Guest Post:: Climate Politics in Australia

Thanks to Dwight Towers for this very useful and comrehensive guest post on climate politics in Australia, a hot topic in more ways than one. Incidentally, a few people have told me they've not been able to leave a comment in the last few days. Apologies. Hopefully everything is back to normal now though so do give it another try.

Climate Politics in Australia seem to me, a recently returned ex-pat, both fascinating and depressing. The Labor Government, only in power with the agreement of a small band of independents and a Green, are trying to push through a carbon tax that will morph into an emissions scheme. The Opposition, led by a man whose position on the reality of climate change changes from day to day, is calling for an election on the issue. Meanwhile, the “climate movement” is punching below its weight and is – by the admission of knowledgeable participants – all at sea.

As little history as I think you'll read.

The history of White Settlement in Australia is a litany of careless extraction. Whether it was cutting down trees in, extracting the value of the soil via sheep and cattle or mining and exporting gold, the economy and mindset has always been one of pillaging natural resources and worrying about the consequences later, if at all. If you look at topsoil loss, salination and extinction of species, Australia has a record to shout about.

Australia avoided recession during the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-2010, partly because the thirst for Australia's mineral and energy exports in Asia seems unquenchable (though it's a myth that China burns much Australian coal – the majority is actually send to India?), and the “must export every last lump of coal or we will all starve” perception remains. Guy Pearse, a forming mining lobbyist, refers to this as Australia's “Quarry Vision.”

At the same time, water and fertile land are scarce “commodities,” and the recent floods in Queensland and parts of Victoria are only the latest indication of economic vulnerability to ecological events. A very long drought has only just broken.

Climate change politics from the 1990s to now, in two minutes

The Hawke-Keating governments of 1983-1996 (think Blair/Brown only the ambitious Treasurer, both luckier and bolder than Gordo) made some of the right noises but basically kicked climate change into the long grass. There were, as remains the case today, many votes in coal and virtually none in solar panels. Liberal Prime Minister John Howard's attitude to climate change was pretty much exactly George Bush's, and he was an eager participant in the extra-UNFCCC “spoiler” outfit known as the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (which, as of 5 April 2011, has “concluded its work”)

Howard went into the 2007 election with a proposal for a domestic cap-and-trade scheme, but at the time Australia was in the grip of a long drought, and Howard's credibility on climate change (and other issues) was not high. Labor’s Kevin Rudd came to power, signed Kyoto and went to the Bali negotiations as the great new hope. Before the election he had said “Climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation.”

He bargained intensively with the (conservative) opposition about bringing in an emissions trading scheme. Their leader, Malcolm Turnbull, was unable to convince the mix of climate skeptics and mining interests of the merits of the case and he was overthrown in December 2009 by Tony Abbott.

Months later, Rudd was faced with a choice of either dumping the attempt to bring in an emissions trading scheme or calling an election. He dumped the scheme and his poll numbers collapsed (the mining industry had also been up in arms about a proposed new tax, and spent heavily on scare-mongering). He was replaced, in an internal Labor Party coup, by Julia Gillard, the current PM. There was an election in July last year that resulted in a hung Parliament. Gillard runs a government with a very, very slender majority which is dependent on the support of the Greens (who have been eating away at the Labor Party's vote for a decade or so).

Gillard is worried about losing votes to the Greens, so has been slagging them off as “not understanding family values” (this is completely unrelated, of course, to the fact that Greens leader Bob Brown is gay).

Tony Abbott had the best comment on this “if they're so extreme, why are you in coalition with them?”

The Greens take the balance of power in the Australian Senate (which is not  at all like the House of Lords) in July.

Why do I tell you this soap opera? Well, partly because it's a soap opera. And to make the point thatthe politics of climate change in Australia have already toppled two party leaders. As I write this, the media is reporting that Turnbull has criticised Abbott's climate policies publicly. (Abbott's policies, so-called “direct action” amount to faith in technology and government subsidies for polluters, with households bearing the cost!)

Business as Usual

Meanwhile, business lobbies are split, as they are in the rest of the developed world. The most exposed sectors (the so-called “emissions-intensive trade-exposed” industries) are muttering about lost jobs and moving their businesses overseas (though they're less clear on how exactly you move a coal mine!)

Gillard is wooing the more “pro-action” sections of the Business Council of Australia (the Australian equivalent of the CBI) and asking them to speak up for her scheme

The Australian media is not doing a great job in reporting this, to put it mildly. The business press (I'm thinking specifically of the Australian Financial Review) is noticeably more partisan than the UK Financial Times which, while unabashedly pro-capitalist, eschews ideology-drench opinion dressed as news). The Murdoch press (The Australian, the (Melbourne) Sun-Herald, the (Sydney) Telegraph, the Adelaide Advertiser to name but the most embarrassing) is full of scare stories and denialist memes (which sits oddly with Newscorp’s proud boast of its carbon neutral status, and James Murdoch's much vaunted conviction that climate action is essential).

The main attention of political economic and media elites is at the moment focussed on the carbon tax, specifically on what price per tonne it would start at. (Analyses by the pro-renewables thinktank “Beyond Zero Emissions”  and the Climate Institute agree that a carbon price of anything less than 50 to 70 dollars a tonne would see at best a shift from coal to (“cleaner”) gas-fired power stations). A shift to 100% renewable energy in the next ten years is, according to BZE, both technologically and financially possible. But given the current parlous state of the climate movement in Australia, it does not seem politically possible.

Climate Movement soul-searching

The "treetops' climate outfits have banded together in a loose and issue-based coalition as the "POP Eleven"  (POP standing for Price on Pollution) to push for a carbon price.  There are, inevitably, tensions in that coalition, but for now they seem to be managing to keep their show on the road.

Meanwhile, the grassroots are pondering their place and their power. Two excellent pieces have recently been written by knowledgeable participants within the climate movement about the failures of climate activism. The first is by Holly Creenaune, a member of Friends of the Earth Sydney (much more radical and grassroots than the UK version).

In part she writes...

“Bad policy aside, it's the debate – or lack of it – that is the real problem. The public cannot participate in a discussion about a perfect price or the market that could work magic: the debate is inaccessible, ignores concerns about justice, and is not relevant to our daily lives. We've been stuck for decades in a media and policy vacuum of neoliberal market mechanisms and a contest over complex science. Real solutions, community voices, or the elephant in the room – our coal exports – are locked out. It suits government and industry to keep the debate on this limited terrain – but we desperately need to build a message and a movement that can reject false solutions like carbon trading, halt privatisation of energy infrastructure, and put forward new ideas.”

The second is by Anna Rose, one of the founders of the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (a more mainstream lobbying outfit – sort of like “Stop Climate Chaos,” only effective.)

“But the time has come to be honest. We are failing because as a whole the Australian environment movement does not understand power, has not built power, and has failed to effectively exercise the power we have built.

"To win campaigns we have to make it harder for those in power to continue with business as usual than it is for them to give into our demands. Yet currently, it’s easier or politicians to continue with business as usual, and to give in to the demands of industry lobbyists from the coal, gas, mining, aluminium, cement and electricity generation industries — everyone, that is, except us.”

Meanwhile, the real elephant in the room, as Holly calls it, is the carbon in Australia's exports of coal (and liquified natural gas). These exports are set to expand rapidly in the coming decades. Legally, according to the UNFCCC, the emissions are the responsibility of the country that burns them. That argument is unsatisfactory to some, such as the direct action group Rising Tide Australia, which recently installed solar panels on the office of the Federal Climate Change Minister.

They're doing their best, but the issue is just not “thinkable” yet.

My predictions? 
 

Well, with the usual caveat that their value is extremely limited, I think that, barring accidents, some sort of tax/emissions trading scheme will come into play, but with so many loopholes and get-outs as to be useless (think the European ETS in its first phase). There will not be a shift away from coal – there is too much inertia in the political and economic and cultural systems for that.

The opposition will continue to make political capital out of it, and the denialists and culture warriors will not go away until the effects of climate change are literally undeniable.

Lastly, I don't see the climate movement reflecting and innovating and creating the forms of political and social pressure and space that make any other alternatives possible. On this last point I hope I am wrong, will act as if I am wrong, and try to act so that I make myself wrong.

See also

Guy Pearse Quarry Vision

http://www.quarterlyessay.com/issue/quarry-vision-coal-climate-change-and-end-resources-boom

Club Troppo

http://clubtroppo.com.au/category/climate-change/

Larvatus Prodeo

http://larvatusprodeo.net/category/science/

Journal of Australian Political Economy issue 66 (December 2010)

http://www.jape.org/content/view/24/1/

What's happening in Australia?

Last week saw two events in Australia that should give all right thinking people (ie people who agree with me) a little chilly shiver. The first was barmy, the second much more substantial.

The Liberal leader Tony Abbott chose to back and speak at a major anti-government rally. Not against cuts, as here, but against taxes - carbon pricing to be exact (pdf) - an imperfect measure intended to aid the fight against climate change.

Unlike the UK where climate change is often seen as an issue for people far away in Australia they *are* far away and have seen bush fires, droughts, floods and disasters over the last ten years on a really frightening scale. They've even had record hail storms.

There really is no excuse for anyone to be a climate denier in Oz, but the main opposition Liberals (read Tories UK people) had a mini-coup last year deposing one leader who was seen as too reasonable on climate with an out and out denier.

However, under pressure from the right Labor has taken it's traditional position of buckling. This has led to Labor's leader, Julia to issue instructions to the troops to distance themselves from their Green partners, even as the Greens are welcoming the deal both partners just signed. As per usual the electorate have scented weakness and signalled that they just don't respect it.

Meanwhile in the New South Wales state election we saw a massive swing to the right giving the Liberal/National Coalition seats they never dreamed they might win. Of course, the small crumb of comfort here is that the Greens also achieved their best ever result including electing their first ever representative in the NSW lower house (who's from the midlands). However, in the context of an incredible swing towards the climate denying right that win is a very small chink of light.

At least we know there is a growing audience for left and green ideas as Labor's failure to deliver a progressive agenda becomes more and more apparent. Right now they're lost and in government, a terrible combination. Here's the results.

	%	Swing	Seats	Change
Liberal	38.6	+11.7	51	+29
Labor	25.6	–13.4	20	–32
National	12.5	+2.5	18	+5
Greens	10.3	+1.3	1	+1
Independent	8.8	+1	3	–3
Other	4.2	–3.1	0	0
		Total	93

For the geek minded I thought I'd also compare percentage seats to percentage vote under AV, just because it backs up the contention that AV accentuates trends which can, sometimes, lead it to less proportional than First Past the Post. That's by the by though.

	Vote	Seats
Liberal	38.6%	54.8%
Labor	25.6%	21.5%
National	12.5%	19.4%
Greens	10.3%	1.1%
Independent	8.8%	3.2%
Other	4.2%	0.0%

What's clear is thatthere is a space for a clear left progressive party in Australia, despite the growing vigour of the right, and that Labor's capitulation to the right's agenda does not just signal a lack of principle but is going to cost them dear over the next few years.

Church gives women marching orders

A church in Sydney has given the organisers of the annual International Woman's Day an early Christmas present in the run up to the fortieth anniversary of the Sydney event. They've banned them from their traditional starting point. It's a timely reminder on the one hundredth anniversary of International Women's Day itself that we do not yet live in utopia.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald Anne Barber, one of the organisers said ''It's a traditional meeting point and somehow the church has right of veto.'' It's quite understandable that after forty years for the church to suddenly tell these marches to bugger off has created friction.

Another organiser, Gabe Kavanagh, was shocked. ''The rally has been held there for decades,'' she said. ''There's never been a problem with rubbish or noise.''

It's quite bizarre that this event is being banned when the square is the location of the Town Hall, a natural point for any public demonstration to focus on, and one that should not have to have to say so of the church to go ahead.

However, I'm going to make a prediction - while last year's event was on the smallish size this year will see a bumper turnout of women all determined to tell the church where they can get off.

NB People might remember the last time I spoke about the church in Sydney when the archbishop there advised against voters turning out for the Green Party who were "sweet camouflaged poison". I don't think we've heard the last of them somehow.

Update on the Australian Greens

I forgot to do an update on the Victoria State election in Australia, which is remiss of me because it's rather interesting and I need to get out of the habit of talking about something and then never mentioning it again (Ali Dizeai's court case was adjourned to a later date, by the way).

This election is significant because it's the first major Australian election since the game changing General Election. With the Greens gaining their first MP in a seat that had been held by Labour since 1904 the other parties had been reassessing their attitude towards the party - which under AV is extremely significant.

Labor had been vacillating between down the line attack politics and loving up to us, and I'm not sure which is worse. In the end I think they settled on... I'm not quite sure what this is. Certainly they'd hoped for Green Party second preferences but negotiations between the parties got nowhere.

The Liberals (Tories) chose to preference the Greens last in all seats, behind Labor, which is a switch from their previous position where Labor had been seen as their main enemy, despite many of the right's absolute hatred of the Greens' deliciously left leaning policies.

While how to vote cards are not the be all and end all of the vote studies show that a significant proportion of the electorate do follow the parties' recommendations. For instance a study in 2006 showed that "49 per cent of Labor voters did so, 48 per cent of Nationals, 46 per cent of Liberals and 31 per cent of Greens." It may not be a majority of people, but it's enough to make or break a contest and shows just how brutally tactical AV elections really are.

Ultimately, of the parties that stood in all areas only Labor did not place the Greens last (after even the bonkers right) and almost all of the minor parties placed us last too (the Christian Democratic Party placed the Sex Party last then us, and the Sex Party had us in the middle somewhere) (pdfs: West, East, North). In fact not a single party second preferenced the Greens.

It seems the Green success in winning a Parliamentary seat and their record levels in the polls has meant it may well be harder to win seats under AV from now on. Indeed our first Ozzie MP was elected on the back of Liberal voters preferencing our candidate before that of Labor's - this may well happen less in future.

Despite all this, the Victoria Greens managed a record vote in the election - 11% of first preferences - but it wasn't enough to win a single seat across the state. Labor were significantly down as the State swung to the right - which made the vote gain for the Greens all the more remarkable.

Liberal

Party	%	Swing	Seats	Change
38.2	+3.7	35	+12
Labor	36.2	–6.8	43	–12
Greens	11.0	+1.0	0	0
National	6.9	+1.7	10	+1
Other	7.7	+0.4	0	–1
Total			88
Liberal/National Coalition			45	+13
Labor			43	–12

Table adapted from Wikipedia.

Australia: the saga continues

The rise of the Greens has created ripples in Australia. New Green MP Adam Bandt will be moving legislation for gay marriage, they're progressing reigning in the banks, going forwards on euthanasia, indigenous rights, and there's some green stuff too... you know animals, climate change, that sort of thing.

As advances are made around the rights of refugees, one of the fore front Greens' campaigns, there's lots to be happy about of course. But the upcoming Victoria state elections are a taste of things to come.

The other parties are responding to the rise of the Greens, and it isn't necessarily pretty. As the Australian points out Labor are getting confused by it all. Having to actually fend off a left opposition that can win seats is just messing with their minds and they can't work out whether to hug or slap us.

Meanwhile the tactical haggling over the AV election preferences continues, which could see the Greens really lose out (note to all those people who say AV means no more tactical voting: WRONG!). The Liberals have for the first time called for a preference for Labor ahead of the Greens which could hurt their chances to win vital inner city seats off Labor.

The Liberals have signaled that they see the Greens as the greatest threat by saying they will preference the Greens last (ie behind Labor, fascists or any old candidate really) shows we're being taken seriously, but is also a new challenge as the two main parties are rethinking their strategies towards the new kids in the Parliamentary block. Meanwhile Labor and Greens have failed to come to a deal on preferences which some think may usher in a right wing state government in Victoria.

Of course the Greens are at a record high in Victoria at 19%, almost double their vote at the election in the region, putting them in contention for some good wins and also making it a dangerous ploy for any party to openly attack them, as many candidates, from both sides, may well be relying on Green preferences to win.

If the Greens can hold their nerve against this new concerted opposition from the other parties it could well be another advance. However, it's a useful lesson that victories bring with them new problems as well as the joy of success.

Adam Bandt makes first speech to Australian Parliament

Australia's first Green MP, Adam Bandt, has made his first speech to the Australian Parliament, which you can watch here;

Adam Bandt MP - first speech from Greens MPs on Vimeo.

"Imagine if we reacted to the financial crisis in the same way as the climate crisis, with global meetings deferred for years at a time.

"Perhaps if the planet were a merchant bank, we might see the speedy, internationally coordinated and massive government activity we saw during the financial crisis. Keeping Australia out of recession and avoiding double digit unemployment is of course the right thing to do. I simply hope our institutions of government here and abroad will extend to the planet the same courtesy as they do to the finance sector."

Second preferences and beyond

Reading the Labour leadership 'you ask the questions' in today's Independent I came across this interesting question. "If you were forced to choose, which other candidate would you recommend your supporters to make their second preference? "

It's a good question because the answer tells you something useful about the candidate both politically and in terms of how open and honest they are prepared to be. Sadly the responses only told us that two of the candidates are brothers and the other candidates don't have the gumption to answer the question.

It's not a question that is only going to be faced by Labour leadership candidate. If AV is introduced for the next general election then every Parliamentary candidate in the country could well be asked a similar question and it's worth considering how candidates should approach it.

In Australia where AV has pretty much bedded down, having been introduced in 1919, every party issues a 'voting card' often after hefty negotiations with other parties. As you can see here sometimes parties give a detailed list and others they just give the top preference. Unlike the Labour leadership candidates Australian politicians do not shy away from the idea that some rivals are politically closer than others.

Despite the fact that sometimes candidates even tell the electorate to ignore the party's voting card locally, and bloggers put out their own versions (and obviously voters are free to vote how they like) these cards seem pretty influential not just in determining who wins close contests but also helping to define where parties stand on the political spectrum.

For instance Labor's comprehensive voting card (pdf) which details every candidate running in the country shows that they second preferenced Adam Bandt, the first Green MP, in Melbourne. Likewise the Greens recommended second preferences go to Labor in the same seat even though they were our closest rivals.

This seems pretty grown up to me.

I was really pleased that at the last London Mayoral elections the Greens backed a second preference for Livingstone, and on the doorstep it really did feel like it made some sort of difference in an election that is won or lost on second preferences. I'm also pleased that this is not a long term arrangement so that if Labour selects Oona King we can stick our fingers up at them - I'm certainly intending to.

That doesn't mean there's always an obvious second choice, but I really don't get those who refuse to answer on principle.

I'm in the Greens because, among other things, they want to liberalise immigration controls, they oppose the wars, oppose privatisation, want to tackle climate change and have an understanding of life that's not dominated by capitalism. Other parties will be closer or further away from those policies and so it's understandable that I'll have sympathy with some rival candidates and want to ensure others are not elected.

What's wrong with admitting that?

More to the point, if we do get AV, every party will have to decide what their approach is to second preferences. I hope that those who refuse to suggest how they'll be voting will be punished by the electorate as close minded tribalists who can't work with other parties.

It would be nice to think that politics can be a little bit more upfront than the Labour leadership candidates are prepared to be at least.

Australian election

Irrepressible Ozzie Pippa Lane points me towards ABC's live coverage of the Australian election results.

In particular you can watch their election coverage, and the various online tools. Feel free to send me links of any other useful election sites.

I'm told the PR section of the vote (the senate) takes a couple of weeks to come in fully, although we'll know the headlines today. The single constituencies are essentially coming in already.

So far we're looking at Greens up, Labour down a bit, Tories up a bit. Whether this means the Greens can win a house of reps seat or not, the pundits seem unsure... we'll see soon enough!

You may also want to follow the election on the twitter hashtag and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Good luck to all the goodies, bad luck to the nasty parties. (My Australia advisor tells me the pic is not offensive)

Updates:

Australian Greens appear to have won their first ever House of Representatives seat in Melbourne http://fictilli.us/C5 Well done Adam Bandt, you beauty! Also in SMH

This is worth watching on Melbourne;



In Tasmania a green leaning independent looks like he's running Labor very close.

Greens run Labor very, very close in Sydney - extraordinary!

The Greens is doing very well on first preferences which also means that there will be more state funding available. One correspondent writes; "State funding is allocated according to how many first preference votes each party receives. It's $2.31191 per eligible vote."

Message from Oz Green organisers in London, UK: "Come and celebrate the Australian Greens' election campaign, tonight from 9am-2pm. Yucatan Bar, 121 Stoke Newington Road, N16 8BT. The Greens are tipped to win the balance of power in the Upper House and win our first ever seat in the Lower House. Currently we are polling 14% nationally."

A few links;

• Green Left Weekly interviews Green leader Bob Brown.
• Australian Greens website.
• Far right senator to be replaced by Green. Ace.
  
• Feel free to suggest more...
  

Australia: vote Green Party

The Australian Green Party leader sets out the case for his party.

Stories from the Australian election

I thought I'd highlight a few of the stories from the ongoing Australian elections.

• The far right Family First party is in hot water. Beset by splits, sex scandals and, drum roll, tweeting disasters it looks like they may not do too well. Sad.
  
  
• Mr Science Show is looking at science policy and the Australian election - here he has a short interview with Green Party leader Bob Brown on where he stands.
  
  
• I notice that the Socialist Alliance are calling for people to vote Socialist and Greens. National convener of the Alliance, Peter Boyle, says "I hope the Socialist Alliance, the Greens and other progressive candidates get the biggest vote possible and that the Greens win as many Senate seats as possible and hopefully their first House of Representatives seat in Melbourne. Socialist Alliance members are campaigning not only for our own candidates but also for the Greens and other progressive candidates".
  
  
• In The Age Danny Katz argues that Oz should "Keep the boats coming, but please, future PMs, keep the Canadians out", the piece contains the immortal line "You see them walking our city streets in small intimidating Caribou-packs, offending everyone with their culturally insensitive Roots-brand Beaver-Canoe sweatshirts."

• Ozzies are voting in the UK, at Australia House. The Sydney Morning Herald has been doing an exit poll. The results? "The result was Liberals 45 per cent, Labor 39 per cent and Greens 16 per cent." Mind you the Australian Times did their own exit poll where the results were "Liberal/National: 34%, Labor: 33%, Greens 32%". Ummm... calm down everyone.
  
  
• Three links to parties standing in the election: The Greens, The Socialist Alliance, The Sex Party.
  

Feel free to suggest anything you've spotted!

Australian Greens are sweet camouflaged poison

The signs are looking good for the Australian Greens whose rise in the polls has gone hand in hand with the right veering wildly into climate denial and Labour descending into an organisational crisis. However, in a bizarre election twist the Catholic Church has stepped in to denounce the Greens as horrid lefties.

The Archbishop of Sydney no less, Cardinal George Pell, took time out from his busy schedule to warn voters off voting for the Green Party in the up-coming election describing the party as "sweet camouflaged poison". Mmmmm, sounds delicious.

Pell went on that "One wing of the Greens are like watermelons, green outside and red inside, a number were Stalinists, supporting Soviet oppression." He added that they were "thoroughly anti-Christian".

Glorious! You couldn't by this kind of publicity. If you can get someone to denounce you, do make sure they're clearly absolutely bonkers, so well done Cardinal McCarthy, or whatever your name is.

The Sydney Diocese followed up the remarks with an intemperate press release that made it clear that the objection to the Greens was based on the "Greens' hostility to private schools", that they wish to "replace the Judaeo-Christian beliefs at the heart of Australia's values with the law of the jungle", their "enthusiasm for abortion and euthanasia" and that "they favour homosexual marriage".

These Greens sound like the worst sort of fiend don't they? Abortion and gay marriage? Whatever next? Votes for women? They also expressed concern that the Greens economic policy would lead to hardship for the poor. Of all the criticisms at least this one would be worth having, if it were true. Which it isn't.

I suspect this story, which highlights the progressive social policies of the party, will do everything to help attract disaffected Labour supporters *to* the Greens and cause great embarrassment among the many Australian Catholics who have absolutely no sympathy with the Archbishop's red baiting nonsense.

Are you listening Australia?

Richard Dawkins, renown atheist and prodigious pedantician, spoke in Melbourne Town Hall last night proselytising the bad news that there is no God.

God's answer? The worst hail storm in one hundred years.


Have they repented? Have they heck - they only seemed worried that the sports have been cancelled.

Australian Tories Depose Leader Over Climate Change

The Australian Tories (confusingly called 'Liberals') have deposed their leader, by a margin of just one vote, in favour of a climate 'sceptic'. Presumably he does believe there is a climate, just not what any scientist might have to say about it.

The Liberals had been bogged down with infighting over the party's policies on emissions trading. The former leader of the party, Turnbull, had been in favour of a free vote on the issue but the new leader, Mr Abbott, was unimpressed and beat Turnbull 42 votes to 41 which effectively killed the government's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in the days running up to Copenhagen.

On Saturday then leader Turnbull issued this statement on the need to tackle climate change. This section is pretty indicative of Turnbull's position, and why it enraged the climate deniers;

I recognise there are many people, particularly in my party, who do not believe that climate change is real and naturally do not see the need to do much about it. I respect their views and that of other climate change sceptics. But the fact is we should approach this issue from a risk management basis. Conservative leaders, centre-right leaders from around the world do that. I am not aware of any major political party in the world that has a do nothing approach to climate change, that has a policy of climate change denial.

Margaret Thatcher herself, back in 1990, nearly 20 years ago, said we should take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions as a matter of “risk management”... because what we are talking about here is not just an issue of today, this is an issue for today, tomorrow and the years to come. It is about protecting our planet, protecting the future of our children and their children.

Currently the Liberals are in disarray and their newly found hard-line stance on climate change is unlikely to do them many favours outside of their core tribal support. As the Sydney Morning Herald reports, one supporter of the old leadership as saying the Liberals have ‘‘f----- ourselves over’’.

I'm not saying the ETS is great. The Ozzie Greens have been pretty clear in their opposition but why you oppose something is as important as the fact that you do. The new leader Abbot, who has written books on how great having a constitutional monarchy is, wrote an article last week on this very subject which you can see here. If we dip into his "Carbon Vanity" piece there are some revealing passages;

The Liberals have always opposed deep cuts to carbon emissions in the absence of a global agreement.

Some, unconvinced that human-caused carbon dioxide emissions pose potentially catastrophic climate risk, have opposed an ETS in principle. Others, though disinclined to believe that climate change is the "great moral issue of our time", have thought that prudence could justify the imposition of a modest carbon price. Still others, impressed by weight of numbers, have supported strong action against climate change in conjunction with other countries...

Claims that Al Gore's film presented hypotheses as certainties plus evidence that the world has actually cooled slightly during the past decade have undermined the arguments for immediate, drastic action. Last week, the Lowy Institute published data showing that the percentage of Australians who regard global warming as a pressing problem that needs to be addressed, even at significant cost, had dropped from 68 to 48 per cent since 2006.

Hmmm. Having someone that is open about his belief that there is no need for urgent action on climate change may be an electoral liability for the Liberals, but the broader picture is that this is a step back for everyone. As a major force in Australian politics the fact that they have chosen to take this course creates real problems.

The irresponsibility of the Liberals makes my blood boil. By taking this decision they are giving international comfort to backwards reactionaries everywhere from the US Senate, the murky corners of our Tory Party and every other science hating runt that hopes to have political influence.

Marital breakdown and climate change

According to Australian Senator Steve Fielding the breakdown of traditional marriage is bad for the environment. Divorce is a "resource-inefficient lifestyle" and therefore unhappy couples should stick together for the sake of the planet. I suppose that's a bit grander than "for the sake of the children".

Steve is the lone Senator of Family First, and whilst he shares many of their ultra conservative views to his credit he did face calls for his resignation for backing a woman's right to choose. However, that doesn't change the fact that he's cynically using the issue of climate change to push a rather backward view of society.

Don't get me wrong - he's right. More and more of us are living in smaller and smaller units and that is inefficient on a whole number of levels. It's part of the housing crisis, it's more expensive on a personal level and, yes, it's bad for the environment.

The problem for our back to basics Senator is that the nuclear family is also "resource-inefficient". If we want to organise our living arrangements according to the needs of reducing our carbon footprint then we should be living far more communally than boxed off family units. The basic unit of living should be the community not the household - that's if we're serious about making fundamental social changes to address climate change.

I don't know if the good Senator is an advocate of anarcho-communism or not but as a great man once said "those who half make a revolution dig their own graves". Attacking divorce isn't even a half measure when it comes to CO2. Come on Mr Fielding call for shared communal living, I dares ya!

Tazmanian Green Leader Steps Down

Peg Putt, the leader of the Tazmanian Greens is quitting Parliament after fifteen years, six of which were as party leader. Nick McKim, who is to replace her as leader, had this to say;

"Ms Putt’s political career is full of significant achievements, including being the longest serving female leader of a political party in Tasmania’s history, playing a key role in gun law reform, and the apology and compensation for the stolen generation, protection for threatened species in Tasmania, tabling the Bill which ended corporal punishment in Tasmania’s state schools, bringing about the Gilewicz Commission of Inquiry, establishing Tasmania as a GE-free state, and campaigning to save Tasmania’s high conservation value forests.

“Peg did a fantastic job of holding the ground for the Greens after the numbers in Tasmania’s Parliament were cut, and it is due to her strength and courage that the Greens are once again a recognised Party in Tasmania’s Parliament.”

The Tazmanian Greens have four seats out of twenty five with 16% of the total vote.

Ozzies kick out the Tories

Except they call them Liberals over there.

Howard - probably one of George Bush's closest neo-liberal allies on the world stage has ended his 11 years in power with a real thud, almost certainly losing his own seat in the process. Difficult not to be cheered by the news frankly.

Labour's landslide could spell three major developments a) withdrawal of Australian troops from Iraq b) signing up to the Kyoto agreement and c) the overthrow of Oz capitalism. Except c that is.

In other news it looks like the Greens have increased their vote and gone from four senators to five. This is very good all round, it does not just mean that Green Party representation has increased by 25% but by breaking this threshold they will be entitled to official party status giving them more resources and parliamentary status. With any luck this might be able to bolster the environmental, "anti-war" turn the Australian government is about to take - particularly as most of it is window dressing anyway.

Unfortunately it also looks like the socialists have bottomed out, so whilst there are definite signs of some kind of upturn in industrial struggle after 11 years of Howard it's clear those, like the Socialist Alliance, were always going to be squeezed in this election.

I would say from our experience here in the UK, that now is the time when Australians are most going to need a real, principled progressive movement and the opportunities that lie ahead will be many, but like any new period it will be far from plain sailing from here on in.

Australian Greens give protester the boot

Last Friday 30 activists turned up at Australian Science Minister Julie Bishop's office to deliver a letter calling for a halt to plans to turn an aboriginal community in the Northern Territories into a nuclear dumping ground.

After delivering the letter the Minister's office seemed like a new and interesting place to sing a few songs. Where's the harm in that you might ask. Bishop did not see the funny side though and the police were called.

It was at this point that things went a touch sour. In the shape of batons, the confiscation of cameras and five arrests, including one for assaulting a police officer - which all seems a bit of an over the top response to the fluffy Students of Sustainability who've just had a conference full of drum wrkshops, NVDA and Tai Chi.

Toby Lee said that "As I was leaving, I was directly sprayed with capsicum spray into my eyes 10 centimeters from my face without warning" and Natalie Wasley, another protester, denied the group had had any violent intentions saying "We didn't get a chance to leave peacefully. The police just started pepper spraying people, hitting them with batons and throwing them to the floor. It was absolutely shameful."

One of those arrested (but not charged) was one Nicola Paris a feisty young staffer for Green Senator Rachel Siewert. Now, when Siewert heard that Paris had been arrested you might imagine she immediately sent a message of support to her jail cell supporting her fight for aboriginal rights and against nuclear toxicity. Indeed part of her official response did read "I hope to speak with the Minister to personally convey my concern at the earliest possible opportunity."

But alas this was not to condemn Nicola's arrest dear readers. No, in fact Nicola was asked to resign her position because "Greens do not condone violence of any kind", even though she was a peaceful protester at a peaceful protest. Well, peaceful until the cops showed up and started hitting people with sticks.

The rumours are that Green Party leader Bob Brown put pressure on Siewert to turn her back on Nicola and issue this mealy mouthed statement to the press. After all Siewert actually spoke at the Students of Sustainability conference the week before on the subject of... wait for it... wait for it... silencing dissent! Presumably a how-to guide.

You can email Senator Rachel Siewert here if you want a little word in her ear. Message of support can be sent here.