Election wash-up - reflecting, musing, trying not to brood ...

Classified as: reflections - musings, feelings

I'm going to try to blog more frequently for the rest of this year/until I finish the PhD - whichever comes first. After that the blog may take different directions, or I may stop doing it, I don't know. It concerns me somewhat that I feel as if I can't say entirely what I think because this blog is linked to my research (of course!) but also to Monash. The university does have some control over what I say - in the obvious sense that is right, in that the things I say shouldn't be abusive or offensive. Yet at the same time it seems as if it is limiting my ability to be truthful, which I guess is what some people talk about when they talk about 'political correctness'.

Normally I take comments about 'political correctness' to be code for 'I want to make negative comments or judgements about women and minority groups, but I might get into trouble for it' and I don't have much sympathy for them. However I feel a sense that I am limited in two ways: one, not being able to express emotion, and two, having to appear politically 'impartial'. The first I think has a basis in that being emotional can turn into swearing and being abusive (my mother used to say 'swearing indicates a poor vocabulary' meaning you should be able to find other ways to express your feelings, but I don't know - it's pretty ubiquitous!). I think part of having an egalitarian society is definitely treating others with respect, but at the same time I think we should be able to express how we feel. The political impartiality thing I think is a mistake - researchers and teachers at university level should be able to express who they would vote for and why. It's a fine line - they shouldn't use their position to campaign for a party, because they do have a personal-emotional influence on students, as well as an intellectual one, but they should be able to say why they think particular policies are better for Austrslia, I suggest.

Which is all a long winded way of saying that I am angry and disappointed about what has happened in the federal election. I am angry at Mr Turnbull for being dishonest about climate change (see previous post) and disappointed and a bit angry that just over half of Australian voters supported his government nonetheless. I am disappointed that even though most Australians apparently think our society should be more equal, they won't vote for that (presumably because they are worried about 'the economy', that identifiable 'thing' we are all supposed to fear and venerate).

Let me be clear - I am not saying people shouldn't worry about losing their jobs and not having enough money - of course they do. But 'the economy' is simply the sum total of our work, trade and exchange, and how we look after our environment and each other. If we want to have a society that is fairer and more sustainable, we should be able to do, but people seem scared to try. I think the fear is essentially, that one, we (ordinary people) don't have the capacity to do so, we will stuff it up somehow, and two, rich and powerful people will punish us if we try (of which two is probably more realistic).

As I am getting towards the end of this thesis, I am strongly convinced that we need major social change to create societies that are fairer and more sustainable, but I am becoming depressed about the possibility, not just because of what's happened in our election, but because of what's happening in the world (like what's happening now in Turkey or the massacre in France, to name just two recent events). I'm depressed, to be frank, not seriously depressed I suppose, but just flat - finding it hard to get motivated in any way. I still get delight in my family and my grandkids and the natural world, but so much else seems misguided. There are so many people, mainly women, but also some men, particularly those who aren't in the full time paid workforce, in this project who are working quietly at community level for fairer and more sustainable communities - yet when I look at the national or international political level, it's just not reaching there.

I'm writing this on my mobile, so it's a bit difficult, and I think I'll stop there. It's probably not entirely clear what I mean either, but perhaps I can expand or explain in later posts. I'm not giving up, and I hope others aren't either, but it is a weary path at present. There are therapeutic group sessions being offered in Melbourne for climate activists at present, I think I might try to get to one. Anyone else who is interested, please contact me for details through my Monash email address (see side panel of blog).

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.