The climate crisis is not a negotiable issue and politicians must
start paying attention to science.

British climate economist Lord Nicholas Stern and former UN secretary- general Kofi Annan are among luminaries now saying that no deal is better than a bad deal, ...

CAN we expect decent climate policy when most of the decision-making elite are ignorant of the real scientific imperatives, or believe they can negotiate with the laws of physics and chemistry? The answer is bleak, judging by the lead-up talks to the climate summit in Copenhagen in December. The conference is slated to sign a new global deal on greenhouse gas reductions, but key players expect failure. British climate economist Lord Nicholas Stern and former UN secretary- general Kofi Annan are among luminaries now saying that no deal is better than a bad deal, while European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso warns: "If we don't sort this out, it risks becoming the longest and most global suicide note in history."

Climate politics has become a game of chicken, a planet-crippling procrastination driven by short-term concerns and a striving for partisan advantage. Last year, Ross Garnaut wondered if "this issue is too hard for rational policymaking ... the issues are too complex, the vested interests surrounding it too numerous and intense, the relevant time-frames too long". Copenhagen is likely to confirm his dark assessment.

Climate politics has become a game of chicken, a planet-crippling procrastination driven by short-term concerns and a striving for partisan advantage.

For scientists this is frustrating and depressing, and so more feel compelled to openly enter the political fray. America's best-known climate researcher, NASA's James Hansen, now joins protesters at coal plants and stumps the country in support of the 350.org campaign. This will peak with more than 2000 activities in 150 countries around the globe on October 24.

It's a long way from the politics-free world of the laboratory and peer-reviewed journals, but outside those confined spaces the politics is hard to avoid. In public, scientists are hammered by sceptics, and those on the public payroll find their advocacy regularly restrained by government. And all must choose what part of the vast climate science knowledge-bank they will communicate on any particular occasion.

Some are drawn into making judgments about what may be publicly palatable, concerned by the growing gap between the science and the politics. They want to be relevant and change mindsets, and wonder if they were to spell out the brutal truth - that in Hansen's immortal words, we are "on the edge of a precipice beyond which there is no redemption" - they will not be listened to.

Even the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is conservative, filtered by political considerations: government appointees negotiate and sign off on the summary reports. For two decades, debate has clustered around the politically mediated target of holding global warming to 2 degrees, said to be equivalent to a level of greenhouse gases less than 450 parts per million (ppm). This is the Australian Government's policy, and on Wednesday when some of our leading scientists brief federal members of Parliament, the Government will be looking for a nod towards this target, and for the carbon pollution reduction scheme.

Even the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is conservative, filtered by political considerations: government appointees negotiate and sign off on the summary reports. For two decades, debate has clustered around the politically mediated target of holding global warming to 2 degrees, said to be equivalent to a level of greenhouse gases less than 450 parts per million (ppm). This is the Australian Government's policy, and on Wednesday when some of our leading scientists brief federal members of Parliament, the Government will be looking for a nod towards this target, and for the carbon pollution reduction scheme.

Reporting of evidence given by a number of leading scientists to a Senate inquiry into the scheme in May gave the impression they had given it a tick of approval. Yet in reality it will not reduce Australia's actual emissions below the 1990 baseline for another three decades, instead relying on buying offsets - the antithesis of serious emission-reduction strategies.

The US Government Accounting Office recently concluded that "carbon offsets involve fundamental trade-offs and may not be a reliable long- term approach to climate change mitigation".

The US Government Accounting Office recently concluded that "carbon offsets involve fundamental trade-offs and may not be a reliable long- term approach to climate change mitigation".

The target for industrialised countries to reduce emissions by 25-40 per cent by 2020 is misleading because the IPCC notes that these "emissions reductions … might be underestimated due to missing carbon cycle feedbacks". In fact, the sensitivity of the climate to rising levels of greenhouse gases is likely to double the generally assumed level, a point made by the ANU's Will Steffen in his recent report for the Australian Department of Climate Change.

This means that when long-term effects such as the loss of large polar ice-sheets are taken into account, the Government target of 450 ppm may well produce global warming of about 4 degrees, twice the level considered dangerous by conservative governments.

Even 2-degree warming will take the Earth past significant tipping points. Likely effects include large-scale disintegration of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice-sheets, big sea-level rises, the mass extinction of plant and animal species, dangerous ocean acidification and widespread drought, desertification and malnutrition.

Should this always be an object of unwearied explanation by our scientists, or will political minders always be hassling for a quick media grab about policy "moving in the right direction", so we can move on to other matters, having "fixed" the climate?

It's a grand illusion that that 2 degrees and 450 ppm is a reasonable target.

It's a grand illusion that that 2 degrees and 450 ppm is a reasonable target. Twenty-nine of the world's leading scientists, including Steffen, have specified that less than 350 ppm of carbon dioxide is a "safe boundary" for the planet, in perhaps the most significant peer- reviewed paper of the year.

Our politicians need to hear this, because they are not taking the actions the science demands. The conventional mode of politics is incremental and fearful of fundamental change and the major parties have adopted a traditional policy approach to the climate problem: something for the environment lobby and something for business.

Our politicians need to hear this, because they are not taking the actions the science demands. The conventional mode of politics is incremental and fearful of fundamental change and the major parties have adopted a traditional policy approach to the climate problem: something for the environment lobby and something for business.

But solving the climate crisis cannot be treated like any other issue, with the demands of each side balanced somewhere in the middle. It is not possible to negotiate with the laws of physics and chemistry. The planet cannot be bought off. There are absolute limits that should not be crossed, and doing something, but not enough, will still lead to disaster.

David Spratt is the co-author of Climate Code Red: The Case for Emergency Action, shortlisted for the 2009 Victorian Premier's Literary Awards.

Originally published in the Age of 19 Oct 09. See also: www.carbonequity.info.

MEDIA RELEASE
22 October 2009

MORE REFUGEES - FEWER SKILLED MIGRANTS

Were Australia a compassionate nation, it would be taking in more asylum seekers and fewer skilled migrants, according to Australia’s only environment group dedicated to lower population, Sustainable Population Australia (SPA).

SPA National President, Ms Sandra Kanck, says Australia could double the number of refugees it accepts, providing that at least as many, if not more (which is SPA’s preference), were cut from the skilled migration program.

Australia's humanitarian program is currently 13,500 annually, while skilled immigration for 2008-9 is 115,000. Total net overseas migration, however, for the year ended 31 March 2009, was 278,200 persons. As well as skilled migration, this includes family reunion, New Zealanders and those on temporary visas.

“We have no moral obligation to the people coming here under the skilled migration program – they are not fleeing from war-torn states," says Ms Kanck. "They are taking places we could make available to real refugees.

“With 22 million refugees in the world at the moment, Australia cannot take them all, but we can accept more than we currently do – provided we reduce the skilled migration intake," she says.

Ms Kanck says that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s rebuffing of asylum seekers and attacks on so-called people smugglers are a diversionary tactic.

"Mr Rudd is responsible for one of the highest immigration rates in decades so his line on the current influx of asylum seekers is simply a smoke screen to avoid public discussion on the bigger issue of the immigration blow-out.

“Refugees have to wait in long queues for places to become available, while at the same time Mr Rudd has an open door policy to people who want to come here for purely economic reasons.

"Surely Australia can supply its own skills and not poach from other countries," says Ms Kanck. “If we got rid of the baby bonus we could put that money into training/retraining our current population and thus decrease our reliance on the skilled migration program."

Ms Kanck added that a multi-pronged approach was what was required in dealing with refugees. Diplomatic efforts could often diminish conflict that cause people to flee.

"For instance, what is Australia doing to ensure that the Sri Lankan Government is treating the Tamils fairly and humanely?" she asks.

35 Million Australians by 2050?

The Age September 19th

Start preparing now:

Treasurer Wayne Swan is quite resigned to the fact that we will have “over 36 million” people by the year 2050! This is a dishonest understatement. According to our present growth rate, we will have doubled our present population of nearly 22 million by 2046. He clearly is being evasive or is showing a lack of understanding of arithmetic despite being our Treasurer. We will be facing more than 44 million by 2046, and the numbers will keep escalating.

At the present rate Australia will have a population of about 50 million by mid century and 100 million by the end of the century. If this sounds implausible, consider that at the end of World War II, just 64 years ago, Australia’s population was only 7.5 million, i.e. it has almost tripled in that time.

Online Opinion

The Australian Bureau of Statistics in 2008 models show Australia’s population on course 42 million by 2050, and Sydney and Melbourne's population each surpassing 7 million, on current trends.

Our Treasurer has released update population forecasts that confirm that now is the time to start "reshaping the way we live”. This means that despite our diminishing and threatened natural resources, climate change, loss of biodiversity, impending threats from diseases, starvation, famine, water shortages, ocean destruction, ecological collapse and atmospheric pollution, he is willing to risk all and keep adding more people for the great idol of “economic growth”!

“Reshaping the way we live” is an euphemism for higher density living, few private backyards, more concrete or living in outer urban sprawl areas with more travelling time, for higher costs for fuel and water, and for congestion and poverty.

“Sustainable” growth is pure fiction!

The “shift upwards” trend to create higher density living has been the goal of urban planners for some time, but this has been “stymied” by NIMBY-ism! Why should our lifestyles and our suburbs be a resource for developers and a growth phenomenon that is contrary to our interests? Why should our children be denied back yards and safe places to explore and play? Why should we be denied the right to grow our own vegetables, have pets and gardens? Already our democratic rights to justice are being threatened to speed up development approvals.

Mr Swan’s speech was delivered at the launch of a Sydney-based institute on population ageing, which he said was “arguably one of two of our greatest challenges along with climate change”! Really, older people are a threat, equal to climate change? On the contrary, older people usually consume less and are more conservative in their needs. Perhaps he would like a voluntary extermination program so that the ageing aren’t a financial burden to the growth industries!

Another major think-tank is Melbourne’s Grattan Institute to “promote vital debate about the city of the 21st century”. However, it will depend on the public being “engaged and persuaded”. Does that mean the public will be able to input into the debate on “why” or just add to the “how”? The Age newspaper is intending to play a leading role in this process. With Fairfax’s interest in land developments and the real estate industries, just how detached and objective will this input be?

The article conceded that many Australians will respond to all this with the “deceptively simple question - why not cap the population”? This question is not “deceptively simple” but IS simple! According to the article, the main reason that it is not a good solution is a “demographic one” – migrants are significantly younger on average than the general population. Only young people are considered desirable! This is not a demographic reason, but an economic one. Once our “baby boomers” from the post war baby boom finally expire (and I am one of them), without immigration, we should reach equilibrium and have either population stability or even decline. Our leaders worship growth, and youth, but neither can go on forever! They strive and worship economic GROWTH, and with their limited and short-sighted model for growth, it requires population growth.

Adding young migrants, no matter how educated they are, will not avoid them ageing! Immigration will never be able to keep our population young. Adding people to “compensate” or “replace” older people means our numbers will keep blowing out, and the following generation will have even more older people.

Fact Sheet, Australia's ageing population problem

The proportion of older people has been revised to be 22% by 2049, which is even higher than our present 13%! Where’s the logic?

According to World Book figures for 2008, a rising population is not necessary for economic growth. Sweden, Cuba, Norway, Russia and Italy all enjoy small population growth rates, and all have viable, if not growing, economies and healthy GDPs. However, many of our industries have been swamped and eradicated by globalisation. Maybe these countries will prove the sensible ones that survive better in the long-term.

Treasurer Wayne Swan, and our PM Kevin Rudd who is “excited” about population growth (link) because it will raise the “tax base”, are willing to sacrifice Australia’s landscape, native animals, heritage, culture, vegetation, lifestyles, gardens and green wedges, coastlines to developments and desalination plants, and destroy all that is good about Australia, all in the name of economic growth! This formula for growth will inevitably increase the base of customers for gigantic corporations and global industries but will increase poverty in Australia! Growth at all costs is malignant and will eventually diminish human rights and dignity, and disempower the majority.

Kevin Rudd, who professes to be a Christian, has sold his soul for the god of Mammon and materialism. God and Mammon

His masters are the corporations and business who shape these warped policies, not patriotism and love for our country Australia.

It was entirely predictable that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would concede that the Copenhagen summit in December would fail to reach a global emissions reduction deal. ABC Online
Despite his pre-election rhetoric, he is worse than a climate change sceptic and has failed even his own aims on carbon emission cuts! He did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions just days after Australia's delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali. He backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020 rather than 60%. This further whittled away his commitment to only a 5% reduction of carbon levels by 2020!

Like his failed grand gestures on Kyoto and vow to Japan's illegal whaling, this conference in Copenhagen is also doomed!

G8 leaders failed to persuade India and China to join a push to cut greenhouse emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. Why should nations with much lower per capita output of greenhouse gas emissions make more sacrifices than Australia? On the contrary, our obligation, as one of the highest per capita emitters in the world, is to lead the way.

"On a global scale, Australia has the highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions per capita," said Professor Mark Diesendorf, co-director of the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

Kevin Rudd's real masters are the coal, banking and mining industries.

His "projected" (deliberate) population growth is to stimulate further consumerism. If we accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change, it cannot be addressed while we have a historically high population growth rate and continue supporting highly polluting industries. We are digging ourselves into a hole, and the deeper we go the harder and more costly it will be to scramble out!

With contradictory policies we will see no leadership on climate change from our present Rudd Government. Global population, and a population policy for Australia, should be on the agenda in December. Kevin Rudd is self-fulfilling his own prophesies about Copenhagen!

This was originally a post in response to the article "The climate nightmare is real and it is happening now" of 20 Jun 09. - JS

The analogy of the Titanic is apt in relation to rural communities entrusting those in charge to be able to deal with emergencies. Trust in government is appropriate (why we pay our bloody taxes), but government systemically neglects its responsibility and abuses that public trust. Government has the nerve to entice volunteer members of the community to do its dirty work - aka the CFA.

So individuals have given up on their government to be able to respond adequately to emergencies (bushfires, floods, droughts, etc) feel compelled to take measures themselves. Building a bunker is a vigilante response. I'm not saying its not a constructive response, but it is indicative government failing to protect bushfire-prone communities. It's like residents losing faith in the police and feeling compelled to being vigilantes. It's akin to Titanic passengers bringing along their own liferafts.

To attribute blame on climate change ignores the role of government and in the case of the 2009 Victorian Bushfires lets government get away with manslaughter - literally.

Look into the history of the causes of the Titanic sinking and one can draw many comparisons with the failures of Emergency Management Australia in how it failed to protect life, property and ecological values from the bushfires across Victoria last January and February. The root causes of the (a) 1914 Titanic's sinking and (b) the loss of 1495 lives were: management culture, poor contingency planning, design flaws, poor governance (e.g. inadequate safety regulations), poor operational response, amongst others.

The root causes of (a) the 2009 Victorian Bushfires being allowed to grow into unstoppable infernos and (b) the tragic loss of 127 lives were: management culture, poor contingency planning, design flaws, poor governance (e.g. inadequate safety regulations), poor operational response, amongst others.

The basic question is what emergency strategy was adopted to deal with the Victorian bushfires and why didn't it work adequately to achieve a best practice outcome - no lives lost, no houses lost, no wildlife killed?

A root cause of the firestorms being allowed to become firestorms from multiple ignitions is that insufficient dedicated resourcing was provided to deal with the hundreds of ignitions in extreme tinder dry conditions with high winds. The government agencies (CFA, et al) knew the fire index was 300, that this was the worst on record, yet did stuff all to prepare or warn the public. There was a wind change forecast, yet this was not communicated to residents. Relying upon volunteers to drive fire tankers to remote ignitions is proven as ineffective as pissing into a wall of flame.

The 1940's fire fighting thinking needs to be overhauled - by the time the 000 call is received, the volunteers are called in, drive their fire trucks out to an ignition, two hours later, that ignition has spotted into a fire front and its too late! Happens all the time!

Another root cause is government allowing people to build in the bush in extreme fire risk locations and in houses that are not bushfire resistant.

The tragedy is that after the Royal Commission, the likely response is to incinerate the bush like no tomorrow - destroy the natural environment that people yearn to be near. It will fail to recognise the complexity of the causes and the solutions and will advocate a knee-jerk - troglodyte ('ugg ugg') burn the lot approach. The Commission's verdict will fuel Brumby's Final Solution to prescribe Victoria back to the Stone Age.

A key question is what is government leadership in fire fighting to do - i.e Emergency Management Australia? How about four fundamental approaches:

1. Introduce world-leading scientific research and monitoring of bushfire threats - climate and weather conditions, bush conditions, arson investigation, lightning, and integrate these with bushfire fighting.

2. Obtain state-of-the-art monitoring of bushfire-prone areas across South Eastern Australia to the point where ignitions and plumes in the remotest of locations can be detected within minutes of them starting, feeding this data to a central database and to a standby emergency professional and national response unit.

3. Employ military-esque emergency services professionals to respond to ignitions within an hour of starting - airborne professionals, not a volunteer 'dads army' sitting in trucks.

4. Resource Australian Firefighting with serious air resources to combat bushfires with military efficiency and scale. A chunk of Rudd's $26 billion budget on Defence should have gone to setting up a national airborne fire fighting response division and an integrated satellite detection, alert and response system/unit. Isn't this defence at home?

Unless the above is done, nothing will change, but now that Titanic has sunk (Victorian Bushfires have killed 127, cost billions in property losses and contributed to many local extinctions) we no longer should be shocked when it happens all over again.

As for bunkers, no government will guarantee a bunker to protect life ever.

One must attribute responsibility to the top of government, down. I hold Kevin Rudd accountable for the next bushfire tragedy and we are six months before next January.

See also: "How misconceptions about bushfire bunkers may cost lives", "Fire bunkers could have helped in the Victorian fires", "Bushfire bunkers strategy an 'after-the-fact' dead end", and associated comments.

Introduction: The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, is seeking senate approval for an announced a $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan to support jobs and invest in future long term economic growth. The 'plan' includes "five one-off cash bonuses (of $950) for eligible individuals". These are proposed for Australian workers whose taxable income was $100,000 or less in 2007-08. There is also a Single Income Family Bonus to support eligible families with one income earner; a Farmer's Hardship Bonus paid to drought affected farmers and farm dependent small business; owners receiving exceptional circumstances related income support; a Back to School Bonus of $950 per child from low- and middle-income families; $950 paid to eligible students and people returning study to help with the costs of education and training.

Other measures the Senate is being asked to support are: free ceiling insulation for around 2.7 million eligible Australian homes; building or upgrading a building in every one of Australia's 9,540 primary schools; building more than 20,000 new, low-income social housing dwellings and defence homes; a temporary business investment tax break for small and general businesses buying eligible assets; significantly increasing funding for local community infrastructure and local road projects.

Commentary:

While I appreciate the seeming urgency of the 42 billion dollar plan - I totally agree with the opposition and minor parties' demand that the scheme be at least given a senate review.

Yes we are in very difficult times, but what amounts to a knee-jerk response, while politically possibly advantageous, from a long term view is very foolish.

... I can fairly predict that at least 15% will be siphoned off, to nobody's benefit.

Schemes like this (even though they may have had a far longer gestation period than we tend to be told) are wonderful for the opportunist "white shoe' brigade - and I can fairly predict that at least 15% will be siphoned off, to nobody's benefit.

The only component of the scheme that I can wholeheartedly agree with is the roof insulation - but even then, it requires a far more coherent energy target - as 'roof insulation' can mean damn near anything. Are there any targets - R values, appropriate forms of insulation, what about roof space venting?? Different areas of Australia require different methods - up here in the tropics - simple sisalation (double sided aluminium foil sarking) does wonders - but not on the tablelands - where you need something more substantial, and even more substantial measures are required as you progress south. There is no indication that what we are seeing here is not a 'feel good' "one size fits all" approach - which is exceedingly foolish.

I'm not sure about the primary school improvements - after seeing the 'air-conditioner in every school' issue of last year - which raises the State's carbon footprint significally (especially as most country school buildings were never designed to accommodate A/C - being neither insulated or draft-proofed). Plus the need for A/C is restricted to only a few days a year. Maybe some schools could use some upgrades - but this seems to be a 'pork barrel' issue.

Given the rapidly approaching issue of "Peak Oil", road infrastructure would seem to be the least useful use of the money - and the use with the least useful benefits in the future. Sure - many road projects are "shovel ready" - but that doesn't make them appropriate - Facing the inevitability of a fuel constrained future (very soon) - we need to be putting the money in to the provision of public transport and light rail where appropriate.

Some obvious areas - that would have a huge carbon footprint impact - would be the fitting of solar HWS to as many homes as possible.

Another - creation of "forest regeneration corps" - to re-plant our millions of hectares of marginal land that was cleared - because clearing land was Government policy at the time. Associated with appropriate training - such a corps could be really important for the long-term "carbon -neutralisation' of Australia.

And that's just a start.

December 15, 2008

Surprise, surprise! The Federal Government has welched on its emissions-cut targets to mitigate climate change.
The Herald Sun reported today that the reason given is that the Rudd Government doesn't believe "the world will get its act together on climate change soon."

The global emergency is being treated like some kind of board game. Why don't they simply cut population growth?

You might just as well ask a bunch of lemmings not to take a running jump.

This is from Monday's ABC radio national PM programme. Kevin Rudd comments on the emissions targets that have just been set: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2446990.htm

" The Prime Minister defends his 2020 target with the option of going higher if the rest of the world moves, saying it's comparable to Europe's response.

KEVIN RUDD: 'The EU's 20 per cent target announced over the weekend is equal to a 24 per cent reduction in emissions for each European from 1990 to 2020. Our five per cent unconditional target is equal to a 27 per cent reduction in carbon pollution for each Australian from 2000 to 2020 and a 34 per cent reduction for each Australian from 1990.

That is because Europe's population is not projected to grow between 1990 and 2020. By contrast Australia's population is projected to grow by 45 per cent over the same period.'

Note that Rudd totally misrepresents what is happening: The growth is 'projected' ... as if it happened all by itself. Europe has cut back on its growth since the first oil shock. Rudd is setting out purposefully to grow Australia's population enormously. It would not grow much at all by itself and, without his interference (despite the interference of Howard), would stabilise and hopefully decline within a couple of generations. People should understand that Rudd is forcing a population growth policy on Australians and is selling it to them by pretending he has no control over it; allowing them to infer that this is a natural phenomenon. It is not. It is a conscious, coercive political policy carried out by the Federal government with the complicity of the States.

Comment on Rudd's speech from a disgusted correspondent on [email protected]: "This means that the Labor Party is fully aware that population growth makes it more difficult to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but have decided to grow anyway. Australians will be faced with making larger cuts in living standards than people in Europe in order to feed the growth monster. We will be sacrificed on the altar of the housing industry by a government that represents business before the people."

.

Story by Catherine Case:
With the Community Cabinet due to take place in the city of Launceston where I live, I thought what better opportunity to ask a question of the Prime Minister about the government's obsessive focus on economic growth and their apparent blindness to the realities of ecological limits? I also wanted to try and ascertain whether they had any long term plan whatsoever to deal with projected population growth in Australia. Would they even acknowledge it as an issue? No one in the mainstream media ever asks these questions, the paradigm of "perpetual growth" goes unchallenged. It seems so blindingly obvious to me that endless growth is an impossibility. Why isn't someone - anyone - in the government facing up to reality?

Launceston community cabinet

On Wednesday 5 November 2008, I attended the community cabinet at Launceston, where I got to ask a question I had prepared in front of 400 people. Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, looked at me with total disdain and completely avoided (and in the most patronizing way) answering my question, which was:

Relentless focus on growth

"For me one of the most disappointing aspects of the Labor government has been the relentless focus and almost obsession with "growing the economy". It's as if every member has sworn to repeat this mantra as often and as loudly as possible on every occasion, as we've already heard here tonight.
Isn't about time that we stopped pretending that mindlessly chasing unending economic growth is even remotely compatible with sustainability?

Population numbers

Because underlying this whole issue is the unspeakable and forbidden P word - POPULATION

The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently projected that Australia's population could increase to 42 million people in a little over 40 years with Melbourne and Sydney both reaching nearly 7 million people each.

Is that sensible, desirable or sustainable?

Australia is in bad shape already

Aren't we as a country already seriously struggling with water supply, energy independence, food production, depleted fisheries, overloaded infrastructure and severe environmental degradation?
When will the government show real leadership on this issue and start to address the elephant in the living room that is population?

When will the government take the brave step of articulating a national population policy - one that recognizes REALITY and dispenses with the cozy fantasy that is the economic mirage of never-ending population growth?

Will this government have the courage to articulate a policy that, as recommended in a recent CSIRO publication, aims to stabilize the population of Australia to 25-27 million people by 2050?

And if not, why not?"

Prime minister Rudd responds obliquely

First off Rudd said that he and his government wouldn't apologize for wanting every "able bodied" person to have employment… the importance of strong economy, jobs etc.

Then he rattled off something about buying back water entitlements. Some more guff about signing the Kyoto Protocol. Some other far-fetched rhetoric about "sustainable development".

He said how important it is for Australians to address climate change and how the government is doing just that.

The only thing that even got close to addressing the question was something about immigration rates and how the government adjusted those in accordance with economic conditions. And Rudd cursorily mentioned "natural" population increase as if the government had no hand in promoting and encouraging it and was powerless to do anything about it.

And even though I'd addressed the question to him and the Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, Rudd quickly pointed at the next person in the audience with their hand up and didn't pass the mike on to Peter Garrett, even though he did with all the other questions to various ministers.

He struck me as a shifty, slippery piece of work. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But I would have liked to heard Garrett's response, and I hope to follow up on this.

General problems with conduct of the Community Forum

As well as the frustration of having the Prime Minister fudge my question, I found the way the community forum was conducted disappointing. At the beginning of the forum, which was already running about 20 minutes behind, after numerous welcomes and thank you's, everyone had to listen to Rudd for about another 15 minutes telling us about all the wonderful election promises that he has kept - in some detail mind you - and all the wonderful things still to come.

Yet the Prime Minister and his entourage were supposed to be there to listen to US! It was like an election speech, anyone would think the guy is still trying to get elected. Even his ministers were looking uncomfortable and bored. I let one of his advisors know in no uncertain terms that I thought it was rude and inappropriate that he went on so much. It was pretty obvious the whole thing is a PR exercise pure and simple.

By the way, I did get quite a bit of applause after my question, so lots of people were in agreement.

Follow-up with Peter Garrett

Peter Garrett just happened to be making an announcement right next to where I work yesterday. I was able to bail him up after he'd finished his official stuff and after he had spent some time placating pulp mill protesters with his reassuring words of how diligently he would be assessing the project against the extremely narrow commonwealth guidelines and how after all, It was Malcolm Turnbull who had approved it - not him! I had heard this before. At least he made the effort to go and talk to them which I have to give him credit for....

It was quite funny because the protesters have taken well known songs and changed the words to become pulp mill protest songs and halfway through Garrett's speech they started singing them very
loudly, practically drowning him out.

Anyway, I got round to saying to Garrett that I was the person who had asked the question the night before about population and that I had been disappointed that he didn't get a chance to answer it.

"Well," he said, "I'm in complete agreement with the Prime Minister."

Population was not a problem!! It was more important to address issues like environmental impacts and other things.

"But" I said, "Surely you have to take population into account, it's a major factor?" Did he really think that Australia having 42 million people was a good idea given the already existing environmental problems?

My recollection is that he said that he was not going to "talk numbers", that it was "not about the numbers". He reminded me that he had been President of the ACF for a number of years, arguing that this had acquainted him well about population as an issue, but it's not "the problem".

He disagreed with my "opinion" about population.

I said, "Well it's not just my 'opinion'; what about the CSIRO? They're recommending that this be addressed."

My impression was that he totally dismissed this point, and that he walked away from me, still pronouncing what sounded to me like platitudes about consumption, sustainable industries, etc etc.

Oh well....

My next thing is to fill in the form that they gave out at the forum and send it to him with some more specific questions. I want to see what he says when he has to put something in writing.

How is increasing the population by a million people every three years going to contribute to lowering Australia's carbon footprint? Don't ask big business, or the ALP machine, both addicted to "growth" defined by corporate fundamentalism, which means higher per capita consumption and more consumers.

So says Paul Sheehan of the Sydney Morning Herald, in an unusually frank and honest article in today's edition.

See also A reality check on Rudd's rhetoric of 28 Jul 08 by Paul Sheehan.

Paul Sheehan, commentator at the Sydney Morning Herald has published an excellent opinion piece A reality check on Rudd's rhetoric on disparity between the Rudd government's green rhetoric and 'brown actions'.

Mr Sheehan should be congratulated on having the fortitude, rare among his journalist colleagues, to state the bleeding obvious.

Below, are some excerpts:

Could someone point out to me where, in last year's election campaign, Kevin Rudd or his Labor cohorts announced they were going to commit Australia to a gang-busters immigration program?

Where was Labor's policy announcement that Australia, with its stressed bread basket living from winter rain to winter rain, was going to increase its population by 1 million people during the three-year term of a Rudd government? I can't find it.

...

This is the largely unmentioned elephant in the room in the debate about Sydney's housing affordability and availability, because Sydney is Australia's No.1 immigrant destination. The overseas-born population in Australia is already 25 per cent, the highest in history, and the Rudd Government is intent on increasing that figure. This puts Australia out of alignment with most other advanced economies, and is a major policy which the Rudd opposition did not mention during the election campaign.

I'm coming to the conclusion that our new Prime Minister is both dissembling and disingenuous. He has certainly misled the Parliament and the people on some big issues ...

...

... during this year's 2020 ideas festival at Parliament House ... Professor Ian Lowe ... was struck by the divergence between rhetoric and reality, and by the foregone conclusions built into the process.

...

How is increasing the population by a million people every three years going to contribute to lowering Australia's carbon footprint? ...

...

Despite the enormous amount of froth that has come from the Rudd Government about the environment, no hard truths or hard decisions have been embraced as policy. Instead, incrementalism has been presented as boldness.

...

For more, see A reality check on Rudd's rhetoric of 28 Jul 08 by Paul Sheehan.

Update: Kelly denies Govt considering Snowy Hydro sell-off from ABC Online News 11 Jul 08 (see below)

The Canberra Times has reported that the Rudd Labor Government is now planning to acquire the Snowy Mountains Hydroelectric Authority in order to privatise it. This is in spite of fierce public opposition which forced the previous Howard Government to abandon its own privatisation plans and Rudd's own pledge before the 2007 elections to keep it in public hands.

The Rudd Government maintains that it is "opposed to outright privatisation as such''. Instead, it plans to lease the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Corporation to private industry. However, as NSW anti-privatisation campaigner Greens MP John Kaye pointed out in a media release of 10 July, "There is no practical difference between Kevin Rudd's long term lease and John Howard's sell-off. Both would see control of the water in the scheme pass out of public hands to large multinational corporations."

John Kaye has warned that if NSW Treasurer Michael Costa succeeds in the privatisation of NSW's electricity assets, in the face of the strong opposition of 79% of the NSW public, that the Rudd Government may well feel encouraged to proceed with the sell-off of the Snowy Hydro.

According to the Canberra Times, the, by now, wholly familiar rationale for privatisation has been offered, that is, that it has to be privatised in order for the $800 million in investment said to be necessary can be raised by the private sector. No reason as to why the money couldn't, instead, simply be raised directly by the government either from general revenue or through loans was offered.

An impetus to privatisation also come unexpectedly in last week's Climate Change Review Draft Report. The report made the claim that ownership of the Snowy scheme by three governments NSW, Victoria and the Commonwealth could restrict future development and competitiveness in the national electricity market.

However, local community opponents to privatisation pointed out that Garnaut had paid no regard to the fact that the Snowy Hydro was a regulator of water. As former chief engineer with Snowy Hydro, Max Talbot, had written in a letter to the Prime Minister earlier this year after hearing that privatisation was being considered, Snowy Hydro was ''worthless as a business'' without its water licence.

''The licence is weighted towards the use of water for electricity production and trading rather than optimisation of the use of the water as an invaluable resource for irrigation, communities and the environment.

''It does not adequately regulate Snowy Hydro and contains compensation clauses that would result in the payment of hundreds of millions of dollars by governments to private owners should the licence need to be amended during its 75-year term.'

So if privatisation, in the guise of a long term lease were to proceed, the Australian community may be faced the unpalatable choice of forgoing vitally needed water or paying prohibitively for an breach of contract to the private operators of the Snowy Hydro.

Alpine Riverkeepers spokeswoman Acacia Rose was also critical of the Garnaut report's comments on privatising Snowy Hydro.

''The Snowy scheme is vital for water security and must be re-positioned for water storage and management despite the recommendations of Garnaut that focus primarily on energy generation,'' she said.

With diminishing rainfall for south-eastern Australia there will be less water available for energy generation.''

The fact that Ross Garnaut has so inappropriately used his authority to promote privatisation when privatisation has had such a disastrous track record and when it has been so emphatically opposed by the public, may be cause to question his preference for market forces, even if operating within the constraints of his carbon credits trading scheme, as the solution to global warming.

Update

The ABC reported on 11 July that Federal Member for Eden-Monaro Mike Kelly has put an end to speculation that federal Labor has done a backflip on its opposition to privatise Snowy Hydro.

In response to the abovementioned Canberra Times article Mr Kelly said that his Government has not changed its opposition and he stands by his election pledge to keep the corporation in public hands.

He claimed that the Canberra Times report was misleading.

Comment: The report didn't account for the inconsistency between the Federal Government's support for the privatisation of NSW's electricity and its professed opposition to the sale of the Snowy Hydro.

Appendix: Media Release for John Kaye, NSW Greens MLA

NSW power sell-off would renew Snowy Hydro privatisation push

10 July 08

The Iemma government's attempt to sell the state's electricity industry has become a test case for privatising the nation's largest hydro-electric and irrigation scheme, according to Greens NSW MP John Kaye.

Commenting on a story on page 1 of today's Canberra Times (''Snowy power may go private'

), Dr Kaye said: "Federal member for Eden-Monaro Mike Kelly has let the cat out of the bag.

"The Rudd government is carefully watching NSW Treasurer Michael Costa's push to sell off the state's retailers and generators.

"According to Mr Kelly, if Treasurer Costa is successful, the Commonwealth government will implement their secret plan to take over the Snowy and lease it out.

"It looks like a reincarnation of John Howard's privatisation plans that came to a sticky end in 2006 after massive public opposition.

"There is no practical difference between Kevin Rudd's long term lease and John Howard's sell-off. Both would see control of the water in the scheme pass out of public hands to large multinational corporations.

"The ante on the NSW sell-off has just been upped. The Iemma government's proposed sell-off is an environmental, social and economic disaster. It just got worse.

"The issue is no longer confined to the state's coal-fired power stations and retailers. It now includes Snowy.

"The state member for Eden-Monaro, Steve Whan, needs to get onto the phone to his federal colleague and reiterate the arguments he used in 2006 to oppose the sell off.

"No doubt Mr Whan will now be regretting his support of the Unsworth Inquiry recommendations to sell off the state's power industry.

"He will not be happy to see he has unwittingly become part of a renewed push to privatise Snowy.

"Mr Whan knows that this will be even more detested in his electorate than the already deeply unpopular power sell off," Dr Kaye said.

For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455