Category: Uncategorized

  • Casting vote sinks sea level opponents

    Casting vote sinks sea level opponents Save

    By PAMELA FROST
    Dec. 12, 2012, 9:58 a.m.

    .
    A new councillor’s attempt to dump Eurobodalla Shire Council’s controversial sea level rise policy was sunk yesterday, when the mayor used his casting vote to settle the heated debate.

    See your ad here

    Cr Milton Leslight called for council’s interim sea level rise policy to be abolished following the State Government’s withdrawal from current planning benchmarks.

    At yesterday’s combined committee meeting, Cr Leslight said it was a “contradiction” that council was enforcing an interim sea level rise policy when the State Government had withdrawn the planning benchmark for sea level rise because of “confused scientific information”.

    However his claims were met with strong opposition from some fellow councillors.

    Cr Thomson also subtly questioned Cr Leslight’s motives, referring to his role as a real estate agent.

    “I’m not really interested whether someone is involved in real estate…” Cr Thomson said.

    However Cr Leslight hit back.

    “My personal interest in real estate is not really relevant,” he said.

    Cr Leslight raised concerns about the impact the policy had on property-owners, especially those on the coastline.

    However Coastwatchers’ Reina Hill addressed councillors, urging them to oppose Cr Leslight’s motion.

    “Otherwise the council could be seen as renouncing its responsibilities to current and future inhabitants of the shire,” she said.

    “It is clearly in the public interest for council to manage its most important asset, its coastline…”

    Ms Hill said the State Government’s recent uncertainty about sea level rise “…does not mean that sea level rise projections should be put on hold indefinitely – governments simply cannot afford to keep moving the goal posts…”

    Cr Gabi Harding spoke against the motion. She said Batemans Bay experienced inundation earlier this year when a storm surge caused water to break over the promenade and flood roads in June.

    “I don’t see if we can do anything but continue [with the policy],” she said.

    Cr Thomson said council had a responsibility to the community and that the policy acted as protection.

    See your ad here

    “I think not to have a policy is not responsible,” he said.

    When it came time to vote, the four ERA councillors – Cr Leslight, Liz Innes, Peter Schwarz and Neil Burnside – voted for the motion while the other four councillors – Cr Harding, Cr Thomson, Cr Danielle Brice and Cr Lindsay Brown voted against it.

    With Cr Rob Pollock absent, Cr Brown used his mayoral casting vote to shut the motion down.

    Print Story

  • Background on CSG Baselines for water impacts

    Map from the QWC impact reportThe Queensland Government established the Queensland Water Commission (QWC) in 2006 with the charter of achieving sustainable water supplies. This was at the peak of the drought and 2 billion dollars had been spent on cleaning recycled water and pumping it up the mountains above the Wivenhoe Dam (Brisbane’s water supply)

    Following public (Great Artesian Basin Coordinating Committee, Western Alliance and others) outcry regarding Coal Seam Gas, in 2010 the QWC was given the role of extended to manage the impacts of water extraction by petroleum and gas tenure holders (including GST). By that stage of course, Coal Seam Gas in Qld was almost 15 years old and there were already thousands of wells being drilled.

    DERM had developed some guidelines as to what data should be collected to establish baselines for water potentially affected by CSG drilling and QWC worked with the gas companies to collect and collate data based on those guidelines. It started to build a database on the data as it came in. There was no historical baseline data and no attempt was made to collect or collate historical data as a baseline.

    (more…)

  • Labor stoush over Israel reignites

    Labor stoush over Israel reignites

    AAPUpdated December 12, 2012, 9:20 am

    tweet1

    Email
    Print

    AAP © Enlarge photo

    Foreign Minister Bob Carr has dismissed claims from one of his Labor colleagues that he ran a backstage campaign against the prime minister to drum up support for changing Australia’s stance at the UN on Palestine.

    In a scathing attack, backbencher Michael Danby said Senator Carr was “ringing around” to get the numbers to challenge Julia Gillard’s pro-Israel position.

    The actions were “unforgivable” and “unacceptable” of a minister.

    Senator Carr said he respected Mr Danby’s view as a friend and a “passionate supporter of Israel, right or wrong”.

    But on the MP’s claim he was behind a backstage campaign against Ms Gillard, the foreign minister told ABC Radio on Wednesday: “Michael is simply wrong when he attributes to me that sort of active engagement.

    “I made very few phone calls.”

    In November Senator Carr led a cabinet push against Ms Gillard’s plans to vote against a controversial Palestinian bid for upgraded UN status.

    In a rare break from the US and Israel, Australia instead decided to abstain from voting on the resolution.

    Senator Carr denied the prime minister had been rolled by the Labor caucus.

    But Mr Danby, a staunch supporter of Israel, accused the foreign minister of actively “organising numbers” against Ms Gillard in the final week of parliament, ahead of the UN vote.

    “Phoning around, then speaking on the matter and ultimately threatening to speak against the prime minister is unforgivable behaviour for any minister in any cabinet government,” Mr Danby wrote in The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday.

    Senator Carr had orchestrated the campaign in a bid to swing voters towards Labor in Sydney’s western suburbs, where support for the party is flagging.

    These domestic motivations for changing Australia’s decades-long stance on Palestine were troubling and self-defeating, Mr Danby said.

    Corruption within the NSW Labor was to blame for the party’s popularity slump, and backing Palestine at the UN would not influence voters in Australia.

    Mr Danby also said the right to elect the ministry should be restored to caucus, whether Labor wins or loses the next election.

    Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg said Senator Carr was vain and a failure as a foreign minister.

    “Now we know that he’s treacherous,” Mr Frydenberg told Sky News.

    “He was picking up the phone … directly undermining the will and the wish of the prime minister.”

    It would only be a matter of time before Senator Carr started “flexing his muscles” to try to remove the prime minister, Mr Frydenberg said.

    Labor MP Ed Husic said he had a lot of time for Mr Danby, but was disappointed he had chosen to criticise Senator Carr.

    “I don’t think it’s right to ventilate those views in the way that has happened in the last 24 hours,” Mr Husic said.

    “Does this mean it’s open season for any minister that takes a decision that you don’t like?
    “I don’t think it’s right.”

  • The Gift of Death MONBIOT

    Monbiot.com

    ——————————————————————————–

    The Gift of Death

    Posted: 10 Dec 2012 12:28 PM PST

    Pathological consumption has become so normalised that we scarcely notice it.

    By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 11th December 2012

    There’s nothing they need, nothing they don’t own already, nothing they even want. So you buy them a solar-powered waving queen; a belly button brush; a silver-plated ice cream tub holder; a “hilarious” inflatable zimmer frame; a confection of plastic and electronics called Terry the Swearing Turtle; or – and somehow I find this significant – a Scratch Off World wall map.

    They seem amusing on the first day of Christmas, daft on the second, embarrassing on the third. By the twelfth they’re in landfill. For thirty seconds of dubious entertainment, or a hedonic stimulus that lasts no longer than a nicotine hit, we commission the use of materials whose impacts will ramify for generations.

    Researching her film The Story of Stuff, Annie Leonard discovered that of the materials flowing through the consumer economy, only 1% remain in use six months after sale(1). Even the goods we might have expected to hold onto are soon condemned to destruction through either planned obsolescence (breaking quickly) or perceived obsolesence (becoming unfashionable).

    But many of the products we buy, especially for Christmas, cannot become obsolescent. The term implies a loss of utility, but they had no utility in the first place. An electronic drum-machine t-shirt; a Darth Vader talking piggy bank; an ear-shaped i-phone case; an individual beer can chiller; an electronic wine breather; a sonic screwdriver remote control; bacon toothpaste; a dancing dog: no one is expected to use them, or even look at them, after Christmas Day. They are designed to elicit thanks, perhaps a snigger or two, and then be thrown away.

    The fatuity of the products is matched by the profundity of the impacts. Rare materials, complex electronics, the energy needed for manufacture and transport are extracted and refined and combined into compounds of utter pointlessness. When you take account of the fossil fuels whose use we commission in other countries, manufacturing and consumption are responsible for more than half of our carbon dioxide production(2). We are screwing the planet to make solar-powered bath thermometers and desktop crazy golfers.

    People in eastern Congo are massacred to facilitate smart phone upgrades of ever diminishing marginal utility(3). Forests are felled to make “personalised heart-shaped wooden cheese board sets”. Rivers are poisoned to manufacture talking fish. This is pathological consumption: a world-consuming epidemic of collective madness, rendered so normal by advertising and the media that we scarcely notice what has happened to us.

    In 2007, the journalist Adam Welz records, 13 rhinos were killed by poachers in South Africa. This year, so far, 585 have been shot(4). No one is entirely sure why. But one answer is that very rich people in Vietnam are now sprinkling ground rhino horn on their food or snorting it like cocaine to display their wealth. It’s grotesque, but it scarcely differs from what almost everyone in industrialised nations is doing: trashing the living world through pointless consumption.

    This boom has not happened by accident. Our lives have been corralled and shaped in order to encourage it. World trade rules force countries to participate in the festival of junk. Governments cut taxes, deregulate business, manipulate interest rates to stimulate spending. But seldom do the engineers of these policies stop and ask “spending on what?”. When every conceivable want and need has been met (among those who have disposable money), growth depends on selling the utterly useless. The solemnity of the state, its might and majesty, are harnessed to the task of delivering Terry the Swearing Turtle to our doors.

    Grown men and women devote their lives to manufacturing and marketing this rubbish, and dissing the idea of living without it. “I always knit my gifts”, says a woman in a television ad for an electronics outlet. “Well you shouldn’t,” replies the narrator(5). An advertisement for Google’s latest tablet shows a father and son camping in the woods. Their enjoyment depends on the Nexus 7’s special features(6). The best things in life are free, but we’ve found a way of selling them to you.

    The growth of inequality that has accompanied the consumer boom ensures that the rising economic tide no longer lifts all boats. In the US in 2010 a remarkable 93% of the growth in incomes accrued to the top 1% of the population(7). The old excuse, that we must trash the planet to help the poor, simply does not wash. For a few decades of extra enrichment for those who already possess more money than they know how to spend, the prospects of everyone else who will live on this earth are diminished.

    So effectively have governments, the media and advertisers associated consumption with prosperity and happiness that to say these things is to expose yourself to opprobrium and ridicule. Witness last week’s Moral Maze programme, in which most of the panel lined up to decry the idea of consuming less, and to associate it, somehow, with authoritarianism(8). When the world goes mad, those who resist are denounced as lunatics.

    Bake them a cake, write them a poem, give them a kiss, tell them a joke, but for god’s sake stop trashing the planet to tell someone you care. All it shows is that you don’t.

    Twitter: @georgemonbiot. A fully referenced version of this article can be found at Monbiot.com

    1. http://www.storyofstuff.org/movies-all/story-of-stuff/

  • Sceptics cool on climate studies

    Sceptics cool on climate studies

    Date December 11, 2012 96 reading now
    Comments 293
    Read later

    Lenore Taylor

    Chief Political Correspondent for The Sydney Morning Herald

    View more articles from Lenore Taylor

    Follow Lenore on Twitter

    inShare.
    Pin It
    Email article
    Print
    Reprints & permissions

    .

    Tony Abbott … says he accepts “we only have one planet and we should tread lightly upon it.” Photo: Glenn Hunt

    THE most prominent political climate sceptics see no reason to change their minds, despite the welter of studies over the past fortnight showing forecasts of global warming were correct or underestimates.

    Many of the climate sceptics, influential in elevating Tony Abbott to Coalition leader, say they see nothing to convince them that human activity is causing the climate to change.

    The Global Carbon Project has released forecasts that the planet could warm by between 4 degrees and 6 degrees by the end of the century and Nature Climate Change on Monday published a study finding that warming is consistent with 1990 scientific forecasts.

    Influential … Cory Bernardi, who along with Barnaby Joyce has not changed his view despite the forecasts.

    South Australian senator Cory Bernardi, formerly Mr Abbott’s parliamentary secretary, said: ”I do not think human activity causes climate change and I haven’t seen anything that changes my view. I remain very sceptical about the alarmists’ claims.”

    Advertisement

    Queensland senator Barnaby Joyce said the whole debate about whether humans were causing the climate to change was ”indulgent and irrelevant”.

    ”It is an indulgent and irrelevant debate because, even if climate change turns out to exist one day, we will have absolutely no impact on it whatsoever … we really should have bigger fish to fry than this one,” Senator Joyce said.

    Barnaby Joyce. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

    West Australian backbencher Dennis Jensen, who had read the recent scientific literature, said he interpreted the findings in different ways and believed climate scepticism within the Coalition was increasing.

    ”The scientific papers saying it is as bad as we thought, or worse, are talking about concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere – and concentrations are indeed increasing – but global temperatures have not gone up in a decade,” he said.

    ”It’s the impact of the increased concentrations of CO2 that is in dispute and I agree with [US professor] Richard Lindzen that it is more likely to be 0.4 degrees than 4 to 6 degrees … the doomsday prophesies do not stand up to reason.”

    Mr Abbott now says he accepts ”we have only one planet and we should tread lightly upon it”.

    Questioned about climate science last year, Mr Abbott said: ”I think that climate change is real, mankind does make a contribution and we should have strong and effective policies to deal with it. As far as I am concerned, the debate is not over climate change as such. The debate is over the best way of dealing with it.”

    He has never repeated his 2009 comment that the ”settled” science of climate change was ”absolute crap”.

    His $10.2 billion ”Direct Action” climate policy was deliberately crafted to straddle the deep divisions over climate science within his party.

    To qualify for grants from the Coalition’s proposed emissions reduction fund, a proposal must ”deliver additional practical environmental benefits” as well as reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

    Mr Jensen said it was this proviso that allowed him to back the Coalition plan.

    ”At least we will be doing things that make sense for other, practical reasons,” he said.

    Tasmania senator David Bushby said he remained a true ”sceptic”.

    ”I know eminent scientists have one view but I know other eminent scientists – usually ones who have retired and are no longer reliant on government grants – have a totally different view,” he said.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sceptics-cool-on-climate-studies-20121210-2b5kg.html#ixzz2EhLjWIdq

  • Julia Gillard hit on trust in end-of-year poll slump

    Julia Gillard hit on trust in end-of-year poll slump

    Simon Benson
    The Daily Telegraph
    December 11, 201212:00AM

    JULIA Gillard has suffered an end-of-year hit in the polls with the fallout from the AWU scandal driving Labor’s primary vote back to disastrous levels as the government faces new challenges with slowing economic growth.

    An exclusive Newspoll published in The Australian today, the final one for the year, shows a dramatic four-point drop in the party’s primary vote from 36 per cent to 32 per cent.

    The Coalition’s vote increased three points to 46, bringing the two-party preferred vote to 54-46 and pointing to a crushing defeat for Labor if an election had been held at the weekend.

    In a sign that trust continues to be an issue for the PM, Ms Gillard’s personal standing has also taken a hit. On the ranking of better PM, she dropped three points to 43.

    But whatever damage Opposition Leader Tony Abbott may have inflicted with the Coalition’s relentless pursuit of the 20-year-old union scandal, his own figures failed to improve substantially, suggesting people still regarded him as too negative. Ms Gillard is still well ahead of Mr Abbott as preferred PM, with his score up only one point to 34 per cent.

    The poll shock, coming as the government continues to prevaricate over its promise to return the budget to surplus by May, will occupy Labor strategists over summer, considering if an early election is now even an option.

    The poll figures appear to have cruelled the momentum of the past three months which had shown the electoral fortunes of the government improving to a point of being within striking distance of the Coalition.

    The last two polls, published before the full weight of the opposition’s attack on Ms Gillard’s character over the AWU scandal, had Labor on an almost equal footing with the Coalition on a two-party preferred basis.

    The last Newspoll of the year was taken a week after the end of the final parliamentary sitting week, during which the PM was forced to again face difficult questions about her knowledge of the AWU slush fund she advised on for her former union boyfriend, as a lawyer almost 20 years ago.

    She had also been forced to abandon her position on opposing a United Nations resolution to recognise Palestinian statehood, after her caucus refused to back her because of fears of a backlash from Middle Eastern communities in vital western Sydney seats. Australia abstained from the vote.

    The Newspoll figures mirrored those of an Essential Media poll published yesterday – research that is normally regarded as more Labor-leaning. It showed Ms Gillard’s popularity had slipped in the past two weeks.

    It also found that her personal approval rating had slumped four points to 37 per cent over the month, with 53 per cent of voters disapproving.

    Mr Abbott’s approval remained steady at 33 per cent, while his disapproval rating improved two points to 56 per cent.