Climate change looms as challenge for all parties

Updated 8 hours 29 minutes ago

Three years ago then-prime minister Julia Gillard promised there would not be a carbon tax under a government she led.

After the 2010 federal election resulted in a hung Parliament, Ms Gillard signed an agreement with the Greens to introduce a price on carbon from 2015, with a transitional period of a fixed carbon tax.

Backtracking on her campaign promise fatally undermined Ms Gillard’s leadership and the standing of her government.

Trust is the currency of politics and once spent can never be recovered.

From the day Julia Gillard signed the agreement to introduce a carbon price, her truth dollar was spent and the word “liar” became a daily refrain.

Anger over the carbon tax/price was white hot before its introduction but has subsided since. The failure of the dire predictions made on the tax’s impacts to come true eventually made it less central to political debate.

Yet the tax was still live enough as an issue to see Kevin Rudd alter the scheme as one of his first actions on returning to the prime ministership.

By proposing to bring forward the market price mechanism to 2014, the Rudd government has tried to address the cost of living issues associated with the carbon tax. It has also tried to return the issue to again being about climate change, rather than tax and the economy.

The change of wording from tax to price has not removed the political divisions created by the issue, as revealed by the results of questions on the issue in Vote Compass.

Vote Compass put the proposition to respondents that “the federal government should put a price on carbon” and asked them to agree or disagree.

Of the more than 800,000 respondents so far, about 400,000 answered this question as well as providing the demographic data that allows the sample to be weighted against the 2011 Australian Census.

Overall the survey revealed the electorate leaning toward supporting a carbon price, as shown below.

Infographic: Vote Compass respondents’ views on the proposition that “the federal government should put a price on carbon”.

Had the originally intended question about repealing the carbon tax been retained, there may have been more polarised views. Yet even the milder question on a carbon price created clear divisions in the response on party lines, as shown in the graph below.

Infographic: Vote Compass respondents’ views broken down by vote intention, on the proposition that “the federal government should put a price on carbon”.

Overall Coalition intended voters oppose the price mechanism 57 per cent to 24 per cent.

Labor voters support a price on carbon, with 71 per cent agreeing with the proposition and 12 per cent disagreeing, while Green intended voters agreed 77 per cent to only 9 per cent opposed.

The slight overall support for a carbon price was created by Coalition supporters being a little more likely to agree with a carbon price than Labor and Green supporters were likely to be in disagreement.

A second related question asked in Vote Compass, “How much should the federal government do to tackle climate change?”, produced a very different response as shown in the graph below.

Infographic: Vote Compass respondents’ views on the question: “How much should the federal government do to tackle climate change?”

Why this question receives a different response becomes clear when you examine answers by intended party vote, as shown in the graph below.

Infographic: Vote Compass respondents’ views broken down by vote intention, on the question: “How much should the federal government do to tackle climate change?”

Labor and Green supporters are strongly of the view that the federal government should do more about climate change. Green supporters opted for more action 88 per cent to only 5 per cent opting for less. Among Labor supporters the difference was 75 per cent to 8 per cent.

Coalition intended voters were more evenly split, 30 per cent opting for less action, 26 per cent for about the same and 42 per cent opting for more action.

In the very first Vote Compass report we highlighted the enormous difference between Green and Coalition voters on whether they thought climate change was the most important issue. Twenty five per cent of Greens voters nominated climate change but only 2 per cent of Coalition voters made the same choice.

What the question on tackling climate change shows is that while Coalition voters don’t rate it the most important issue, they rate it an issue the government should do something about.

Coalition voters are strong in opposition to a carbon price/tax, but then state they want something done about climate change.

In the early days of the ‘Juliar’ campaign against the carbon tax, there was a two-pronged feel to the attack on the government.

One was an attack on the truthfulness of the prime minister, which in the end was the most devastating part of the anti-carbon tax campaign.

The second prong of the attack was from those who argued there is no global warming and climate change policy is unnecessary.

The answer to the Vote Compass question on climate change reveals why the Coalition has stuck to having a policy on the issue and has not moved to a climate change sceptic position.

While public concern over climate change has subsided since the drought years towards the end of the Howard government, clearly there remains a sentiment that something should be done about climate change.

As the difference between answers on the two questions reveals, the public wants something done about climate change, but they don’t all like the solution the Gillard/Rudd  government came up with.

Squaring the circle between ‘doing something’ about climate change policy and specific action may be just as complicated for any incoming Abbott government.

Topics: federal-elections, climate-change, federal-government, australia

First posted 11 hours 19 minutes ago

There is no doubt that the creation of a 1748-kilometre high-speed rail network connecting Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne is an exciting endeavour. But given the large capital costs – $114 billion – and impact on surrounding communities, as well as its potential positive impact on the economy, a national debate is urgently required.

The report on high-speed rail, launched by Transport Minister Anthony Albanese yesterday, hints at possible flow-on effects for the economy, suggesting that there will be an estimated $2.30 of benefits for each $1 spent.

The proposition of getting from the city centres of Sydney to Melbourne in less than three hours is likely to be an interesting one to business and leisure travellers. Given that the Sydney – Melbourne route is currently the fifth busiest route in the world with Sydney-Brisbane not far behind, there is certainly a lot of demand for travelling fast along the large centres of Australia’s east coast. But the process of implementing a high-speed rail network in Australia is no easy feat.

I am originally from Germany, where high-speed train connections between large cities are the norm. This is true for most West European cities, as is for China, Taiwan, Japan and Russia. But even German taxpayers — who are traditionally fascinated by high-tech engineering — often question the high cost involved with high speed rail and see conventional trains as better value for money. Given the distances involved (the proposed route is 1748 kilometres long), conventional trains are clearly not an option for Australia. Aviation might offer better value for money.

The proposed high speed rail route is interesting and, despite its complexities, I am sure it will be implemented eventually. That day might be quite some time in the future, so rail enthusiasts may have to curb their enthusiasm. The required tunnelling of some 144 kilometres around Sydney, as well as the rest of the fairly long route, will be subject to a lengthy consultation process with affected local communities.

Given the logistical challenges involved, the construction phase will be similarly lengthy. In fact, the first leg of the route (connecting Sydney and Canberra) is not to be expected to be in operation before 2035 — and that is if a government decision on this project would be made in the immediate future.

But Australian airlines should not be too afraid of losing some of their most important domestic routes. In the long run, the proposed high speed rail connection might be of some benefit to aviation. Given the amount of air travel between these cities with Sydney at the centre, high speed trains could actually help Sydney airport with their predicted capacity problem.

In Germany, the latest piece of high speed rail infrastructure built there was finished in 2002 at a cost of some 6 billion Euros. As a result of that high speed rail link, Lufthansa no longer flies the 150-kilometre route from Frankfurt to Cologne, but instead code-shares with the train operator and reserves an entire car on thirteen 300km/h high-speed trains a day. The experience in Europe has shown that airlines can use high speed rail to feed their hubs.

There are several assumptions in the report that need to be addressed. They assume that the train will run at 350km/h. The fastest trains in Europe run currently 320km/h and that is the maximum speed, rather than the average speed.

In order to be compatible with aviation, I believe that there need to be direct non stop connections between the city centres of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Canberra. That means the very fast trains would not stop anywhere else, which surely will create some opposition amongst communities that currently hope to benefit from a potential train connection in return for having a high speed rail in their backyard.

Finally, the report claims that the train operators would charge similar fares to the airlines that are currently operating the routes in question. By doing so, it is argued that the train operator would not require any subsidies. First of all, it is questionable whether the assumed 84 million train passengers will materialise.

When I mentioned SYD/MEL and SYD/BNE as some of the busiest airline routes in the world, then that translates into some 7 million passengers on the SYD/MEL route and not even 4 million passenger on the SYD/BNE route; in total, 11 million passengers on both routes in 2011. Even with the predicted strong growth in aviation, I have difficulties seeing where those 84 million train users will come from.

The evidence from Europe (particularly from Germany, where the high speed rail infrastructure is in many cases not even dedicated to high speed rail operation) points to the need for indirect subsidies of high speed rail operations.

And all that does not even consider the required $114 billion upfront infrastructure cost, which is likely to go up during the construction phase due to the huge amount of tunnelling required.

The Institute of Transport and Logistics Studies at the University of Sydney Business School will host “HSR in Australia forum – Is it value for money?“ on 22 May 2013.

MEMBERS: Register | Login

Web         MEMBERS: Register | Login Web wwaytv3.com Home News Weather Sports Videos Community Features Programming About WWAY Contact Us BY GEORGE: The Arctic Ocean Ice Melt Accelerating Submitted by George Elliott on Sat, 08/24/2013 – 6:17am. 1 Even more evidence is in, and it’s solid science, from numerous agencies, and from all political persuasions.  The Arctic Ocean expansive ice shield is shrinking, and shrinking extremely fast.  The summer ice melt is progressing more rapidly, the winters are shorter, and the time between freezing periods and melting again as shrunk to record short periods. And since this is frozen freshwater (not like the ice burgs that float in the oceans or like ice cubes in a glass of soda, for example), melting of such raises sea levels and changes the salinity of the oceans, both of which have major impacts on climate, the oceans circulatory system, lifestyles, and marine life. It is now abundantly clear the sea ice is shrinking more quickly almost every year, and it’s been going on for quite a while now.  Global warming (regardless of why the globe is warming…the FACT is, the globe is warming), as well as human pollutants not necessarily directly related to the warming planet, as the culprits.  This is a clear sign of how rapidly the Earth is warming over the past 20-30 years, and how quickly the potential impact is increasing.  We already know it’s has changed life in the region drastically.  The native Inuit, whom have inhabited the region for thousands of years, report for the first time the lack of ice, the crumbling of their homes into the water, and the extreme danger of falling through thin ice (which has already cost lives).  Additionally, vast deep sea oil and gas reserves are being unlocked, and methane is now more easily popping out of the sea (methane gas bubbles).  Methane is over 20 times more impactful on global warming than carbon dioxide on a pound to pound ratio. Over the past three decades, the summer Arctic sea ice extent has declined roughly 40 percent, and the ice has lost significant volume according to data from the Polar Science Center.  If this continues on pace, this region could very well be ice free by around 2030.  The profound worldwide impact from climate and weather to energy and food resources, let alone sea levels, cannot be imagined. A new study in this month’s Environmental Research Letters concludes that between 70 and 95 percent of the Arctic melt since 1979 has been caused by human activity. Man-made global warming has rapidly heated up the Arctic — the region has been warming about twice as fast as the global average.  What’s more, soot and other pollutants from smokestacks in Europe and Asia have traveled up to the Arctic. When those dark particles settle onto the snow and ice, they absorb sunlight and start warming. Greenland’s ice sheet is 1.9 miles thick and contains enough ice to raise global sea levels by about 25 feet.  As a result, a recent study by the U.S. Jet Propulsion Laboratory predicted that sea levels are on pace to rise at least a foot by 2050, and possibly three feet by century’s end. Regarding weather patterns, the first thing that appears to be happening as a result of the shrinking ice shield is the west-to-east jet stream appears to be slowing down, which allows weather patterns to persist in certain areas for longer than usual. This could help account for the onslaught of snowstorms in the United States and Europe in 2009 and 2010, as well as prolonged heat waves like the one that hit Moscow in 2010. Arctic amplification can also increase the “waviness” of the jet stream surrounding the polar region. That could allow more frequent blasts of cold Arctic air to escape down into North America or Europe, leading to frigid winters. No one knows for sure, but the weather extremes observed over the past few years could very well be linked to long-term climate change, which is highly likely linked to changes in the arctic region.  It is not new science that we know the intricate balance of global circulations over arctic regions and the rest of the planet.  One thing that has occurred in this country, beyond a doubt, is the western states have been in a long-term change to drier and drier weather.  The drought in some areas of the west has been ongoing for over ten years.  Some scientists believe that the trend will continue, leaving the west in a perpetual pattern of dryness for decades, mirroring climate regimes of the past in that area. By: George Elliott wwaytv3.com

Home News Weather Sports Videos Community Features Programming About WWAY Contact Us

BY GEORGE: The Arctic Ocean Ice Melt Accelerating

Submitted by George Elliott on Sat, 08/24/2013 – 6:17am.

Open letter to Community Organisations, Businesses and the Public

• Open letter to Community Organisations, Businesses and the Australian Public (90 KB)
• 

• Mark Tran
• theguardian.com, Friday 23 August 2013 23.49 AEST

Sudan’s floods have left many families homeless, particularly in the region around Khartoum, the capital. Photograph: Abd Raouf/AP

Forty-eight people have been killed and more than 500,000 affected by the worst floods in Sudan in quarter of a century.

The region around the capital, Khartoum, was particularly badly hit, with at least 15,000 homes destroyed and thousands of others damaged. Across Sudan, at least 25,000 homes are no longer habitable. A UN official described the situation as a disaster.

The flooding, caused by continuous rains, has damaged public buildings, including schools, clinics, offices, shops, markets and water and sanitation facilities. Roads have been inundated, disrupting transport.

One of the major health worries is the collapse of more than 53,000 latrines; the World Health Organisation (WHO) has warned of an increase in malaria cases in the past two weeks.

WHO and Unicef, the UN agency for children, are supporting Sudanese authorities and national NGOs to run 50 emergency health clinics. The centres will be open for two months in eight states – Khartoum, White Nile, El Gezira, River Nile, Northern, Blue Nile, North Darfur and South Darfur.

In South Sudan, recent fighting has forced 148,000 people in Pibor country – almost the entire population – to flee to the bush. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), the medical NGO, says about 90,000 people are missing. The 28,000 people who have been accounted for are in and around Gumuruk village, where MSF is running a clinic.

The organisation has provided up to 100 consultations a day to people with diseases contracted after spending weeks or months hiding in the bush during the rainy season.

MSF has expressed concern about the absence of men coming for treatment, apparently because they are frightened of seeking help where there is a military presence.

In May, clashes between the South Sudan Army and the David Yau Yau militia intensified in Pibor county, prompting a mass exodus. In July, further violence between the Lou Nuer ethnic group and the Murle, the majority group in the area, triggered a wave of panic. Last month’s attacks left 328 people dead, according to a Murle leader.

A woman who received treatment from MSF said her husband was too frightened to visit the clinic. “My husband does not dare enter the village as he is afraid he will be killed. If we run to the town the soldiers might kill us, and if we run to the bush the enemy tribe might kill us,” she said.

MSF is also worried about the impact of the fighting on food supplies. “People come to the village and sit all day waiting for food,” said Carolina Lopez, its emergency co-ordinator in Pibor county. “Most lost their cattle in the recent fighting, and this year’s planting season was plagued with violence, so they are extremely vulnerable. Too many of them turn and walk back through the rain to their temporary shelters in the evening, their bags empty.”

The UN military mission in South Sudan said this week it had increased its patrols in Pibor county to allow civilians to return to their towns and access food distribution points. Jonglei state has been plagued by ethnic violence between the Lou Nuer and the Murle, who have a history of animosity over grazing land, water sources and cattle raids that have often involved the abduction of women and children.

• Share
• inShare
• Email