Stop talking, take action!

Why has the rate of smoking in first world countries declined significantly over the last few decades? Why can we now easily debate the policy options for a further reduction in public harm, such as plain packaging or tax increases? Once the public realised that there was a scientific consensus that tobacco was harmful to health and they perceived that there is a widespread scientific agreement they demanded action.  Following on from the previous blog “the 97% consensus” it is apparent that the battle to convince the public that consensus is not the problem, is well on the way to being won. But what then? What matters is not whether the climate is changing (it is); nor whether human actions are to blame (they are); nor whether future climate change brings additional risks to human or non-human interests (it does). In the end, the only question that matters is, what are we going to do about it?

One way of taking action is to make an economic case that being an environmental vandal is bad for business. Look at what’s happening in our nearest neighbour. Indonesia is the world’s biggest destroyer of forests and four multinational corporations — APP, APRIL, Wilmar and Golden Agri Resources — have been responsible for much of it. Until recently these mega-corporations were considered environmental pariahs, but suddenly things seem to be changing, with all four proclaiming “no deforestation” policies. What gives?

Golden Agri Resources led the way, announcing a no-deforestation policy in 2011. Under growing pressure, its sister company APP (Asia Pulp & Paper) followed suit early last year. APP’s metamorphosis was especially stunning. For years, APP had thumbed its nose at critics while bulldozing ever more forest. This was easy for it to do because APP is largely a privately held corporation and because countries such as China and India — which generally don’t fuss too much about the environment — snapped up much of its pulp and paper products.

But gradually, the tide turned against APP. Its critics mounted, its reputation turned increasingly toxic, and it began to lose more and more market share and an increasing number of companies refused to conduct business with them. Even if we’re dubious about their motives, their initiatives could represent an important wave of corporate realpolitik in our increasingly eco-conscious world. As such, they might become models for other natural resource-exploiting companies and business sectors internationally. Beyond this, the four corporations have large land interests globally, so one can’t ignore the potential upside of their new policies alone.

And if you haven’t heard about the growing campaign for fossil fuel divestment, and what it means for both your retirement funds and for the global economy, it’s time to pay attention – because now even the World Bank has come on board when it announced it would not fund any new coal power plants “except in exceptional circumstances”. Similar restrictions on new coal generation investments have now been announced by US, Scandinavian, European and UK development banks.

In January 2014,  17 US philanthropic groups with combined assets of about US$1.8 billion promised to sell their investments in fossil fuel companies and instead put their money into clean-energy technology.

“The magnitude of the climate crisis requires that we no longer conduct business as usual,” the Wallace Global Fund’s executive director Ellen Dorsey told reporters. “If we own fossil fuels, we own climate change.”

That US announcement came just days after Norway’s oil-funded sovereign wealth fund – which owns around 1% of the world’s stocks – revealed that it has already halved its investments in coal.

For Australians the answer is a no brainer! The national compulsory superannuation scheme has resulted in a vast aggregate of capital, some of which is invested in companies that are major polluters. For instance, Pacific Aluminium, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto, has burnt 850,000 tons of bunker oil in its refinery at Nhulunbuy each year for 45 years, generating, in addition to massive levels of PCB, nearly 2 million tpa of GHG pollution, is quite a popular investment with superannuation funds.

GetUp! should analyse the portfolio of the industry super funds, construct a list of all the companies that engage in pollution and campaign for all members of those funds to DEMAND the fund divest all the shares it has in fossil fuel companies before their businesses suffer.

Exploding myths – the 97% consensus.

Myths are persistent, stubborn and memorable.  E.g. ‘STOP THE BOATS’. To dislodge a myth, you need to counter it with an even more compelling, memorable fact. The Skeptical Science team set out to debunk two climate myths in 2013. They were guided by cognitive psychology as they constructed rebuttals to tackle arguably the most destructive climate myth of all, that there is no scientific consensus about human-caused global warming. This misconception has grave consequences for society. When the public think that scientists don’t agree on human-caused global warming, they’re less likely to support policies to mitigate climate change.

The Skeptical Science team spent about a year doing the scholarly research – reading the abstracts of 12,000 climate papers published from 1991 to 2011. They identified 4000 abstracts stating a position on human-caused global warming and among those papers, more than 97% endorsed the consensus. The goal was for the message of scientific consensus to push beyond people already engaged with the climate issue, and raise awareness among people who had no idea that there is overwhelming agreement among climate scientists..

The result was the Consensus Project website that explained the results of the paper with clear, simple animations. They released a series of shareable infographics, making it easy for people to share results on social media.

The second myth they tackled was the mistaken belief that global warming has stopped. This myth has many variants, such as “global warming stopped 15 years ago” (the time period varies) or “no statistically significant warming since 1998”. Typically, scientists respond to the “no warming” myth using statistical explanations that go over the heads of most people.They released a website with an animated ticker widget to show how much heat our planet is building up each second. The widget, which can be freely embeded on other websites, also includes a number of other metrics such as the amount of energy in hurricane Sandy, an earthquake and a million lightning bolts.

They knew the Hiroshima metaphor would be controversial but ultimately, the cognitive science told them this was the most compelling way to refute the “hiatus” myth.

So next time you have to argue that GHG emissions are suffocating the planet simply pull up the website and quote REAL stats.

[WARNING: the following video is LOUD and contains some swearing: turn down your sound.]

Who’s a climate scientist?

Cultural Identity.

The Campaign that I care the most about is to help the Aboriginals of Australia with their cultural identity. To be appreciated more by white Australians & give them more pride in their indigenous Heritage. This not only helps them to educate themselves but also helps them to fit in better to the current society. If we can see them looking after themselves & making a better contribution to society this would remove the stigma that follows them around even to this day.

As the Aboriginals look after the land this education would also give them better land management skills to make our environment better as well. As I see it they are the only thing in the way of large corporations from destroying this beautiful landscape that we are so privileged to enjoy. I have thought long & hard. It is not an easy issue to resolve. Maybe I can make it better & start something I can be proud of. I believe there is no such thing as a problem, just a solution that hasn’t been found yet. Maybe my idea will not solve the problem but I believe it will start us in the right direction.

I also believe in fate. This group & a project called inside out came into my life at the same time, coincidence? maybe. I am just going to give you all the website that I saw that inspired me to join this group & hopefully make my dream a reality. Please feel free to forward this blog to everyone you know, all your Facebook friends and all the other social media.  The more people that know about it the better.The link is “jr-art.net” it will take about half an hour to watch. I do understand that you are all busy people but it is, I believe a worthy cause. Please make the time & view it as it means a lot to me.

Dale Lomax.

A Snowy scheme for the 21st century.

Late in 2013 I attended a seminar organized by Stuart Blanch of the ECNT where the participants were asked:

Imagine a project that could help Indonesia achieve energy security, dramatically cut energy poverty for hundreds of millions, catalyse renewable energy production in Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries, cut regional carbon pollution, and transition Australia’s energy exports from risky fuels to renewable energy.

Sounds far-fetched? In fact, such a proposal has already been published in the international peer-reviewed literature. It takes several existing technologies already in widespread deployment, and joins them together in a new configuration on an unprecedented scale, in a region with enormous natural competitive advantage — north-western Australia.

This is exactly the type of subject that MUST be included in any discussion of Northern Development and brought to the attention of Natasha Griggs immediately.

Why negative gearing is bad policy.

The real estate industry claims that negative gearing is necessary to meet the demand for new housing [see RP Data article]. It uses stats from the period 1985 to 1987 to reinforce its argument. Nearly twenty years later circumstances are much different and it is becoming impossible to enter the real estate market because prices are being driven to ridiculous heights by investors cashing in on the generous tax deductions available.

The Conversation article explains how the CGT main residence exemption distorts the market as owner occupiers invest more in their residence, diverting capital from other more productive investments in the expectation of tax free capital gains. The latest tax expenditure statement costs the CGT exemptions on owner-occupied housing at A$30 billion.

Firstly, expenses are deducted from income in calculating the income or loss from an activity, and secondly we apply a global system under which income from all sources is aggregated to determine a taxpayer’s income for a year. Therefore, in the absence of any specific restrictions, losses from one activity can be applied to reduce the tax payable on income from other sources. All that is needed to prevent this distortion is strict quarantine of deductions. If investors want to make money from rent let them do it under an ABN, quarantining their rental activities from other income producing pursuits.

The tax statistics for the 2010-11 year show that 2.5 million rental property schedules were lodged by individuals, showing nearly A$30 billion of rental income received during the year. The deductions claimed against this income amounted to A$37.8 billion, of which A$22 billion was interest on loans. A further A$1.8 billion was claimed as capital works deductions, which allows a write down for the capital cost of a building used to earn rental income.

In fairness to the first home buyers the Tax Act needs modification to create a level playing field, simultaneously  adding about $40 billion to tax receipts.

Lies, damned lies and Kevin Andrews.

A report [Income support customers: a statistical overview 2012] showing one in five Australians receive income support has prompted Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews to label the welfare system “not sustainable” and order a review. Talking on ABC radio, Mr Andrews said: “With the population ageing at the rate that it is, we’ve got to ensure in the future that we’re able to sustain the welfare system, otherwise we’ll find ourselves in 10 or 15 years’ time in the situation that some of the countries in Europe are in”.

The ABC Fact Check team has used OECD stats to show that Mr Andrews needs to check his analysis of the report. After looking at the relevant charts compared to European countries the ABC concludes; “There is nothing to indicate that as the population ages Australia is heading toward the high welfare spending of some European countries. Treasury projections to 2050 show welfare spending as a proportion of GDP will remain steady over the next three decades.”

Declaration of interest:

The appointment of the Member for Menzies as responsible for Social Services is a travesty. Andrews is the troglodyte who sponsored the repeal of the Territory’s Rights for the Terminally Ill legislation, condemning terminally ill people to suffer in agony. Not content with traumatizing the sick and dying, it appears he is now attacking the remainder of the vulnerable in society.  Be afraid, be very afraid if you are old or in need of support because Kevin has shown again that he has no soul.

It’s where we live!

Northern policy has long been a source of conflict. Debates have raged about the success or otherwise of government interventions in indigenous communities. Quick-draw policy responses on complex issues like the live cattle trade have devastated many communities. Additionally, media images of coast-bound refugees keep the north’s strategic importance center-stage, raising unresolved tensions about our Asian-Pacific relationships.

Those debates are often crafted by, and for, a southern audience. In my view, we will continue to repeat the mistakes of the past until we rethink governance of northern Australia. Governance is not sexy, but it’s fundamental to making things happen. As a regional water official at a Mekong Basin workshop in northern Thailand recently stated, governance is “how society shares power, benefit and risk”.

The north is different to the south in many ways. It has a low population and institutional capacity. Land tenure is largely public rather than private. It is primarily an indigenous domain. It has enormous mineral and soil wealth, but resource limitations and a vastly different climate. Much of it is closer to populous Asia-Pacific capitals than to Perth, Brisbane or Canberra.

Northerners don’t want separatism, but they do want a genuine dialogue between northern and southern Australia; one focused on how the nation as a whole might secure better northern governance. Australian and state and territory governments should negotiate big policy decisions in the north and manage government policy and programs in radically different ways.

Read more at: Northern Australia should have a say in its own future.