Overwhelming consensus: LNP Fail, Labor Could do Better, Greens Good on climate change

Party leaders have been talking a lot about health in the last days of the election, but climate change and health has hardly been mentioned - yet unchecked climate change is the biggest global threat to our lives, health, homes and livelihoods, as well as other species.

A wide range of groups have recently released score cards on the political parties on climate change. The consensus is overwhelming: it can be summarised as LNP Fail, Labor Could do Better, Greens Good.

I really hope people think about this before theyvote.

More score cards below:

Australian Conservation Foundation

World Wildlife Foundation

Turnbull, "Terrible lies" and climate change

I think that some politicians tell terrible lies

(Malcolm Turnbull, 30 June 2016)

Climate change is the biggest threat to the health and wellbeing of Australians and people worldwide. Unchecked climate change has the capacity to destroy the lives, homes and livelihood of millions of people, as well as other species. Australians want action on climate change.

Malcolm Turnbull has made approximately 110 speeches and verbal statements in this election campaign. It's an impressive total, but what has he said about climate change? Practically nothing.

In all those thousands of words, he has made only four brief statements about climate change. 

About eight interviewers have also asked him questions about climate change, though only one, Amanda Keller, really tried to pin him down.

Mr Turnbull says he is committed to action on climate change, but  insists that Australia's current actions and targets are adequate - or even outstanding - even though climate experts have clearly said they are inadequate. 

Mr Turnbull claims credit for initiatives funded by the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC) although the LNP government tried to get rid of the CEFC, and was only prevented by Labor, Greens, Independents and minor parties in the Senate - the same people Mr Turnbull claims are a threat to good government.

Labor and the Greens both call for much higher targets for emissions reduction. Mr Turnbull acknowledges that higher targets are likely to be necessary following the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change - yet at the same time he scare-mongers about higher targets. On several occasions he insisted they would lead to higher electricity prices, in an obvious attempt to raise community fears.

Mr Turnbull said on 30th June 2016 "I think that some politicians tell terrible lies". Yet I have to ask, what is the difference between lying and pretending? If you say that you care about climate change, while pretending that clearly inadequate measures will make a difference, taking credit for measures like the CEFC that your opponents introduced, and scare mongering about meaningful targets, is that any different than "terrible lies"?

Sources:

Australians' views on climate change
Australians' attitudes to climate change
100+ speeches and verbal statements by Malcolm Turnbull *
Expert views on climate change targets

*Update 14 Feb 2017 - after I posted this, the speeches and transcripts seemed to be removed from Mr Turnbull's website, so I started putting my notes here for the record. I didn't complete that at the time, and have come back to do so recently due to interest in the issue. The transcripts and speeches appear to be back on the website again, but I am not sure that they are all there and it is very slow to navigate around the website so I am continuing to add my notes here time permitting. Unless stated, there was no spontaneous mention of climate change by Mr Turnbull and he was not asked about it by journalists.

8th May - election announcement
9th May, Petrie, no mention, journalist asks - MT says Australia has very good plan and by offering higher emissions reduction targets Bill Shorten is losing the ability to negotiate (presumably for lower targets). All about cost.
10th May - Brisbane
12th May - Mornington Peninsula, MT mentions he has had discussion with Barack Obama who "thanked Australia for our commitment [on CC] ... and we committed each other to both our nations continuing to support the achievements of those targets that had been agreed by all the nations of the world at that very important conference [Paris Climate conference 2015]"
13th May - leaders' debate Sydney, MT no mention of CC (cf Shorten mentioned it in opening and closing remarks)
14th May, doorstop Sydney
15th May, health announcement Sydney
16th May, health statement Sydney
16th May, statement on ships, jobs
16th May - doorstop WA - asked about Labor and Greens deal, spoke about threat of "higher carbon tax"
17th May - statement on traffic link Darwin
17th May - Australian Border Force Darwin
17th May - radio interview Darwin
17th May - radio interview Darwin
18 May - radio interview Darwin
18 May - statement re Cairns Marine Precinct
18 May - door stop with Warren Entsch, Qld
18 May - Townsville
19 May - doorstop NSW
20 May - doorstop
21 May - doorstop
23 May - doorstop
24 May - doorstop
25 May - doorstop
26 May - doorstop re Indigenous issues
27 May - doorstop re Indigenous issues
28 May - doorstop re Headspace
30 May - Emu Plains announcement - asked about Great Barrier Reef, MT refers to existing emissions reduction targets
31 May Childrens Hospital NSW (twice) (asked about cuts to climate science at CSIRO, says CSIRO determines its own priorities)
1 June - doorstop Brisbane
1 June - forum in Qld
2 June - doorstop at mattress company, Vic
3 June - radio Adelaide
3 June - doorstop Adelaide
4 June - campaign speech Adelaide (brief mention CEFC projects but not CC)
6 June - girls sport Malvern
6 June - address young engineers
6 June - doorstop Melbourne
7 June - Press Conference Picton
8 June - Ulla Dulla
8 June - radio interview Alan Jones
9 June - doorstop Tas floods, qu re floods, climate change, talks about silt removal, says can't link directly with CC
9 June - address American Australian Association
10 June - stronger economy statement
11 June - doorstop
11 June - doorstop Sydney
13 June - doorstop Townsville (mentions CEFC money re Great Barrier Reef measures [which don't address CC directly])
13 June - doorstop Townsville
14 June - Petrie
14 June - doorstop
15 June - doorstop Perth
15 June - Alan Jones
15 June -  Perth
16 June - Qantas
16 June - press conference with Treasurer
16 June - Ramadan speech
17 June - Doorstop Alphadale
17 June - Neil Mitchell 3AW
17 June - Jobs North coast
18 June - Netball Deakin
19 June - Truck Rally
19 June - Trucking Industry
20 June - Southwest motorway
20 June - Lunch
20 June - Oran Park NSW - CEFC sustainable infrastructure mention
20 June - Smart Cities - climate change mention, CEFC mention
20 June - City Deal West Sydney
21 June -  Doorstop NT
21 June - Kenbi land claim handover
21 June - Territory  FM
21 June - Q and A - asked a question on position - said position consistent, higher targets were unspecified, claiming to have strong targets
22 June - M1 Gold Coast
22 June - 'Space' Bungalow, Qld
22 June - Alan Jones
22 June - Jobs, Cairns
23 June -Quickstep Geelong
23 June -  Doorstop Quickstep
23 June - Investing Geelong
23 June - CFA Highton
24 June - Devonport Sports facility
Updating to be continued

Happy 2016

Classified as - update, progress report

Seasons' greetings to all.

Here's a beautiful image from the Sydney New Years Eve to start the year.

Indigenous people could be understandably cynical about images like this, but let's hope it stands for something. I find it an inspiring message. It's always been a theme of this project, right from the first workshop back in 2011, that we can learn from Indigenous people and a culture that has survived for 60,000 years.


I've just come back to Monash after my break, to find that ethics approval for the final stage of this research project has been granted.

I've recently completed a draft 40,000 word report on the project. I would like to present the key points from this to participants before completing my thesis in 2016.

I'm hoping to hold a workshop in each of the three research areas. This will be an opportunity to get final feedback from participants, and also an opportunity to say thank you and celebrate the work that participants have been doing, as there will be lunch or afternoon tea provided.

I will be in touch with participants soon regarding possible dates and times for the workshops. 

The Paris agreement

Classified as: politics

A quick note - I haven't written much on the blog lately, but this is a historic moment. Countries have agreed to try to limit global warming to below 2C and to aim for 1.5C in the Paris agreement. It is not binding and some people have expressed great cynicism about it, including James Hansen who suggested it was "bullshit".

Lenore Taylor in the Guardian, describing herself as a "cynical optimist" thinks it might "just be enough to start turning the tide".

I think it could be also. It is just a start and we have to keep working, we can't take the pressure off, but it is a start.

More later.

Belated update- here's a few more reactions:

The One Million Women blog saw the Paris Agreement as an "extraordinary achievement' but also noted the gap between what countries have pledged to do and what they need to do. Current pledges on emissions won't even keep warming to 2C let alone the safer target of 1.5C, so countries urgently need to increase their emissions reductions targets.

Reneweconomy was very positive, saying:

Years from now, the Paris climate conference may be seen as the point where ambitious long term global climate policy was finally enshrined in an international agreement, and where the world found a formula that enables consistent action.

However they also acknowledged that there is a "massive" gap between current national pledges and what is needed.

John Quiggin on his blog was also positive, in Turning the Corner:

The agreement just announced from the Climate Conference in Paris isn’t by any means, a solution to the problem of avoiding climate change. But, along with other developments over the past year, it signals the fact that the world community has turned the corner on this issue. 

He saw the biggest political potential danger as a Republican victory in the 2016 US Presidential election, but felt that even that would not be enough to stop the momentum that has now been established world wide.



I think the biggest risk is that the Agreement is seen as an end in itself, and people now think that it's all settled and we don't have to worry about it. Sara Phillips on the ABC noted that Australian concern about climate change seemed to diminish after the carbon price was introduced, possibly because people now felt the problem was solved.

I think there are usually more immediate issues than climate change in most people's lives - cost of living, caring for children, job security, and so on - so the temptation to focus on them and forget about 'distant' problems like climate change is always there, especially if the distant problems appear to be solved. However, as Sara Phillips writes, the advent of the Abbott government in Australia showed that action on climate change can be wound back, even after it has begun - and so there is no room for complacency. One positive thing perhaps is that now there has been such a large scale world wide agreement that action on climate change is important, it will be much more difficult for any politicians in future to wind it back in the way the Abbott government did.
 

Who's playing this war game? - Updated.

Classified as: reflections, war and peace again, 'non-playing characters'

Updated 4 October - Stop calling it collateral damage

A US airstrike that killed up to 20 aid workers and patients in a Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) hospital in Afghanistan constitutes a “grave violation of international law”, the charity’s president has said. 

...

"US forces conducted an airstrike in Kunduz city at 2:15am [local time] on 3 October against individuals threatening the force. The strike may have resulted in collateral damage to a nearby medical facility. This incident is under investigation,” said Col Brian Tribus, spokesman for international forces in Afghanistan.

See more

If Professor Ranson is right that 85% of those who die in wars now are civilians (see original post below) as I'm sure he is, then the least we can expect is that those waging war stop using terms like collateral damage. It's not collateral damage, it's what wars do. Pacifists like me (or more famous ones like say, Joan Baez or the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom) oppose war in general, but I fail to see how anyone can justify it now that the vast majority of those killed are civilians.

Original post 24 September:

Today Professor David Ranson, of the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, gave a talk to students in the Climate Change and Public Health unit I'm teaching in this semester.

David was talking about emergencies and disasters, and in the talk he spent some time talking about war. He mentioned that in recent wars, from about the 1980s, 85% of those who die are civilians.

Part of the reason that more of the deaths are civilians now than they used to be (although apparently about half the deaths had been civilians for a long time) is the huge investment that goes in to protecting soldiers, including rapid and massive forensic investigations when soldiers die.  In discussion, David suggested that nations are reluctant to lose soldiers because they invest so much in them. (My apologies to David if I've misunderstood in any way, but this is what I remember).

But I've been thinking about this, and am seeing it in a different way. Recently on the blog Crooked Timber, Belle Waring wrote a couple of posts about NPCs, or non-playing characters, in computer games.

NPCs: What Are They, Even?

by BELLE WARING on AUGUST 28, 2015

... It’s pretty simple. Let’s say you play a FPS (first person shooter) or even a third-person shooter (you see the character you control as if he were the star of a movie). You generally roam around the game shooting alien monsters or zombies or Nazis or zombie Nazis or whatever. But there will be people on your side, or fellow members of the space marines, or bystander city-dwellers—people with whom you can interact but don’t need to/can’t shoot. These characters may have only one thing to say, or they can say one thing when first approached (or when you say a certain thing) and one or more other things later (or when you say that other thing). Alternately and more generally in all sorts of games an NPC can be someone you share endless experiences with, or are trained by, or you start a romantic relationship with, or you lose your shit over when they die ... Basically, in a single-player game, you’re the player, and the non-player characters—even if they look just like you—are merely generated by the game, just like the rendered terrain itself or the monsters or the weapons/spoils of war/scrolls, etc.

You can read it here

Belle was using NPCs mainly as an analogy to talk about sexism. But I started thinking that civilians in wars were like NPCs - expendable characters. Of course soldiers aren't 'supposed' to shoot (or bomb, or whatever) civilians, but loads of civilians die, because they're not key characters. 

Except of course in Belle's analogy, the player identifies with the character. Whereas in war, there are lots of 'characters' (soldiers) and many more 'non-player characters' (civilians). But there isn't one person (player) who identifies with each soldier. There's other people - politicians, arms manufacturers, owners of capital, senior military, diplomats, even (often in an ill-informed way), some of the citizenry in the countries that aren't being invaded - who control or direct the game. The soldiers are used, a few of them get destroyed, but they are defended. They're not in charge, but they are important. Whereas the citizens of the country that's being invaded are just, as Belle says, like the "terrain".

Only then I started thinking about chess, and the similarities. Chess is a game of war, and the pawns in chess are a bit like like non-playing characters, or citizens, although I think they're really foot soldiers. They can move, they can even get to be queens, if they're lucky, although they're largely expendable. 

So in some ways these war games have been around for a long time. But now when you think about how many civilians die, and how much investment goes into the soldiers, who are still just expensive characters, not players - it's chilling. Who's playing this game, really? Who's in charge? I'm outright opposed to war, and have been for a long time, but a lot of people aren't. I think they have a romantic notion that war is about brave soldiers fighting each other to defend the people. But it's not. It never has been really, it's always been about the powerful competing with each other, using soldiers as their pawns. But now it's not even about the soldiers dying, mainly - it's just ordinary people. Civilians, kids.