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

  • Labour’s great green whimper

     

    But somewhere along the way politicians realise that they want to get re-elected. Instead of making cheap flights so expensive that we stop taking them, the pragmatists in power have decided to raise taxes slightly, hoping that we don’t really notice the difference. But someone always notices (the press release tends to give it away) and the Daily Mail’s message boards collapse under the weight of the home counties finding new and inventive spellings of “stealth tax”.

    If you want people to accept something then the last thing you do is associate it with taxation. However, fear of becoming unpopular has led to politicians doing just that. Instead of telling people what they don’t want to hear – that their lifestyle is built on unsustainable foundations and that big changes will have to be made – ministers would rather pretend that the only difference between stopping climate change and business as usual is turning our televisions off standby and paying a few extra pounds for a flight to Rome.

    But the public is not as stupid as the politicians think. They’ve noticed the disconnect between talk of global ecological disaster and a slight increase in taxes. It’s worrying that the How to Solve Climate Change handbook seems to be empty, except for the phrase “increase taxes” scrawled on every page in the chancellor’s handwriting. Meanwhile the government is doing everything it can to keep us polluting, encouraging airports all over the UK to grow as fast as they can pour the concrete and allowing adverts pushing unnecessary flights to grow alongside every high street.

    You can’t discourage flying with one hand and promote it with the other without being rightly labelled a hypocrite. How is the public, up to their eyeballs in loft insulation and recycling boxes, to react to reductions from every other sector because the aviation industry wants extra runways at Heathrow and Stansted? How can you take this government’s claims to be serious about tackling climate change when you can’t leave your house without a billboard inducing you to splash out on a plane ticket? Even Ed Miliband – the person who is supposed to be sorting this mess out – doesn’t see anything wrong with supporting taxes on air travel while declaring that a bigger airport in his constituency would be great for the economy.

    If something is wrong, then we should do everything we can to stop it. If ministers believe in climate change, they need to stop relying on taxes and start taking action. If flying is bad for the environment (and at 13% of our climate impact, I think it’s safe to say that it is) then we need to be flying less and closing down some of our runways, not being charged a little bit more to make up for all the flying we’re doing.

    When every square foot of public space is plastered with adverts for cheap flights and communities are being bulldozed to make way for new runways, whacking a tenner on a return trip to Europe isn’t strong leadership. Is that really how Labour wants its climate change strategy to be remembered: not for a bang, but a whimper?

  • Personal carbon trading: the next step in tackling carbon emissions?

     

    Government resistance
    Despite initial enthusiasm for a Personal Carbon Allowance (PCA) from former Environment Secretary David Miliband, Government support has now waned.

    Under such a scheme, every individual would be given a set allocation of carbon credits, which they could use to ‘pay’ for purchases like home energy usage and petrol.

    Those with low carbon usage would be able to sell their surplus credits on a carbon market, whilst those with high carbon consumption levels would have to buy credits.

    Having initially muted the idea, Defra then just as quickly dismissed it. A report published in 2008 said it was too costly.

    An RSA trial published at the end of 2008 has since contradicted this judgement saying it would be, ‘relatively quick and easy to automatically capture and report personal carbon emissions for all UK citizens.’

    But, David’s brother Ed Miliband who took over the climate change brief last year indicated it was more about public acceptability, saying it was ‘an idea for the longer term’.

    Psychological issues
    But by dismissing the idea has the Government given up a vital tool for engaging the public in tackling climate change?

    ‘One of the obstacles to feeling responsible for climate change is that it is so removed from individual experience,’ says Stuart Capstick, who has been researching PCT at the School of Psychology, Cardiff University.

    ‘PCT has the ability to make this connection between climate change and the individual by showing us what is a fair amount of carbon for each of us to use.’

    An organiser from the 10:10 said making carbon visible and tangible to individuals was one of the main reasons behind their campaign.

    ‘We’re trying to take peoples’ minds off long-term targets like 2020 and focus on the immediate need for action on climate change. Instead of worrying or feeling guilty, individuals can to do something about it,’ said the organiser.

    ‘Voluntary individual action is never going to be enough on its own but we’re trying to get the ball rolling for the transition to a low carbon economy. Something the government for all their talk have not yet started.’

    The 10:10 campaign is not the first scheme to trial out voluntary individual carbon cutting.

    A report earlier this year from the UK Energy Research Centre on the experience of people involved in Carbon Rationing Action Groups (Crags) showed that carbon allowances could be successful in reducing carbon emissions.

    However, it did also raise issues some concerns, including whether children would have their own carbon allowances, whether some people would be unwilling to get involved in trading permits and the difficulties of carbon budgeting, which would have to be resolved before any scheme was introduced.

    A Plan B for government?
    The Government may not be keen to tackle these issues now, but a major report due out next week will say they might have to use PCAs in the future to reduce emissions.

    Plan B? The prospects for personal carbon trading, to be published by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) this Friday, says existing measures on reducing individuals’ carbon impact, such as smart meters and the Low Carbon Buildings Programme should be given time to succeed.

    ‘But if those policies don’t deliver then the Government may have to reconsider personal carbon allowances,’ concludes the IPPR.

    The biggest danger with all this talk about PCAs, voluntary or compulsory, says WWF change strategist Dr Tom Crompton, is that it could take the focal point off government action.

    ‘Voluntary action is an important step but we have to be cautious that individual action doesn’t detract from what government still needs to do at Copenhagen and beyond.

    ‘As well as taking individual action we people to make more vocal demands on government by lobbying their MPs and protesting,’ he said

  • Labour falure on climate change a ‘political crime’, says Green leader

     

    Lucas, one of the party’s two MEPs, said Greens were the only politicians who were being “honest” with the public about the scale of the threat posed by global warming.

    “As the vital Copenhagen climate summit draws closer, it’s clear that the current level of ambition will not deliver anything like the speed and scale of the emission cuts that we so urgently need,” she said, referring to the international conference taking place in December.

    “In a few years, people will look back bewildered and angry that – knowing what they knew now – none of the other main political parties in Britain confronted the most critical issue of our time.

    “They have pretended that they have the problem under control, that a few low-energy lightbulbs here, a bit of lagging on your loft there, and the problem is solved. And that to do anything more is either unnecessary or involves too much ‘sacrifice’.

    “We’ve got news for them: a transition to a post-carbon world doesn’t have to be about sacrifice.

    “It’s about jobs, it’s about a more equal society, and it’s about a way of life with the potential to be far more fulfilling than the turbo-charged consumerism which is peddled by politicians today.

    “And that’s why we say that our government’s inaction is nothing less than a political crime.”

    The conference is taking place adjacent to the Brighton Pavilion constituency in which Lucas is standing at the general election. She hopes to become Britain’s first Green MP and in 2005 she came second, polling 22% of the vote.

    She told members the Greens got more city votes in the European elections than any other party, that the party increased its share of the vote by 44% and that, at a time when “the image of politics and parties could hardly be lower”, the Greens had gained 1,000 new members in the last six weeks.

    In a speech that strayed well beyond environmental issues, Lucas said that, “for years”, her party had been warning against “the lethal cocktail of liberalisation and deregulation which has fuelled this recession”.

    And she also called for far-reaching reforms to the Westminster political system, including fairer funding for political parties, a ban on “mega-donations”, tougher freedom of information legislation, and electoral reform.

    “The expenses scandal isn’t a freak accident of an otherwise healthy body politic,” she said.

    “It’s a symptom of a system that is wholly dysfunctional. We’re being governed by a political elite that has stopped listening.

    “Too many MPs seem more interested in changing their homes than in changing the world. We need to make Westminster alive again with political ideas.”

     

     

  • Tripodi’s clean coal smoke screen demolished by Four Corners

    Tripodi’s clean coal smoke screen demolished by Four Corners

    Media release: 7 September 2009

    The Rees government’s plans to entice the private sector to build two new coal-fired power stations that are ‘carbon capture and storage’ ready have been exposed by revelations that the technology is not likely to be commercially available until 2040, according to Greens NSW MP John Kaye.

    Commenting on ABC TV’s Four Corners report ‘The Coal Nightmare’ (Monday 7 September, 8.30pm), Dr Kaye said: “Finance Minister Joe Tripodi is trying to hide a massive 57 percent increase in the state’s electricity sector greenhouse gas emissions behind the hope that the plants will some day be fitted with equipment to capture and bury the CO2.

    “Clean coal technology does not exist.

    “The growing body of expert opinion is that it will not be commercially available for another 20 or 30 years.

    “Even then it could be prohibitively expensive and too late to save the planet from disastrous global warming.

    “In the meantime, if Joe Tripodi’s massive power station building program goes ahead, it will boost the state’s emissions by 30 million tonnes of CO2 each year.

    “That’s the equivalent of another 7 million motor vehicles on the road or twice the emissions from all existing private vehicle transport in this state.

    “The Rees government is hoping no one will notice that the only thing that stands between their electricity privatisation plans and a blow out of the state’s greenhouse gas emissions is the clean coal story and it has just been demolished,” Dr Kaye said.

    For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455


    Another message from the Greens Media mailing list.

  • Local governments keep Chinese public in the dark about pollution.

     

    “Environmental impact assessment was meant to prevent these kinds of harm, but EIA has repeatedly failed to carry out its duties,” the ministry noted on its website after the riots. “In the battle between illegal polluters and their opponents, the disparity in power is too great for the public interest to be effectively protected.”

    An information transparency law introduced in May 2008 was supposed to ease public concerns about the environment and to hold polluters to account.

    But more than a year after it came into effect, a survey by leading NGOs and academics found that only four local governments provided comprehensive details about pollution violations as they were obliged to do.

    Eighty-six failed to respond beyond claiming the information was secret or an inappropriate subject to raise in an economic downturn. Others simply ignored the request.

    Ma Jun, who founded the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs which carried out the survey with support from the US-based National Resources Defence Council, said local government transparency was at a very basic level. But he emphasised the success of the four who met the targets first year around – Ningbo, Hefei, Fuzhou and Wuhan – and claimed progress should be put in a historical perspective.

    “China has never had a tradition of opening up government information before,” said Ma, a winner earlier this week of the coveted Ramon Magsaysay Award for integrity in government. “The conclusion from our survey is that this is doable. If the local governments share best practice they can easily improve.”

    The environment ministry was less guarded in its criticism of local governments. Citing the results of the survey and the recent pollution disturbances, it said more information was vital.

    “The absence of comprehensive, timely environmental data has given polluting companies and local authorities the chance to operate in a ‘black box’. To break this practice, we need to bring everything out into the sunlight,” it said.

  • Climate change is here, it is a reality

     

    After three years of disastrous rains, the families from the Borana tribe, who by custom travel thousands of miles a year in search of water and pasture, have unanimously decided to settle down. Back in April, they packed up their pots, pans and meagre belongings, deserted their mud and thatch homes at Bute and set off on their last trek, to Yaeblo, a village of near-destitute charcoal makers that has sprung up on the side of a dirt road near Moyale. Now they live in temporary “benders” – shelters made from branches covered with plastic sheeting. They look like survivors from an earthquake or a flood, but in fact these are some of the world’s first climate-change refugees.

    For all their deep pride in owning and tending animals in a harsh land, these deeply conservative people expressed no regrets about giving up centuries of traditional life when we spoke to them. Indeed, they seemed relieved: “This will be a much better life,” said Isaac, a tribal leader in his 40s. “We will make charcoal and sell firewood. Our children will go to the army or become traders. We do not expect to ever go back to animals.”

    They are not alone. Droughts have affected millions in a vast area stretching across Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan, Chad, and into Burkina Faso and Mali, and tens of thousands of nomadic herders have had to give up their animals. “[This recent drought] was the worst thing that had ever happened to us,” said Alima, 24. “The whole land is drying up. We had nothing, not even drinking water. All our cattle died and we became hopeless. It had never happened before. So we have decided to live in one place, to change our lives and to educate our children.”

    Parched

    Kenya, a land more than twice the size of Britain, is everywhere parched. Whole towns such as Moyale with more than 10,000 people are now desperate for water. The huge public reservoir in this regional centre has been empty for months and, according to Molu Duka Sora, local director of the government’s Arid Lands programme, all the major boreholes in the vast semi-desert area are failing one by one. Earlier this year, more than 50 people died of cholera in Moyale. It is widely believed that it came from animals and humans sharing ever scarcer water.

    Food prices have doubled across Kenya. A 20-litre jerrycan of poor quality water has quadrupled in price. Big game is dying in large numbers in national parks, and electricity has had to be rationed, affecting petrol and food supplies. For the first time in generations there are cows on the streets of Nairobi as nomads like Isaac come to the suburbs with their herds to feed on the verges of roads. Violence has increased around the country as people go hungry.

    “The scarcity of water is becoming a nightmare. Rivers are drying up, and the way temperatures are changing we are likely to get into more problems,” said Professor Richard Odingo, the Kenyan vice-chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    “We passed emergency levels months ago,” said Yves Horent, a European commission humanitarian officer in Nairobi. “Some families have had no crops in nearly seven years. People are trying to adapt but the nomads know they are in trouble.”

    Many people, in Kenya and elsewhere, cannot understand the scale and speed of what is happening. The east African country is on the equator, and has always experienced severe droughts and scorching temperatures. Nearly 80% of the land is officially classed as arid, and people have adapted over centuries to living with little water.

    There are those who think this drought will finish in October with the coming of the long rains and everything will go back to normal.

    Well, it may not. What has happened this year, says Leina Mpoke, a Maasai vet who now works as a climate change adviser with Ireland-based charity Concern Worldwide, is the latest of many interwoven ecological disasters which have resulted from deforestation, over-grazing, the extraction of far too much water, and massive population growth.

    “In the past we used to have regular 10-year climatic cycles which were always followed by a major drought. In the 1970s we started having droughts every seven years; in the 1980s they came about every five years and in the 1990s we were getting droughts and dry spells almost every two or three years. Since 2000 we have had three major droughts and several dry spells. Now they are coming almost every year, right across the country,” said Mpoke.

    He reeled off the signs of climate change he and others have observed, all of which are confirmed by the Kenyan meteorological office and local governments. “The frequency of heatwaves is increasing. Temperatures are generally more extreme, water is evaporating faster, and the wells are drying. Larger areas are being affected by droughts, and flooding is now more serious.

    “We are seeing that the seasons have changed. The cold months used to be only in June and July but now they start earlier and last longer. We have more unpredictable, extreme weather. It is hotter than it used to be and it stays hotter for longer. The rain has become more sporadic. It comes at different times of the year now and farmers cannot tell when to plant. There are more epidemics for people and animals.”

    ‘We have to change’

    Mpoke said he did not understand how people in rich countries failed to understand the scale or urgency of the problem emerging in places such as Kenya. “Climate change is here. It’s a reality. It’s not in the imagination or a vision of the future. [And] climate change adds to the existing problems. It makes everything more complex. It’s here now and we have to change.”

    The current drought is big, but the nomads and western charities helping people adapt say the problem is not the extreme lack of water so much as the fact that the land, the people and the animals have no time to recover from one drought to the next. “People now see that these droughts are coming more and more frequently. They know that they cannot restock. Breeding animals takes time. It take several years to recover. One major drought every 10 years is not a problem. But one good rainy season is not enough,” said Horent.

    Nor are traditional ways of predicting and adapting to drought much use. In the past, said Ibrahim Adan, director of Moyale-based development group Cifa, nomads would look for signs of coming drought or rain in the stars, in the entrails of slaughtered animals or in minute changes in vegetation. “When drought came, elders would be sent miles away to negotiate grazing rights in places not so seriously hit, and cattle would be sent to relatives in distant communities. People would reduce the size of their herds, selling some and slaughtering the best to preserve the best meat to see them through the hard times. None of that is working now.”

    Francis Murambi, a development worker in Moyale, said: “The land has changed a lot. Only 60 years ago, the land around Moyale was savannah with plenty of grass, big trees and elephants, lions and rhino.” Today the grasses have all but gone, taken over by brush. Because there are fewer pastures, they are more heavily used. It’s a vicious circle. In the past, a nomadic family could live on a few cows which would provide more than enough milk and food. Now the pasture is so poor that those who still herd cattle need more animals to survive. But having more cattle further degrades the soil. The environment can support fewer and fewer people, but the population has increased.

    “[Before] we did not need money. The pasture was good, the milk was good, and you could produce butter. Now it is poor, it is not possible,” said Gurache Kate, a chief in Ossang Odana village near the Ethiopian border. “Yesterday I had a phone call from the man we sent our cattle away with. He is 250 miles away and he said they were all dying.”

    These shifts driven by climate change are bringing profound changes. Ibrahim Adan said: “The cow has always been your bank. Being a Borana means you must keep livestock. It’s part of your identity and destiny. It gives you status. Traditionally livestock was central to life. The old people saw cattle as the centre of their culture. Pride, love and attachment to cattle was all celebrated in song. My father would never sell cattle. They were an extension of himself.”

    Now, for people like Isaac and Abdi, Alima and Muslima, all that is gone, and with it independence and self-sufficiency. “The money economy is creeping in, as is education and the settled life,” said Adan. “Young people see the cow now as more of an economic necessity rather than the core of their culture.”

    The great unspoken fear among scientists and governments is that the present cycle of droughts continues and worsens, making the land uninhabitable. “This isn’t something that will just affect Kenya. What is certain is that if climate change sets in and drought remains a frequent visitor, there will be far fewer people on the land in 20 years,” said Adan. “The nomad will not go. But his life will be very different