will cause less severe winters in the long termA cold wave as powerful as the January 7, 2014 event could cease to exist by the end of the century.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/03/31/studies-conclude-climate-change-will-cause-less-severe-winters/?postshare=4571427881186043 
    North sea cod stocks bounce back, analysis shows Cod was heavily overfished in the North Sea in the 1980s and 1990s but since 2006, with stringent regulations imposed on the industry, there has been a steady recovery and stocks are approaching the level of maximum sustainable yield, the measurement widely accepted as the gold standard of responsible fishing.http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/08/north-sea-cod-stocks-bounce-back-analysis-shows
    Soaring dollar puts the world on sale for AmericaThe US currency’s value has surged over the last nine months, reaching levels against some world currencies last seen more than a decade ago. In Europe, it now costs just $1.09 to buy one euro, down from $1.37 a year ago and almost $1.50 four years ago. The rapid devaluation of other currencies against the dollar is being abetted by foreign governments and their central banks. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-king-dollar-20150405-story.html#page=1
    Environmental Terrorism Cripples Palestinian FarmersAccording to the Palestinian Authority and the Applied Research Institute Jerusalem approximately 800,000 olive trees have been uprooted since Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. Following a farmers’ eviction, Israel settlers can argue that the land has been abandoned and then move in and take it over with Palestinians having little legal recourse. No action will be taken against the settlers by the Israeli police. http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/04/environmental-terrorism-cripples-palestinian-farmers/ Palestinian Authority becomes member of international criminal court This could open the way for Israelis to be prosecuted for war crimes – despite Israel not being a member – and for the prosecution of Palestinian militants such as Hamas. This may bring accountability to years of conflict. http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/apr/01/palestinian-authority-becomes-member-of-international-criminal-court?CMP=ema_565
    US Climate Plan ‘Treats the Wound But Does Not Stop the Bleeding’As the White House unveils blueprint for emission reductions ahead of UN climate talks, groups warn that unless US moves beyond fossil fuels it will not avert climate catastrophehttp://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/31/us-climate-plan-treats-wound-does-not-stop-bleeding
    New Report Debunks Myth That GMOs are Key to Feeding the WorldTraditional methods ‘shown to actually increase food supplies and reduce the environmental impact of production’http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/01/new-report-debunks-myth-gmos-are-key-feeding-world
    Assessing The Iranian Framework DealThe deal is a spectacular victory for all, with tougher arrangements far beyond expectations. The months and year ahead are significantly difficult and all the players have to take a measured approach with careful moves to reach a final agreement.http://www.countercurrents.org/abbasi050415.htm Full text on preliminary nuclear accord with Iranhttp://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-iran-nuclear-text-idUSKBN0MT2CY20150402
    The Oil Price WarOil prices fell more than 50% between June 2014 and March 2015. The fall started when Saudi Arabia oil began to flood the markets. Some analysts believe that it is an attack on the growing shale oil industry in the US, while the US is betting that the low oil prices will destroy the three major oil producers which are not under its political and/or military control: Iran, Venezuela and, of course, Russia. http://www.countercurrents.org/venturini050415.htm
    Fateful Steps That Led to the Crisis in Ukraine (Part Two)The objective was to humiliate Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population. The radical nationalists of western Ukraine, for whom the rejection of Russia and its culture is an article of faith, intend to force the rest of the country to fit their narrow vision, with its roots in irrationalism, fascism and the anti-Semitism and the ethnic massacres of WWII.http://www.opednews.com/articles/Conclusion-Fateful-Steps-by-Thomas-Riggins-Culture_Democracy_Fascism_Ideology-150402-297.html
    US and CIA Interventions Since World War IIIf you check out American foreign policy of the past century… invasions … bombings … overthrowing governments … occupations … suppressing movements for social change … assassinating political leaders … perverting elections … manipulating labor unions … manufacturing “news” … death squads … torture … biological warfare … depleted uranium … drug trafficking … mercenaries … It’s not a pretty picture. It’s enough to give imperialism a bad name.See chapter 40 for Australia – 1973-1975: Another free election bites the dusthttp://williamblum.org/books/killing-hope/
    Over 200,000 troops during the first Gulf War were exposed to nerve gas When the Iraqi weapons plants and storage sites were bombed, poisonous plumes floated across the desert to thousands of troops on the Saudi border. Sirens wailed daily, but officers announced that the chemical-detection alarms were faulty. They were not. A Czech detection unit found “trace concentrations of sarin”.http://www.newsweek.com/how-us-nerve-gassed-its-own-troops-then-covered-it-317250
    By 2050, Muslims will make up about 10 per cent of the Europe’s populationThe Hindu population is projected to rise by 34% worldwide, from a little over 1 billion to nearly 1.4 billion by 2050. By that time, Hindus will be third, making up 15%, followed by people who do not affiliate with any religion, accounting for 13%. The people with no religious affiliation currently have the third largest share of the world’s total populationhttp://www.timesofoman.com/News/49804/%E2%80%98India-to-pip-Indonesia-as-country-with-most-Muslims-by-2050%E2%80%99

    to John