SHOCK HORROR - trashy tabloids photoshop scandal

Sitting in a cafe today, I saw the front page of News Corp's infamous Herald Sun. I really didn't feel like eating much after that.

Yikes!

Mixing two unflattering photos of people together is never a good idea. Even when celebrity mags try to see what the lovechild of two celebs would be, it always turns out like a deformed being from a horror movie. Doing the same with politicians can only be worse! 

Given all of the commotion that has gone on over the repeal of the carbon tax, why this headline? Why this picture? Seriously, why News Corp, are you trying to make me feel physically sick! Sometimes the content of this rag-mag tabloid is enough to gag on, but this front page is nightmare inducing!  It is kind of expected that tabloids will have a fairly lame yet eye catching headline and front cover, and as the picture below shows, they're usually fairly generic or harmless; personal interest stories, political cartoons and at worst provocative text. Though upon closer inspection, the images and text have been getting more aggressive and derogatory to Labor Prime minsters. That's News Corp's bias coming out strong and clear.

Typical Herald Sun headlines

News Corp's greater purpose of pursuing this line of rag-mag drivel is strangely, both sad and sinister at the same time. There are many other interesting articles out there to write about. The fact that the government just passed one of its key election commitments would be one thing; it's a day for successful government that's dealing with a challenging Senate. Yet instead News Corp decides to make a scathing, not to mention quite petty, attack against the opposition. It's a blatant childish bullying behaviour that is no different to defacing yearbooks and school photos, though now proudly publishing the material.

That's sad for the state of affairs of one of Australia's most read and distributed newspapers, though also sinister because of the the way in which this media conglomerate is trying to influence politics; by bullying and indoctrinating, not reasoning or persuading. The second half of the article itself beneath the horror photo and captions is fairly balanced and factual. Though this is becoming endemic of News Corp's attempts to still retain the most minimal credibility of a news agency, while appealing the lowest common denominator of base and crude attacks against parties and individuals it dislikes.

*Apologies for the lame title.

World Bank finally moves on from coal

World Bank Coal power stations will be a thing of the past

The World Bank's recent bold decision to stop funding development projects of coal fired power stations has been welcomed by most.  Since President Jim Yong Kim's took the helm, environmental policy has become a key issue for the World Bank. He has commissioned several reports into the dangers of rising temperatures and the impact reaching the critical four degrees celsius mark would have on the poor. While it is now official policy of the World Bank not to fund the construction of any more coal power stations, there is an exception. In circumstances where there is no alternative to coal, a coal power station may be built. The success of this policy will be shown by how many 'exceptions' are granted.

The World Banks movement to become more environmentally friendly in its development projects has been slow. In the past five years the World Bank has spent over $5 billion in coal power stations alone. Though within that same five years, it has doubled financial support to the renewable energy sector. Despite it long being known that coal is the worst form of electricity production for the environment, the World Bank has continued to use it. It has been slow to implement environmentally friendly policies due to the US's historic position of denying the existence of climate change. Though times are changing and there is a big cultural shift within the World Bank to be more conscious about the environment. The last coal fired power station to be built by the World Bank was in South Africa in 2010. There is one in development in Kosovo at the moment, though at the rate they are being constructed, it's not overwhelming. This official policy shift should cement the direction the World Bank is taking, and should hopefully also influence other World Bank development projects to be more carbon conscious.

As always, there have been critics of this policy. It has been argued by Aid Watch that a ban on coal fired power stations will lead to more damning and hydro electricity production. It is important when hydroelectric dams are built that the environment (and people living) downstream are considered. Many livelihoods depend on the flowing of rivers and the produce that comes from them. Yet as with any development project, there are always some costs. Some land and resources must be used in return for development. The World Bank has been keen to promote decentralised electricity production through solar panels and small wind farms. This allows for electricity to reach rural populations and doesn't require large facilities and cable networks. This off grid renewable energy appears to be the best option for supplying electricity to poor households in developing nations, while not causing severe disruption to the environment. 835 people die a year in Kosovo because of exposure to coal pollution, so it too is not a safer alternative to hydro electricity. The future for World Bank electrification projects looks to be in decentralised, local renewable technologies. Let's hope they stick to it!


Sources: 
World Bank to stop funding coal-fired power stations in developing countries - ABC Online
Can Jim Yong Kim end World Bank backing for coal-fired power? - The Guardian

Levy turns flood reconstruction into political mess

Gillard and Bligh tour QLD flood areas
Image source: The Herald Sun

Despite a natural disaster that cost numerous lives, uprooted thousands of Queenslanders and left them homeless, and a reconstruction effort that will take years to complete, it is good to see politics in Canberra hasn't changed much. Both Liberal and Labor are squabbling at each other and all who will listen about how the other side isn't playing fair. Now they're turning to the popular kids - Oakshot and Windsor - to pick sides and tell the others they are wrong. For all the talk of a "mateship tax" and politicians keeping one eye on the "Lodge", the efficacy of the tax itself is being ignored. Instead, angry talk back listeners and radio hosts like Niel Mitchell are deciding on the validity of the tax, based on its popularity. No matter how the Gillard government plans to raise funds for the reconstruction effort, some people will be unhappy. But a longer term approach to disaster recovery funding is what really needs to be discussed.

The first step the government took to addressing the financial pitfall for the Queensland floods was winding back and cutting down on "Green investment" spending. While such actions were necessary, amongst some circles, it remains unpopular all the same. Julia Gillard herself may not believe (or want to acknowledge) that the floods of Queensland, NSW and Victoria can be attributed to climate change, but a reduction in "Green investment" won't make the flood waters rise. A lot of the Federal government's environmentally friendly initiatives have cost a lot, yet delivered little. The danger that exists in withdrawing funding from environment initiatives, is that the funds won't return. Once government coffers start filling up, new promises will be made in other areas, and the funds will go there.

The political debacle over recovery funding that has ensued, is paying little attention to the actual methods the Gillard government is doing to assist the recovery effort. Both Gillard and Abbott have done their fair share of hugging and 'meeting and greeting' flood victims in front of media packs. But it is the mentioning of the word 'tax' that is causing an even bigger stir amongst the opposition and tabloids. Reducing funds to existing schemes and delaying promises is one thing, but instituting a tax is laden with politically damaging connotations. Abbott was quick to put on the rhetoric about a tax not being about "mateship", but a cover up scheme for a government that is spending too much. Yet for all the spin and hot air, the tax itself is economically credible. The government must spend money on reconstructing Queensland's savaged infrastructure. As Queensland is a major industrial and mining hub of Australia, it makes economic sense to rebuild roads and rail that once were the economic lifelines of Australia during the GFC. Yet even principally, the Federal government should assist. As a Federation, each state assists others in times of need; it is the very essence of our federation. Otherwise we would be a cluster of 9 different independent States.

People may be outraged that they have already given to Queensland flood relief funds, yet that money only goes to helping people directly after the event (through relocation and clean up costs), not rebuilding roads, rail, hospitals and schools that have been washed away. Funds for the reconstruction need to come from somewhere, and raising revenue by adding a levy to income tax, at this point in time, appears to be the most economically sensible method. While NSW Premier Kristina Keneally claims that such a levy will put too much pressure on households and mortgages, this tax won't affect such pressure. By legislating such a tax, the RBA can clearly see funds exiting the market and slowing down the economy (because as people pay more tax, they spend less). Hence the RBA will defer increasing interest rates, because the Federal Government will be (inadvertently) correcting the economy cycle. At the end of the year, tax or no tax, families and households will be relatively the same. It is a question really of whom will be taking money out of your pay packet: the Government for rebuilding Queensland, or one of the big banks?

The political squabble and concern for people's hip pocket aside, one of the popular kids in the school that is the Australian parliament, has raised a valid point. Rob Oakshott believes that a national disaster reconstruction fund should be established. As natural disasters sporadically occur within each century, a more structured planned system in financing the recovery effort needs to be established. Every time a disaster occurs, whether it is a cyclone, flood or bushfire, the government's bottom line and spending promises are compromised in order to pay for the clean up and reconstruction. Gillard's flood levy may pull Queensland out of the mud this time, but it doesn't guarantee funds for any other disaster that could occur within the next few years. The real debate that should be occurring, is whether the flood levy should be transformed into an established "disaster fund" levy. That way, funds (or partial funds) will be on hand in times of National and State crisis. As politically dangerous taxes can be, Australia may continue to place itself in financial danger if it doesn't acknowledge and plan for future events like the Queensland floods.

Links: 
Flood levy does RBA's job - The Age (Business Day)
Flood levy to test Gillard's leadership - SMH
Levy flushes out a nation of heartless bastards - ABC 'The Drum'

Gillard faces battle for flood levy support - ABC Online

All bark but no bite - National Times

No excuse for floods tax: Abbott - The Australian

2010 Federal Election: it finally begins

I considered writing about the 2010 Federal Election once it was called, but in all honesty, I couldn't be bothered. Parties and candidates had careful, pre written scripts and sound-bites, and everyone was playing it safe. Policies were thrown out like tidbits, with only a few in marginal electorates willing to swallow them up. But it's now only a week until the polls, and the heat is on. This is the week that makes or breaks a party, shapes the publics opinion about what type of leader each party has. Enter the real Julia, enter the 'underdog' Abbott, enter all minor parties (sorry, that includes you Bob Brown) who are vying desperately for attention and votes. I can't give a summary of the whole campaign thus far in a single post, but what I hope to give is a snapshot of what's occurring, and insight into each leader, campaign and their policies.

The leaders

1. Julia Gillard - highly competent and good with sound-bites. The 'real Julia' isn't scripted, but neither is she a loose cannon. Like Barack Obama, she isn't playing up her stark opposition to all the other candidates (gender in this case, instead of race), however her method of gaining power has ultimately undermined some of her credibility. 
2. Tony Abbott - a robust politician who's been around long enough to know how the political game works. Has run a highly successful ad campaign with tweet length policy statements. A defeat at the election will assuredly result in his removal from leader, though if he became PM, the marginal supporter base that got him to the position of opposition leader would swell. 
3. Bob Brown - asks tough questions and attempts to bring back issues that both major parties often (conveniently) forget. Because of his age, engaging with the younger demographic of Greens voters is an issue, as across TV he comes across as very stoic. Though he's very enlivened on radio. 

The campaigns

If you don't live in a marginal seat, especially west Sydney or southern Queensland, it's understandable if you don't know an election is occurring. The obviously disproportionate amount of time each party is concentrating and pork-barreling marginal seats is disgraceful, but I guess this is modern democracy at work.

• Labor - currently running a huge fear campaign nation wide against Tony Abbott. It's cheap and dirty, but it's eating away at the gains Abbott has made in the first 3 weeks of the campaign. 
• Liberals/Coalition - arguably have run a fear campaign from the start (stop the waste, stop the taxes, stop the boats and pay back the debt). Though unless they can change their rhetoric or find mud to sling back at Gillard apart from the old "Labor can't manage the economy, voters who are moved by fear campaigns will be swayed more by Labor. 
• Nationals - best jingle for their ad. It makes "stand up Australia" sound even more corny that it already is. The best ad of the campaign thus far. 
• Greens - horrible original ad, but Gruen Nation made a better one for them (that otherwise would have been the best). But because it was commissioned by the ABC, it can't be used. 
• Get up! - clearly the winner in this election, for running the best ads, campaigns and promoting issues better than any other party. It says a lot about the power of lobby groups. When it attacks a party/candidate, it really hits hard! 

The policies

Here is a very brief overview of some of the policies that have been flagged and have become issues within this election. As the week progress, new topics (hopefully about Indigenous affairs or something of equal note) should arise, rather than the typical (but almost guaranteed) economy and border protection policies. 

1. The economy - the main question is who's going to pay back the debt, and who's going to have the largest surplus? Despite the fact that any economist with any credibility (including Joseph Stiglitz and the RBA) acknowledges that Australia's government deficit is not a problem, and if no one payed it back, it would have virtually no affect on the economy; this becomes a moot point. But then it's a question of who can you trust to manage the economy? Both parties have shown equal competence (when you take a bipartisan approach) because they've both had very similar policies (which each party has vehemently denied for political reasons), thus it's also a moot point. So when it comes to the economy, both parties are competent, yet they want to stake the whole election on it! 
2. Boarder protection and stopping the boats - since neither party has been able to conclusively stop the boats, and since the boats only make up 4% of all asylum seeker arrivals, this shouldn't be a big issue. But xenophobia and fear make good campaigns, plus it's easier to tweet STOP THE BOATS. The main difference is East Timor or Nauru (Labor/Coalition respectively), but if you want a completely different option, then the Greens are for community processing, which is what we do for the 96% of all asylum seekers who arrive by plane. 
3. The environment - Labor are wanting to build community consensus by having a talkfest (National citizens assembly) and maybe sometime in the future have an emissions trading scheme. The Coalition are going to have a Standing Green Army (will this be able to invade New Zealand?) of volunteers planting trees and scrubbing coal or something equally as ludicrous as Labor's 'group talk with butcher paper' solution. But the Coalition is also wanting to give financial incentives to businesses who reduce their carbon emissions. Though whether it's an ETS or incentive scheme, it's going to cost money. The Greens are still advocating for a hardline ETS, and despite the fact they may hold the balance of power, it's unlikely it'll ever pass. 
4. Hospitals/Schools/Childcare/Mental health - both parties have shown some interest in these areas, and have surprisingly from both sides, committed more funding. The coalition is all about handing over power/money to the hospitals and principles' of schools, where Labor is about national standardisation and control. Considering the fiasco with the pink batts scheme, this may not be a wise move. However giving free reign to whoever is in charge of an institution, as the Coalition would like, opens up the opportunity for local incompetency. 
5. Indigenous Affairs/Gay marriage/Community Housing/Arts and Science etc - either ignored, condemned, or barely mentioned. More debate and policies over these issue may still come, but it's unlikely. The Greens are aiming to bring some of these issues into the overall debate in this last week, although the chances of them ever becoming serious issues at this stage, is highly unlikely. 

How you should vote! 

I could tell you how to vote, but I won't. Everyone has their own views about politics, policies and issues, and that should be respected. Though when you do find a party/candidate you like, don't vote for them because an ad told you so or because you voted for them before. Justify the reasons why you like them (or don't like the rest) and take a minute to find out more about their polices. 

Though as a side note: if you're in a safe 'blue ribbon' seat, for the House of Representatives ballot, I encourage you to put the current candidate last. Don't vote for the safe incumbent!!! The more marginal your seat is, the more likely your electorate will be pork-barreled and receive election attention. And if this election has highlighted anything, marginal seats are the places to be.

So don't forget to vote this Saturday, 21st August (8am-6pm). 

Rudd's ETS - a dead horse with whiplash

As much as I wanted to believe the government's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (ETS) would save Australia from the "climate change doesn't exist" idea of bygone days, it didn't. And it could never have. The policy was dead from the start. This 'dead horse' of a policy has been hung, drawn, quartered, minced through the media and whipped into a frenzy by Canberra. The outcome? A dead horse with whiplash, and a public being primed for an election. Considering the ETS policy's imminent death (or "delay", call it what you like), let us all revel in the bittersweet hindsight of what could have been.

It was the Kevin07 election that really got Australia governmentally, acting against climate change. With the years gone by of the Howard government still refusing to sign Kyoto, let alone admit that carbon pollution and climate change was a problem, Australia wanted change. Enter Kevin Rudd and his new government. First act by Mr Rudd, flying over to Bali and ratifying the Kyoto protocol. Finally, an Australia leader who took climate change seriously and was proactive! Next, Ross Garnaut was commissioned to produce the Garnaut report, outlining the best system that Australia could implement to reduce our carbon emissions and impact on the environment. From this, the report found an emissions trading scheme (ETS) was the best method. From within a year, there was action, vision, and a plan to tackle climate change. Everyone, including the media, was aghast at the pace the Rudd government was taking to solve climate change. Comments were even made that things were progressing too quickly. Oh, the irony now! 

As soon as the Rudd government started planning out the policy, Penny Wong (the climate change minister) was bombarded with lobby groups, the coal industry, the Liberals and Nationals, all attempting to water down the policy. The Greens, environmental lobby groups, along with the majority of the scientific and international community, were trying to set the policy to be inline with internationally accepted targets. The outcome? The coal industry, energy sector and Andrew Bolt won. A very weak, emissions target wise,  CPRS (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme), was produced. It was here the vision, action and policy died. The once galloping horse was now dead. But this aside, there was the challenge of passing the bill. The Greens wanted higher targets, the Liberals and Nationals lower targets, or no ETS, CPRS or any policy at all. Squabbling, name calling, numerous amendments, an economic crisis, 3 Liberal leadership changes, angry letters to the editor and many 7.30 report appearances later, an even more watered down, delayed, yet still un-passed ETS bill, hovered somewhat like a plague in Canberra. 

Ultimately Rudd could have called a double dissolution to try and pass the bill. Even though he didn't sell it to the public that well, he still would (most likely) have remained in government to be able to call a joint sitting of parliament if need be. From all opinion polls, public support was strong enough to carry the government through to another term if a double dissolution was called. But Copenhagen loomed and we waited to see what came of it. Nothing. Big surprise. Australia took nothing to the table but empty rhetoric, and so did everyone else. From here more squabbling, name calling, amendments etc, etc, etc, were made, until recently. The clocked turned over and it was 2010, an election year. With too much controversy and failings surrounding the Rudd government on numerous policies, including the CPRS, political salvation was needed. Hence the government has come out and "delayed" (scrapped) the CPRS bill, but on the bright side $2.5 billion has been saved. Rejoice! $2.5 billion is figure more easily represented on a graph than Australia's moral obligation to act on climate change. 

And here, the poor dead horse, which had now been flogged, whipped, damned, herald and abused, is used as fertiliser for this years budget. So, still reveling in the beauty of hindsight, what should have dear Rudd have done right from the start. 

First, be tough. A first term government with large reserves of political capital and public support should not be beaten around by a (then) fragmented and cannibalistic opposition, or wealthy and morally bankrupt coal and energy sector lobby groups. The policy would have had the Greens support, and a few progressive Liberals may have crossed the floor in the Senate, enabling the bill to pass. Even if not enough support in the Senate was reached, an early double dissolution would have easily seen the Rudd government back in office, and a double sitting of parliament would have easily passed the bill. Though even if all of this hadn't been done; an ETS, despite being watered down, should have passed to ensure that Australia is continually taking action, but mainly, to motivate the main emitters like the US and China to take action. New Zealand rapidly passed an ETS scheme hours before Copenhagen, just to prove that they too are taking action and that they will hold the larger emitters to account. This form of environmental foreign policy is something that is sadly missed across this side of the Tasman Sea. 

Even as Rudd said himself, "inaction costs more than action". So shake that sauce bottle again and take a bit of your own advice. Despite the unlikelihood of the Rudd government loosing office in the next election due to the major CPRS policy and election promise backflip, continuing on the historical path of inaction, will lead only to regret.

Links:

Poor political skills doomed Rudd's climate policy - The Australian (opinion and blogs)

PM left to stew in his own juices - The Age

Government admits failing to sell ETS - The ABC online 

Greatest moral challenge turns out to be Rudd's dearest folly - National Times

Abbott in - more than just the ETS put out!

It's not often I find myself detesting a particular politician. The one Australian politician that really grinds my gears would have to be Tony Abbott. So while my jaw hit the ground when the news broke that he became "leader" (and I do use the term very loosely) of the opposition, it's now firmly back up in its place, grinding away at my teeth.


With Tony Abbott winning the position as Liberal Party leader, the conservative faction of the Liberal Party has taken over again. But at least they have stopped pining the Howard years (I hope). This is in line with his view not to implement the Emissions Trading Scheme within Australia, claiming that it was a pointless tax that was only going to ruin the economy and not cut carbon emissions. However he also takes the position "we won't be having a tax as part of our policy going to the next election". Instead, Abbott has taken the stance of supporting nuclear power for Australia, and is wishing to start up the nuclear debate. 


Firstly, (and also strangely), I support his view that we should reverse the current policy of not selling uranium to India. As one of the fastest growing economies in the world and an equally growing contributor to climate change, having access now to a low carbon energy source is a necessity for environmentally friendly growth. Because without it, growth will still continue but with more emissions!
Secondly, as discussed in Nuclear the way, but not for Australia on this blog, with Australia having such a relatively small impact on climate change, more long term solutions, such as investment in renewables that thus far can not deliver base load power, is a responsible (and less costly) option. 
But thirdly, Tony Abbott, playing politics as he does, is just muddying the waters around the debate of Australia's responsibility for action and the implementation of the ETS. This magical alternative, is also not to be "rushed into". Methodical debate and planning is necessary for a plan to reduce Australia's carbon emissions, though that's occurred with the ETS. I'd point out an example that didn't have scrutiny or debate, like 'Work Choices', but as John Cleese eloquently put it, "Don't mention the war!"


And even despite the current stance for inaction and a challenge to a verbal joust on nuclear power, a clause for further inaction has been revealed by Abbott - "The right time, if ever, to have an ETS is if and when it becomes part of the international trading system and that is not going to happen prior to its adoption in America." While it may sound like a good stance on environmental policy, the 'Pope of the Parliament' knows that the blocking of the ETS only further cements in the likelihood of an unsuccessful international agreement at Copenhagen. Here's how.

China is the worlds largest emitter, followed by the US. If both come to an agreement to cut emissions, other countries will most likely follow suit (or be made to). However the US and China haven't come to an agreement (despite small cuts and agreements, signalling some hope) , and instead insist on the other a) taking the blame and b) making cuts. When they get tired of this, they look to the rest of the world, claiming no one else is doing something. Those who take the first steps to cutting emissions are leading, are making a difference and most importantly, setting a precedence and signal for the rest of the world to act. This is why the EU trading scheme has been successful. It has had the most impact in forcing China and the US to engage and act! By Australia acting and making cuts, it encourages other countries to do the same, to stick to rules of the "international community". Actions will speak louder than words


But with the recent rhetoric from Tony Abbott and the more outspoken right wing of the Liberal Party, the hot air will continue to flow. So while Abbot may believe "to become leader, you make a new start" and have a "clean break", yesterdays Abbot wasn't good, today he's OK, and tomorrow he'll be gone, and that day, will be "good". (apologies for the very bad religious reference)


Note:
The Copenhagen conference will run from the 7th to the 18th December
The Government plans to reintroduce the ETS on February 2nd, the first sitting of Parliament.

Links
Tony Abbott backs nuclear talks after senate block Labor's ETS scheme - The Australian
Liberals get "one last chance" on climate laws - ABC online
Dead ETS to rise again - SMH online

How China is going green

Barack Obama's recent trip to China has set the tone for the upcoming Copenhagen conference, cue depressing funeral music! Both countries want each other to cut carbon emissions by setting binding targets, yet each don't want to do so themselves. With both countries accounting for over 40% of the worlds emissions, an agreement between these two superpowers is necessary, if any action of climate change is going to seriously occur.

Though despite the depressing tone from the APEC summit and Obama's visit to China in the lead up to Copenhagen, China appears to be making serious inroads into the fight against climate change, which may help push the US into taking a more proactive stance.

Due to the GFC (Global Financial Crisis), the world has seen a reduction in carbon emissions caused by a reduction in global production of goods. Though while stimulus packages have tried to kick start failing economies and boost up production, China has spent the largest percentage (approximately 5%) and amount, on renewable energy and environmental protection as part of its stimulus measures. For in a time in 2008 where the economy dominated the global agenda, China had the foresight to implement environmentally responsible projects and initiatives. This money, while boosting growth and assisting the environment (though to questionable measures), is a positive sign that China is willing to put the environment ahead of its economy. Though from Obama's visit, it only appears that China will do so if the rest of the world (and mainly the US) also takes a proactive stance against climate change, and just doesn't blame the largest emitter and growing emitter, China.

Even from 2008, China has continued to take steps to reduce its emissions and be a more responsible global environmental citizen. Here are just a few of the steps China is taking to reduce its emission.

• Cutting of energy consumption per unit of GDP by 20% by 2010 -reduction linked with economic growth. China appears to just be making it.
• Increase renewable energy to 10% of China's energy production by 2010. 
• "Great Green Wall of China", a wall of 35 Billion trees to stop the encroaching desertification around Beijing 
• An agreement with India to work cooperatively about reducing carbon emissions
• Electrification of 64 000 stoves in homes, to stop dirty coal stoves with health and local environmental implications - however this can just hide the problem, as 70% of China's energy comes from coal fired power stations
• $150 million Sino-America clean energy research centre - however this appears to be more of a token gesture than a real step forward.  

However while China has been making steps towards protecting the climate, the effectiveness of these steps, combined with its continued growth of around 10% appears to be limited. Though with more international support and recognition that China may not just be the problem, but it is the solution, will be step that needs to be taken along with cooperation and engagement, especially from the US. So while the US has a responsibility to cut its per capita emissions (25 tonnes), China also has a responsibility to "grow green" and decrease its overall emissions (its per capita emissions stand at only 5.8 tonnes, despite China being the worlds largest polluter).

So while leadership, initiative, and promises may be called upon or made by other countries like Australia at Copenhagen, proactive action and engagement  from China, and between China and the US will be the worlds greatest hope of creating effective global action against climate change. Otherwise cue Handel's Dead March.

Links

China calls for 'serious soul searching' on climate - Times Online

Hope of  cleaner skies as Beijing Residents switch from coal to electricity - Times Online

Not-so-wonderful Copenhagen - The Economist

Nuclear the way, but not for Australia

With all this hype recently in the media about how Australia should go nuclear to help clean the world of carbon emission, taking a global perspective and stance at reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be the most effective way of combating climate change.

The proposal and renewed focus on nuclear power in Australia has come from an opinion poll stating that 49% of Australian's would accept nuclear power. Possibly not enough of a swing to change the Labour government's mind on the subject, as they directly oppose it. However public support for nuclear energy falls like a lemming off a cliff when the subject of location for the plants arise. This is because the Australian public doesn't fully support the science of nuclear fusion, and changes in the way nuclear reactors operate in order to prevent another disaster.

Though developing countries are quite comfortable with the science of nuclear fusion, because their insatiable demand for energy outstrips public or government concerns, and also because these poorer nations would prefer to have electricity than nothing. Nations such as China and India are soon to become the worlds largest emitters because of their tremendous growth. Ironically Australia produces less than 2% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, though we are trying to stop climate change by enacting policy (CPRS) to reduce our emission. If Australia really wants to make a difference, we need to help tackle other developing countries, like China and India's emissions not ours.

The main source of greenhouse gas emissions from Australia come from the burning of brown or black coal. However 80% of the coal we mine is exported, hence exporting and covering up our true effect on the climate. Instead of Australia becoming a nuclear nation, we should be encouraging through all avenues possible for developing nations to only built nuclear power stations. Because nuclear power is low in carbon emissions and is a proven technology that is effective in supplying power for the next hundred years or more, and it is perfectly suited to their situation. But because Australia has the worlds largest source of uranium, it also means we don't loose, but economically gain from such a pollution reduction deal. Furthermore from this, it also frees up financial and political capital which can be spent on renewable energies, to which Australia's climate and location is well suited.

For Australia to transform its energy industry from coal to nuclear power is a mistake. We can continue burning coal in the interim, because stopping it is not going to save the world. However Australia lobbying and supplying uranium to nuclear reactors in developing nations (hint hint Rudd, India), will be key to reducing global emissions as quickly as possible...not to mention avoiding Copenhagen at the end of this year. 

Growing Smaller - Nano style

In March this year, Indian car company Tata released the Nano car. Its basic principle, to provide a cheap, affordable new car to the masses. It is set to revolutionise the car industry, with most big brands (including American and European ones) planning on releasing rival models. This mix of innovation and invention has turned a previously struggling Indian car company around. But they haven't stopped there. Tata are now investing in land development so they can build "Nano" houses.


India is a resource hungry giant, with a massive poor population that is booming into an overgrowing middle class. But allot of these working class are still relatively poor to be able to afford a car or a flat. So this is Tata's main market - the emerging middle class. This emerging class, despite the financial conditions being experienced all over the world, is still expected to grow. So obviously Tata have tapped into a good thing, making money and providing jobs in times of crisis while giving emerging families a better lifestyle. 


But all of this development is going to come at a cost. With more cheap cars on the road, there is going to be even more traffic congestion and air pollution. With cheaper housing being built further out from city centers, urban sprawl and degradation to the natural environment will only continue at a faster rate. 

But providing these services at such a cheap cost is the amazing part. Very little has been invented, only ideas and technologies from around the world have been incorporated to create these cheap and usable products. The cars, instead of welded together, are glued together with similar strength. The concrete in the houses has been recycled and reinforced with extra strong plastic, to give it similar durability to normal reinforced concrete.


Surprisingly, it's not advanced nations leading the way in these initiatives, it is the emerging nations like India themselves. In this environmentally conscience world, advanced nations like America and Britain might have to start following these countries lead at growing smaller. 

LINKS
The Nano home - The Economist

The New Peoples Car - The Economist
Not So Nano - The Economist