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
The powerful magnitude-8.6 earthquake that shook Sumatra on April 11, 2012, was the largest strike-slip quake ever recorded. Now, as researchers report on their findings from the first high-resolution observations of the underwater temblor, they point out that the earthquake was also unusually complex — rupturing along multiple faults that lie at nearly right angles to one another, as though racing through a maze.
Humans get most of the blame for climate change with little attention paid to the contribution of other natural forces. Now, scientists are shedding light on one potential cause of the cooling trend of the past 45 million years that has everything to do with the chemistry of the world’s oceans.
Over the last few months I’ve had the privilege of listening to a range of leading climate change policy advocates in Australia, the US, Canada and Europe reflect on priority actions for reducing the risk of runaway climate change. This has included interviews with many of the lead authors of the strategies reviewed in the Post Carbon Pathways report. In this Post Carbon Postcard #2, written from New York City, I’d like to highlight a few of their responses to two of the most common questions in the minds of people who have been working on climate change and environmental issues for many years: Is it too late? And…So what should we do now? There are, of course, important differences in perspectives, reflecting significant differences in political and cultural contexts. In the United States, as in Australia, much of the debate is still focused on winning the argument that urgent action to reduce carbon emissions and prevent runaway climate change is in fact necessary. Importantly for an Australian audience, in the US there are signs of a shift back in public attitudes towards increased acceptance of the climate science evidence. This shift has no doubt been influenced by the extent to which many US citizens are joining the dots between the alarming increase in extreme weather events and the likelihood that climate change is ‘loading the dice’ towards longer droughts, more frequent floods and more destructive storms. In Europe the climate science debate is generally over with most of the population – and most mainstream political leaders and parties – largely convinced by the evidence that rising greenhouse gas emissions are warming the atmosphere and driving potentially catastrophic climate change. The debate in Europe is far more focused on the fastest and fairest strategies for accelerating the transition to a post carbon economy. The common themes from these interviews and conversations are, however, largely consistent with the key messages highlighted in the initial Post Carbon Pathways report, which include the following.
While a rapid transition to a post carbon economy remains technologically and economically feasible the window for effective action to prevent runaway climate change is rapidly closing.
A fair and swift transition to a sustainable post carbon economy will require:
rapid reductions in energy consumption and improvements in energy efficiency
rapid replacement of fossil fuels by renewable energy
the drawdown and sequestration of carbon into sustainable carbon sinks
game changing investment in social and technological economic policies – including a robust carbon price and feed-in tariffs – which reflect the full costs of failing to reduce emissions and of the multiple co-benefits of the transition program
a significant shift towards economic priorities which focus more on improving social and ecological wellbeing than on unconstrained growth in material consumption.
The key barriers to the creativity and innovation required to prevent runaway climate change and to drive a rapid transition to a post carbon transformational changes are social and political – rather than technological and financial.
I’d like to highlight a few additional reflections from the climate change policy-makers and advocates I’ve been listening to on two of the most common questions in the minds of people who have been working on climate change and environmental issues for many years:
How large is the gap between the scientific evidence about climate change trends and the current level of political support for rapid reductions in greenhouse gas emissions? To what extent is it now ‘too late’ for effective action to prevent runaway climate change?
Given the speed with which the window for effective climate change action is closing – what are the highest political and policy priorities right now?
As Bill McKibben noted in his recent speech to the New EconomicsInstitute conference at Bard College New York, the continuing rise in greenhouse gas concentrations, the rapid melting of the Arctic ice pack and the escalating frequency of extreme weather events all provide compelling evidence that it is indeed too late to prevent global warming from having significant long term consequences for human beings and other species. But, McKibben argued passionately, that does not mean that it is time to give up. It means it’s time to sharpen our focus and redouble our efforts to reduce carbon emissions to zero as fast as possible. ‘The central problem’, he argued, ‘is the incredible grip of the fossil fuel industry on the reins of power around the world. Their business model is the problem. It’s either wreck their business model or wreck the planet.’ Lester Brown, CEO of the Earth Policy Institute and author of World on the Edge responds to the ‘too late’ question in the following way:
When we use the term “Is it too late,” we have to say, “Is it too late for what?” …The question is can we get carbon emissions coming down soon enough to avert the worst consequences of climate change? We’re not going to avert all of them. We’re already experiencing them. I guess the question is, can we keep climate change from spiralling out of control? I don’t know the answer to that question but we certainly have to try.
Brown’s analysis is reminiscent of similar reflections from Australian author and activist, Paul Gilding, author of The Great Disruption:
The most consistent emails I get are from people who say, “Like your work. I’m glad you’re optimistic. I’m not. We’re screwed. We’re stupid and we’re done and we’ll fall over.”… You get to the point of saying, “Well, if you genuinely believe there’s a 100 per cent chance that we’re fried and society is going to collapse, then there’s nothing for me to discuss with you…If you believe that, you’re going to go and grow vegetables in the middle of nowhere. Your choice. But it’s not an actionable kind of analysis.”’ Then I say to them, “And by the way, the reason you’re wrong is you can’t be sure. You can’t be a 100 per cent sure that that is going to happen.” Then you argue, “OK, given that there is some potential, which actually I think is very high…even if you think there’s a 10 per cent chance that we can avoid catastrophic collapse and go somewhere else, then why wouldn’t you do that?”
Reflections on the gap between climate science and ‘realpolitik’ have been brought into even sharper focus by the disappointing outcomes from the United Nations’ Rio+20 conference. As Professor John Schellnhuber of thePotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Researchnotes, Rio+20 provides further confirmation that the international community currently appears incapable of promoting the urgently needed transformation towards a sustainable society with the requisite speed and commitment.
We might well be moving towards the end of such mammoth meetings as these. Although they make a lot of noise, the very fact that so many problems are covered means that no single problem is tackled resolutely. The future of humanity is too precious to be left to this ongoing game of nation-state Mikado. What we now need are pioneers from all spheres of the world community… What are now becoming increasingly important are alliances between pioneering countries, alliances between cities, engagement from citizens, companies and scientists, a trailblazing spirit from pioneers of change, and examples of successful projects that promote change towards sustainability. (media release)
The climate change political priority for Bill McKibben and350.org is also sharp and clear. End the massive subsidies being paid to the fossil fuel industry. ‘No other industry’, he argues, is allowed to dump its garbage in the streets. Why should it not only be allowed, but subsidized, for the industry that is responsible for the most dangerous product of all, the CO2 that could totally destabilize our planet?’ McKibben also highlights the resurgence across the US of local, community-based enterprises, financial institutions, food and energy systems. Importantly, he noted this is the first year since World War II that there are more – not less – new farms in America. Many of these new farms and food projects are small holdings, focused on supplying local markets – and many are located in cities as well as in rural communities. The reference to the importance of action at sub-national, local and city levels also provides a useful reminder that one of the more positive announcements from Rio+20 was the commitment by the Mayors of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 248 million tonnes a year by 2020. This could provide a platform from GHG reductions of more than one billion tonnes by 2030. Not sufficient of course – but certainly heading in a better direction than many nation states. For Lester Brown…
‘The question I get most often as I travel around the world is, people ask me, “What can I do, what can I do?” and I think they expect me to say, “Recycle your newspapers, change your light bulbs”, and so on. Those lifestyle changes are important but we now have to change the system and that means becoming politically active, not for one party or another but to support the Beyond Coal campaign, for example. Be prepared to write letters to your Congressman to lobby, to demonstrate, in front of a coal- fired power plant if necessary or in front of a utilities office. My bottom line feeling is things are going to change much faster than we realise and I think that change is probably more evident here in the United States right now where carbon emissions are dropping very fast as coal-fired power plants are closed and as gasoline use drops.’
‘One priority would be eliminating subsidies to fossil fuels and shifting some of those subsidies to renewables, clean energy, technologies…You really need to take away the subsidies of the fossil fuels, that’s the key part, because that’s what keeps them in business. We can add new energy infrastructure that’s clean, but that doesn’t get rid of the old stuff. The old stuff still relies on subsidies. The only way to get rid of them is through passing a law to make them go out of business. Another thing you could do is through tougher emission control regulations, which California is doing in terms of vehicles and particularly power plants. Definitely in vehicles they’re gradually ramping down, making it so it will be almost impossible within a few years for a combustion vehicle to meet the standards. So that only electric cars will be able to meet those standards. The other is on the positive side to increase [renewable energy] transmissions…it really requires an organised plan of where you want to put the [transmission] lines. First, an organised plan of where you want to put the solar, the wind and the geothermal, and then plan the transmissions. So everything is organised ahead of time and that would make it more efficient as opposed to piecemeal, adding things here and there.’
Across all of these conversations I have constantly been struck by the extent to which the World in Transitionreport of the German Advisory Council on Social Change provides a particularly valuable, integrated overview of the policy, research and advocacy priorities needed to drive the transition to a post carbon economy at the required speed and scale. Among many valuable insights the report identifies the following factors as crucial drivers of large scale social and economic transformations.
The design and communication of alternative visions and transformational pathways
Creative and courageous individual and organisational ‘change agents’ who can inspire innovation tipping points by imagining and demonstrating the feasibility and desirability of alternative pathways
Proactive action by governments at all levels to provide game changing policy frameworks and infrastructure investment.
The aim of the Post Carbon Pathways project continues to be to contribute to the constantly evolving Australian and international conversation about the most just and effective responses to the rapidly escalating risks and challenges of climate change. We therefore hope that these interviews and links can provide useful food for thought as we enter a new era in which strategic and co- operative action by communities, businesses, cities, nations and regions will increasingly be a key focus of the actions needed to drive a swift transition to a just and resilient post carbon economic future.
Key federal independent MP Tony Windsor says a change of leader would not necessarily bring down the Labor minority government.
Mr Windsor, together with crossbench colleague Rob Oakeshott, signed an agreement following the 2010 federal election in which they guarantee the Gillard government their confidence in parliament’s lower house and to support supply.
The MP insists that agreement is with Prime Minister Julia Gillard and not transferable to anyone else.
But a new Labor leader might not need any formal agreement for the minority government to remain in power, Mr Windsor said.
‘Minority governments can be formed without written agreements,’ he told ABC Radio on Friday, adding that Ms Gillard could have assumed government until Labor’s numbers were tested in parliament.
‘The new leader could enter parliament and assume the government benches until a vote of the parliament says he or she couldn’t.’
Mr Windsor’s comments come amid renewed speculation about the future of Ms Gillard’s leadership.
His oft-stated ‘all-bets-would-be-off’ stance, in the event of a leadership change, has been seen as impediment to the return of Kevin Rudd.
Mr Windsor refused to say whether he was less inclined to support a minority government led by Mr Rudd.
‘If I’m confronted with it, I’ll look at it,’ he said, adding he did not think Labor would dump Ms Gillard.
Senior Labor figures this week have been keen to play down any suggestion Ms Gillard is under threat from a second leadership challenge within six months.
The latest round of speculation was sparked by the comments of chief government whip Joe Fitzgibbon who cast doubt on any political leader’s ability to remain in office without popular support.
Ms Gillard and Labor are languishing in the polls with an election likely in late 2013.
The prime minister continues to enjoy strong support amongst key unions with one reportedly threatening to withdraw $200,000 in political donations to the Labor Party if MPs dump Ms Gillard in favour of Mr Rudd.
Transport Workers Union boss Tony Sheldon told The Australian that Mr Rudd would be a ‘disaster’ for the union movement.
He said Mr Rudd could not be trusted to represent union members and would lose the election if he seized the leadership.
Sources told the newspaper that Mr Sheldon told a meeting of union leaders on Tuesday that a ‘small minority’ of MPs – whom he described as ‘dickheads’ – was continuing to push for Mr Rudd to return to the leadership
He warned that if Mr Rudd was elected leader by caucus, his union’s national office and its state branches would refuse to make financial contributions to federal Labor’s re-election campaign
The Greens say Port Waratah Coal Services (PWCS) should put its plans to expand its Kooragang Island terminal on hold until the causes of a possible cancer cluster are found.
A Newcastle University study released yesterday found workers at the site are nearly twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer than the average New South Wales resident.
It also found the employees were three times more likely than Carrington terminal PWCS workers to develop the disease.
The study compared details of 859 employees at Port Waratah Coal Services over a 23-year period, with cancer records for New South Wales and Australia.
63 workers were diagnosed with cancer, with the most common being melanoma, prostate and colon cancer.
Professor of Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology from Newcastle University, John Attia says the study did not pinpoint a cause for the high incidence of the disease, and further investigation is recommended.
“The study didn’t look at any soil samples or water samples or air samples so we can’t pinpoint what it is that might be causing this, but it’s something that’s different between Kooragang and Carrington,” he said.
“One of the recommendations was that an independent occupational hygienist engage to look specifically at the physical environment and work processes and see what might be causing it.”
Port Waratah Coal Services has put forward a $5 billion proposal to build a massive new coal terminal at Kooragang Island, but Greens MP John Kaye says the project should now be put on the backburner.
“In the absence of an airtight explanation for the elevated rates of cancer at Kooragang Island, it would be immoral to push ahead with T4 and expose yet more workers on that island to a higher risk of really bad health consequences,” he said.
“Planning for this terminal should be delayed for as long as it takes to find out what is causing an elevated rate of cancer on Kooragang Island, and how that can be avoided.”
The Company says it has been advised there is no established link between the occupational environment and the types of cancers common among employees.
PWCS CEO Hennie Du Plooy says the results are being explained to all employees.
“We’ve engaged specialist advice in this area and our advisers are actually helping us communicate this and interpret this for our employees,” he said.
“So that we can demonstrate that, while the report identifies an increased risk, there is – according to our advice – a low likelihood the risk and the cancers identified have a link to occupational exposure.”
The Maritime Union is calling for a government investigation into cancer rates at all workplaces on Kooragang Island.
Employees are worried the site’s history as an industrial waste area could be to blame for the higher than expected incidence of cancer among workers.
Glen Williams from the Newcastle branch of the Maritime Union says there needs to be more research covering the entire area.
“The results at Kooragang give us great concern as to what’s going on up there,” he said.
“If it’s something in the water on Kooragang, if it’s something in the air, those are questions we need answered.”
IN THE showdown in February with the former prime minister Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard had almost unanimous support from MPs who owe their position to the union movement.
But following discussions among unions this week, union leaders concede they can no longer hold their MPs in behind the Prime Minister.
The meeting of union leaders discussed how to handle a leadership change if it could not be prevented, as senior Labor figures concede Gillard’s prospects of staying in the job are receding.
In February Gillard had almost unanimous support from the union movement and leaders – including the Australian Workers Union chief, Paul Howes – who lobbied the caucus members associated with their organisations.
Advertisement
But senior Labor figures and several MPs have told the Herald that unions, including the AWU – which has at least 15 closely associated MPs – have indicated they would not be as active in defending Gillard in another ballot, even though they were not supporting a shift.
In part the change is an acknowledgment of reality, with MPs less fearful of threats to their preselections because opinion polls indicate they are likely to lose their seats at the next election.
”The AWU is not plumping for a change but they are not standing in the way either … that is a significant change in attitude,” a Labor figure said.
The stance is similar to that of the NSW Right faction, as support in that grouping shifts from Gillard.
Union leaders confirmed yesterday that the leadership had been discussed at a meeting this week, but strongly denied there was any shift in their strong support for Gillard.
”The discussion really was about how we would handle a change if it became unstoppable,” one source said. ”It was not a conversation that could be considered in any way supportive of Kevin Rudd.”
The ACTU secretary, Dave Oliver, said: ”Nothing has changed at all. The movement is
supportive of Prime Minister Gillard and her government for the work that is being done on the issues that matter to us most.” And Howes tweeted from Washington that suggestions the union movement was shifting support were ”complete b-s”.
The unions, which imposed a $2 levy on members to establish a $4 million election fighting fund, are deeply concerned that on the latest polling the Coalition would win control of the Senate, putting it in a position to reverse all the industrial relations changes Labor has made.
They are also worried about changes a Coalition government is likely to make to political donations laws, which would break the funding link between Labor’s political and industrial arms.
In NSW the Coalition government has banned donations from organisations, including unions, and in Queensland the Newman government plans to force members of organisations to vote before they can make a donation to a political party.
Labor’s latest returns to the Australian Electoral Commission show that after the 2010 election it was almost $15 million in debt. Corporate donations are evaporating.
On the latest poll figures, Labor would receive 1 million fewer votes across both houses than it did at the last election, which would slice about $2.5 million from the public funding on which it is increasingly reliant.
MPs, who are in their electorates for the winter break, are concerned that despite a fairly smooth introduction of the carbon tax there is no sign of a turnaround in the polls or a lessening of public hostility towards Gillard. But many are unenthusiastic about change.
In February Gillard beat Rudd by 71 votes to 31, including 12 from the NSW Right faction, which would now deliver her five or six votes.
There has also been some shift in the Victorian Right, amid speculation that the former AWU chief and now Workplace Relations Minister, Bill Shorten, could become deputy prime minister to Rudd.
Any new leader would have to renegotiate the support of the independents and the Greens that has allowed Gillard to form government.
Yesterday the independent Tony Windsor said his agreement was ”not a transferable document” and a change would mean ”all bets are off”.
Wow, our people-powered community has just hit 15 million strong — the largest online political movement ever and anywhere! Size matters, but spirit matters more, and ours is on fire. Together we’re running more campaigns, taking more actions, winning more and winning bigger than ever before.
Just a few days ago, 2.8 million of us played a central role in getting Europe to stop ACTA, the global treaty that would have let corporations censor our Internet worldwide! This was a classic story of a terrible idea drafted in the shadows and pushed through by giant corporations, but like so many bad laws and leaders these days, it was no match for smart people power.
In just the last 6 months, we’ve fought and helped win key battles to save the Internet, create the world’s largest marine reserve network, protect the Brazilian rainforest, keep pressure high on Rupert Murdoch’s media mafia, support the Syrian democracy movement and much, much more. These victories matched the legitimacy of a massive citizen outcry with phone calls, messages and citizen lobbying, strong work with partners and champions, and a powerful delivery of our voices to media and key decision-makers — scroll down to see 15 favourite photos of past petition deliveries!
The world is facing greater crises everyday, and these challenges could divide us like never before, or bring us together like never before. By choosing to come together, from every nation of the world (click here for a global map of our membership), we are proving, over and over again, the awesome power of cooperation — making our 15 million-strong Avaaz community a rising global force for hope and change.
From me and the whole team — huge gratitude for every amazing person in this community — happy 15 everybody!!
From me and the whole team — huge gratitude for every amazing person in this awesome community – happy 15 everybody!!
-Ricken
Support the Avaaz Community!
We’re entirely funded by donations and receive no money from governments or corporations. Our dedicated team ensures even the smallest contributions go a long way.
Avaaz.org is a 15-million-person global campaign network that works to ensure that the views and values of the world’s people shape global decision-making. (“Avaaz” means “voice” or “song” in many languages.) Avaaz members live in every nation of the world; our team is spread across 19 countries on 6 continents and operates in 14 languages. Learn about some of Avaaz’s biggest campaigns here, or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.
