Go Greener, Australia

A new plan for dealing with industrial development in WA’s Kimberley region has been announced by Environment Minister Peter Garrett. The Kimberley is home to whale and turtle breeding grounds, coral reefs, ancient Aboriginal rock art, and has World Heritage listed sites. But it’s also home to a lot of natural gas deposits, nickel, diamonds and oil…

Previously, the Wilderness Society, the WWF, the Conservation Council of WA and FARA (and probably several more groups) were trying to preserve the region. Industrial companies working in the region include Woodside, Rio Tinto and BHP. Their mining leads to land clearing and increased water usage - which results in increased extinctions of local native plants and animals, and degradation of wetlands. The Woodside development has already destroyed some of the Aboriginal rock art, which is over 30,000 years old. But all that mining has been contributing to the resources boom in our north, providing more money and more jobs, with flow-on effects that benefit many Australians. So you can’t just ban any development at all, it’s not practical.

Garrett has proposed a unified development plan - instead of the current bits and pieces of development scattered over the region, with various environment groups protesting separately, everyone will be asked to contribute to a plan for the whole region, working with the WA government. The idea is that development will be gathered together in one area, the Browse Basin, while the rest of the region will remain free from heavy industries. At first, a few eco-groups were a bit miffed that they hadn’t been consulted, but now I’ve seen several press releases from green groups praising the new plan - the WWF has even called it a “paradigm shift”.

Is this what we can expect now that we’ve got a Minister for the Environment who’s actually campaigned for environmental issues before becoming a politician? Fewer talk-fests and “community consultations” designed to make people feel like the government might actually do the right thing, which are really delaying tactics in disguise? More diving right in with a plan of action? Garrett is one of the few ministers to actually have hands-on experience with his portfolio - he used to be the president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, and was well known for protesting against uranium mining in the Northern Territory. He’s also Minister for the Arts, which is a good fit too given his Midnight Oil background.

In the past, ministers for health haven’t ever worked in a hospital; ministers for education haven’t been teachers; and only occasionally do ministers for financial issues have any experience with economics or finance. We’ve had a bunch of career politicians, ex-lawyers, and ex-CEOs. It’ll be interesting to see what happens with someone who actually knows the issues they’re responsible for.

PS - I tried to find photos of Garrett actually protesting at Jabiluka or similar, but they’re not available for me to just take. This photo came from his own website, which also includes a list of books and websites he recommends. I see a few that I already know and like, so I’ll be checking out a few of those I haven’t heard of before.

I’m back! And it was lovely to come home to the news that Australia has (finally) ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and that the US was unsuccessful in trying to derail the negotiations in Bali.

So what exactly was agreed to in Bali?

• to halve emissions by 2050
• to negotiate a binding set of short-term targets in 2009
• to help developing nations with reducing their emissions and adapting to changes

The US was being difficult throughout the process, and managed to get references to the IPCC and the science removed from the documents. But at the last minute they decided to let everyone have their agreement, after everyone else in the world made it clear that they’d be outcasts if they didn’t.

The general feeling is that the US will continue to stand in the way of negotiations until President Bush is gone in 2008 (they have 2-term limits over there), and after that we’ll all be able to get on with things. This is pretty depressing, because the situation is incredibly urgent. What I don’t understand is why the US can have any impact at all - they haven’t ratified the agreement, so why do they get a say in the final Bali conference documents?

Still, it would be great to see the same grassroots environmental action in the US that put environmental issues on the table during the Australian election. Grist.org has an article about how we got climate change to be talked about here, and what would need to happen in the US for the same result.

At any rate, Australia now has to work out what our precise options are. When Rudd became opposition leader, he commissioned the Garnaut report. It’s a review of the economic impact of dealing with climate change, and the costs of possible strategies we can use. In theory, it should be similar to the Stern report, only specifically for Australia.

The only problem is that the Garnaut report isn’t due until September next year. I’d like to see some action sooner, but I’d also like our action to be fully informed (rather than the back-of-a-Weeties-packet kind of research Howard did). So it looks like we’ll be waiting a while for specific targets to be announced. I’ll be campaigning for some actions to be taken before then - such as efficiency measures for households and businesses, which have an economic benefit no matter what our final targets are.

While I’m away, here’s a post I prepared earlier! These are some interesting links I came across in the last week before leaving for my holiday.

Politics

WorldChanging takes a look at what our new PM Kevin Rudd has promised on environmental issues, while Larvatus Prodeo looks at how Rudd has given us Two Cabinet Ministers for Climate Change.

Handmade Christmas gifts

In my green Christmas gifts article, I mentioned that you could buy handmade gifts if you’re not really the crafty type, but don’t want to buy mass-produced imported stuff. However, I forgot to give any links to where you could find presents like that! Let me fix that now: Etsy has an environmentally-friendly Christmas gift guide; while Modamuse presents art and crafts from talented Australian designers.

$100 Holiday

At the beginning of my green Christmas series, Bridget mentioned Bill McKibben’s Hundred Dollar Holiday challenge, and I meant to include it sooner. McKibben talks about how Christmas isn’t found in stores, but in the time we spend with our loved ones. As well as his essay, there are tips and suggestions for cutting back on the shopping and replacing it with fun. (Thanks, Bridget!)

… a new chance for Australia to make a real difference to the impact of climate change. Now that Kevin Rudd and the Labour party have been elected to run the show for us, what’s in store? One of Rudd’s major election promises was that he would ratify the Kyoto Protocol - but was it just a ‘non-core’ promise to sway the voters, or is it the beginning of a new era of environmental responsibility for us? Crikey.com.au has tackled the question with two good articles.

The first is Rudd at Bali and Beyond, from Clive Hamilton (author of Scorcher: The dirty politics of climate change, which I reviewed a few months ago). Rudd is expected to ratify Kyoto when the next meeting of member nations is held in Bali this December. Hamilton discusses what Rudd will need to do at this meeting in order to be taken seriously. Other nations will be watching to see if we negotiate in good faith, and if Rudd removes the fossil fuel lobbyists from our international delegation. If Rudd looks like he means business, the rest of the world will be sighing with relief.

The second article is from Guy Pearce, author of High and Dry. He says that ratifying Kyoto will be the easy bit, since all Rudd has to do is show up at Bali and receive the gratitude of everyone who has been waiting for so long for us to join in. After that, he has to begin the hard work of actually cutting emissions. Pearce says that there will be several clues as to how Rudd will proceed after Kyoto is signed. If he replaces Garrett as Environment Minister, keeps taking the advice of ABARE on climate change issues, or delays setting binding emissions targets, then things don’t look good - we’ll have to make sure we keep the pressure on him for real action.

Only time will tell if Rudd will help Australia to do the right thing. I think the signs are good - but I’ll be happier once the Cabinet ministers are announced, and we know the fate of Peter Garrett.

This is my last post before the Federal Election on Saturday - I thought I’d provide one useful item and one funny item, because I think we’re all pretty tired of the campaigning by now!

Firstly, GetUp has a How Should I Vote questionnaire, that compares your opinions to those of the candidates in your seat, and tells you which ones you have the most in common with. They also have an election FAQ, which covers topics like how our votes translate into which MPs are chosen, how preference votes work, and so on.

And now for a bit of silliness: The Chaser’s Election Watch, part 5, explains how environmental issues affect the election.

Edited to add: it looks like Wordpress doesn’t like the embed script for YouTube, so here’s a direct link instead: Election Watch, part 5: The Environment.

With the federal election coming up, there’s been some talk about the Kyoto Protocol, and whether or not we should sign it. You can see who’s for and against Kyoto at the ACF’s election score-card, and read all about the disagreements between leaders and their environment ministers in the news. But what is the Kyoto Protocol, and why is it such an issue for Australia?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement where countries agree to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, on average by about 5%. Countries can trade any extra reductions with other places that haven’t done so well. Helping renewable energy projects in developing nations count towards their goals as well. There are two groups of countries: Annex I, the developed nations who accept reduction targets and report on them every year; and Non-Annex 1, the developing nations who don’t have to reduce their GHG emissions, but can join in the Clean Development Mechanism and get some renewable energy. So far, 175 nations have signed up.

It was negotiated in 1997, when Australia got a sweet deal which allowed us to increase our emissions by 8% instead of reducing them. But then we didn’t sign up after all, and neither did the USA. The agreement needed 55 developed nations to join to make it worthwhile, and they were a couple short. Finally Russia signed on in 2004, which made enough countries for everyone to get going.

Australia and the USA are still the only developed nations in the world who haven’t signed up to Kyoto. Some people say we shouldn’t join in, because developing nations like China and India don’t have to commit to any reductions in their emissions. As their populations increase and their lifestyles become more like ours, they’ll end up needing to produce lots of energy and make lots of consumer goods, and that will create a lot of GHG emissions. I think this reason is a cop-out, because climate change is caused by the pollution that countries like us made during the 20 century: it’s like saying “Well, we made a mess, but we won’t start cleaning up until you do, because you might make a mess later on.”

The other main reason given for not signing is that joining in on Kyoto will cost too much money, or reduce employment. This is a cop-out too: not only are there investment opportunities for Kyoto partners, there are employment opportunities in new areas like renewable energy and forest management; and (as pointed out in the Stern review) it would take less than 1% of GDP per year to reduce GHG emissions to an acceptable level, if we start now. If you wait too long, it ends up losing you between 5% to 20% of GDP per year, and even now some Kyoto countries like France are talking about restricting business with non-Kyoto countries, which loses us more opportunities and money. Speaking economically as well as environmentally, it’s stupid not to join in the only international agreement in place to help fix this global problem.

Climate change isn’t going away - we can sit on the sidelines and moan about how hard it all is, or we can join in with the rest of the gang and help fix it. I know I’d rather be helping. How about you?

Today is Blog Action Day, with the topic of the environment. I blog about the environment anyway - about what I do to live a greener lifestyle, and the places in Australia facing environmental problems. But today I want to look at the big picture…

Sydney Opera House mark 2
Originally uploaded by Elfike

Prime Minister John Howard called the federal election yesterday - this means we’ve got 6 weeks to decide who’s going to lead us into a future that’s definitely got climate change on the horizon. Australians have to look at what the country needs right now, look at what’s on offer from politicians, then make the call: who will help us most?

What can the Australian government do to help us prevent the worst of climate change? How can they help ordinary Australians make the right choices? We need to speak up and ask for what we want from them. Here’s what I reckon…

1. Sign Kyoto

The Kyoto Protocol isn’t perfect, but it’s the only international agreement that exists to work on this international problem. Australia should be co-operating with the rest of the world, not hanging back and waiting for a magic-bullet solution. The Kyoto nations are already making advances in technology and legislation that we could be benefiting from if we were to join in - there are investment and education opportunties that we’re missing out on. We could be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

2. No new coal

New Zealand has put a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants for 10 years - it would be easy for us to do the same. Coal already gets many subsidies from the government, from taxpayers’ money. Why are we paying for more greenhouse gas emissions to be put into our environment? If coal companies can build plants that prevent GHG emissions through carbon capture, using their own money, then they can go ahead. But until then, we can stop contributing to their pollution.

3. More renewable energy

Renewable energy, from sources such as solar, wind, geothermal energy, wave power and so on, are a much cleaner way of supplying electricity than the coal we currently use. Currently, our mandatory renewable energy targets are at 2%, and have been since 2000, while our actual renewable use is about 8%. Other countries get much more of their power from renewables: Germany 11% (mostly wind power), Spain 20% (with some regions at 70%), Denmark 20%. Iceland and New Zealand have 70% because they’ve got extensive hydro and geothermal resources to use. Renewable energy is ready for the mainstream. Even 15% would help our climate change problem, but I think we can aim higher. Australia needs to encourage investment in this renewable energy, and make it easier for both large and small businesses to get involved. This could open up new areas of employment, research and investment for us.

4. Efficiency standards

You’ve seen the stickers on appliances showing how energy efficient they are (or aren’t, in some cases). But what if we made it compulsory for all products to meet a minimum standard of efficiency? The government already holds products to safety standards, so why not have efficiency standards as well? They could be phased in over a number of years, and it’d make it impossible for anyone to buy an energy-hog. The standards could apply to new buildings as well - no-one wants to spend a lot of money on a home only to find that it could have been better. Some states are already introducing building standards, but it should be done across the board. Efficiency standards would make it easier for Aussies to reduce their energy consumption without having to learn electronics and construction techniques!

These are some of my ideas - I think our government should be making it easy for us to reduce our pollution and waste, while encouraging innovation and new ways of thinking about how we live our lives.

What could the next Australian government do to make it easier for you to live a greener life?

blog action day

Now that climate change is on the agenda for the upcoming federal election, have you wondered what your MP thinks about it? Probably not! But now that I’ve asked you, I’m sure you’re curious

The Big Switch sent out a survey about climate change and it’s solutions to each sitting Member of Parliament. You can search for your Federal MP to see what their climate change policies are. If they haven’t answered The Big Switch survey, you can email it to them to see if they respond. They’ve also assessed the policies of the major parties plus a few of the minor ones (Democrats, Greens, Family First), and some opposing candidates are answering the survey too.

I sent the survey to the Labor MP for my seat and haven’t had a reply yet. I also emailed Kevin Rudd: first I got a form letter response with Labor’s general environment policy, so I replied that that was nice but I’d like to see the survey questions answered. Recently I got another form letter from his office, but this time more closely addressing the survey questions. I sent it to the Big Switch to see if it could be used to give Rudd a rating on climate change, so we’ll see how that goes.

The site also has information about what climate change is, what you can do about it, and what people in your community are doing about it. It’s very encouraging to see so many people making an effort to change their lifestyles and neighbourhoods.

Federal Minister for the Environment, Malcolm Turnbull, has given himself a 6-week extension to decide on the Gunns’ pulp mill in Tasmania. He says he’s going to use this time to get a scientific assessment (something Gunns has tried to avoid) and go through the public submissions from activist groups.

The way I see it, he’s got 3 choices from here:

1. override Tasmania’s state government and prevent the mill from being built because it doesn’t meet Federal environment guidelines;
2. allow the pulp mill to go ahead because they think the economic/electoral benefits outweigh the damage to the environment;
3. stall until after the election because then they’ll either be able to do whatever they like, or it will be Labor’s problem instead; this works best if Howard calls the election right after the APEC summit finishes.

Each of these options means something different for the Liberal government in terms of which seats they might win or lose at the election. Insiders (video) on ABC and Larvatus Prodeo discuss this in detail. I realise that politics rather than good environmental management will probably decide the fate of the mill, but it’d be nice if *someone* were to discuss whether or not the mill is actually a good idea. Although 1 would be the best outcome in my opinion, I’m guessing they’ll go for 3. My fingers are crossed, anyway.

Federal Labor’s position on the mill is opaque, at best, or spineless, at worst. Peter Garrett (Shadow Minister for the Environment) has been questioned by Crikey and Insiders (video and transcript) but it’s a strictly non-committal party line all the way. I suspect (and again, fingers crossed) that they’re simply not being drawn on an issue they currently have no control over. As long as they’re in Opposition, there’s no gain for them in committing either way. This is frustrating, but unless they win the election later this year I doubt we’ll find out any more from them.

Also: I’ve previously mentioned Richard Flanagan’s excellent articles on the Gunns’ situation in Tasmania. You can read his article in May’s issue of The Monthly here (no direct link available, look for the link Richard Flanagan, Out of Control, May 2007).

The Federal election date should be called soon - and 24 hours after it’s announced, the electoral rolls will close. It used to be that you had a week to check that the Australian Electoral Commission had you on the list at your current address, but earlier this year the Coalition passed a law shortening that time to just one day. If you’re not enrolled correctly, then you can’t vote.

So, please, check your enrolment details now at the AEC Enrolment Verification website and update them if you’re not registered correctly. Get in ahead before the election is called and everyone swamps the website!