Australia accused of dragging post-Kyoto chain

Glen Milne was saying only today that the Australian Labor Party might spin itself into being the first one-term government in the modern political era.

I can see that happening, if they do not follow through with the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol they ratified on Australia's behalf as their first act of government.

According to a delegate at the Bonn summit where representatives from 172 countries began gathering proposals on measures to slow global warming by curbing carbon emissions and on how to help poor countries adapt to climate change.

Australia has been accused of dragging the chain.

But participants said not enough ideas were put on the table, and environmental organisations accused Australia, the US and Canada of obstructing progress.

The Climate Institute CEO John Connor said Australia must reveal how much revenue from a carbon emissions trading scheme would be invested in climate change initiatives.

"These climate talks have concluded amidst mounting concern, but not yet panic, about the ability of world leaders to conclude a global agreement by end of 2009 as agreed in Bali," Mr Connor said from Bonn.

"In the end all parties agreed that a new spirit of commitment and urgency will be needed to reach the shared desire for a global agreement.

"Australia can help this by signalling that it will do its fair share by dedicating a significant amount of its emissions trading revenue into ensuring developing countries build clean energy infrastructure and help prepare them for the impacts of unavoidable climate change."

The fortnight of talks in Bonn marks the first major climate change meeting since the gathering in Bali last December.

The aim is to devise an accord to succeed the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which set targets for 37 industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by an average of five per cent by 2012.

Yvo de Boer, the UN's top climate change official, said the proposals needed to become much more focused.

Harald Dovland, the Norwegian chairman of a key working group, was frustrated at the slow progress in Bonn.

"We need a completely new spirit of co-operation," he said.

"If we continue in this mode and speed of work, I fear we will not succeed in achieving the goals set in our work program."

Delegates will reconvene in August in Accra, Ghana, and again in Poznan, Poland, in December.

At least four more major conferences are scheduled for 2009.

Comment was being sought from the Climate Change Minister Penny Wong.

Australia only contributes 1 or 2% of the world's GHG emissions, or so we are often told by the skeptics. And, if you exclude our coal exports, they have a point. If we only sluggishly work our way down to our targets, we are not going to make much of an overall impact. The skeptics are right about that.

So if we (the people) are going to go through the pain of transferring from one economy to another anyway, then there is only one way to do it that makes sense, and that is to take a leadership role and make the maximum impact possible. After 12 years of being known as denialists and delayers of action, we are uniquely positioned to lead by example, but only have one shot at assuming this: Before the standing ovation Australia's delegation received at the Bali conference becomes a distant memory.

Vote 1 — responsible approach to climate change

The main question for me in the Australian Federal Election, with three weeks to go (thank god) is, "who now has the best climate change policy?" Of course the economy is important, but how can anyone not see that the economy is but a sub-system within a larger environment? A failing environment will ultimately cause a failing economy. Health, education — they are all up there for me — but they will nay amount to a hill-o-beans for our kids and grandkids, if we don't arrest the development of more extreme scenarios modelled in IPCC 4.

I predicted that this would be a green election, and thus it has turned out.

It's the 2020 emissions reductions targets, stupid.

John Howard has set targets for 2050, and so has Rudd. Only the Greens have set intermediary targets for 2020.

• reduce greenhouse emissions by 30% by 2020 (80% by 2050)

Life is a long game. I see a big future for the Greens with policies like that. Howard still hasn't got it. Labor lost my interest when they re-nuanced Garrett's declaration that Labor would not wait for China to sign the Kyoto Protocol before signing.

I have a lot of respect for Garrett, politically, and as the activist musician of yesteryear — it's his call to diverge from his stated principles and stick to Labor's changing party line — but they lose my confidence. I'm pleased that The Greens and Labor have agreed to swap preferences.

Vote 1 The Greens in the Senate

The ideal outcome for me would be to see Labor throw this deceitful government out, with the help of the Greens, who go on to secure the balance of power in the Senate. The preference swap is one step towards this. Don't know who I'll vote for in the house, but it won't be Barry O'Farrell, not that I will make a dent in Bradfield. Wish I still lived in Wentworth, what with all that barristerial battering of the current member. I do like Turnbull for the most part, though, he just picked the wrong party, and approved the wrong pulp-mill in the wrong way.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

ANZ calls independent Gunns pump mill environmental assessment.

The ANZ is creating an image for itself as a greener bank, as I discovered when researching who is behind Project Andromeda, a climate initiative by business.

So, what are they going to do about the Gunns pulp mill, which as already pulped Turnbull and Garrett and it is only in approval stage? As Gunns' bank for the last 20 years, they face a dilemma.

They have gone public when they could have remained quiet, hoping not to attract attention to a potentially unbalanced triple bottom line. So good on them. I know that the trend among financiers and developers is to take their environmental commitments seriously now.

It would be great if they were legally able and willing to make the environmental review aspect of their technical review public. As infinitely preferable as it is to not chop down productive carbon sinks, I mean trees, I'm not against anything that the stake-holding public has been fully informed about, as part of a two way dialogue.

clipped from www.smh.com.au ONE of the country's largest banks, ANZ, is considering whether it will fund the Gunns pulp mill, saying it must first assess whether the Tasmanian project meets its own environmental standards. In a statement issued yesterday the bank said it had commissioned an independent review of the $1.7 billion Tamar Valley mill, approved by the Federal Government on Thursday. "The review is testing the technical aspects of the mill's design and its overall feasibility with reference to engineering specifications, design plans and other supporting information," it said. "As this project proposal involves significant social and/or environmental issues, the technical review will also include an assessment of the adequacy of measures proposed by the company to manage these risks on an ongoing basis." Gunns has been a customer of ANZ for more than 20 years.

GetUp! gets $250K to put down Government climate campaign

Story so far ... John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, still hasn't made that trip to the Governor General to call the election date. That's because he is so far behind in the polls that he is foisting every bit of taxpayer funded pro-Government advertising he legitimately can while the election hasn't been called. Kevin Rudd, leader of the Labor opposition, is saying the Liberal's spend is $1 million a day.

But, the air-time assault is annoying audiences, to the tune of $243,900. That's how much money Australians have given GetUp! Sydney at time of writing, to run the anti-ad below, pointing out that the Government's greenwash media blitz amounts to advertising puffery.



GetUp! bought the following media time during the AFL Grandfinal, smack bang in the ground zero of the Liberal's saturation advertising. It's a goal.

Good on everyone who dipped into their pockets to counteract the misappropriation of their own taxes. It's eye-opening for normally politically-relaxed Australians to see how powerful organised, grass-roots, community activism can be. Here is the time GetUp! bought:

These are the spots GetUp has purchased to show the ad on Saturday's AFL

AFL Grand Final in Melbourne - 15.08pm
AFL Grand Final in Sydney - 14.16pm
Pre-game in Brisbane - 12.07pm
Pre-game in Adelaide - 11.08pm

Based on the overwhelming response we have purchased a further 50 ad slots in Newcastle, Tamworth, the Gold Coast, Lismore, Taree, Coffs Harbour, Canberra, Wollongong, Albury, Shepparton, Ballarat, Bendigo, Gippsland, the Sunshine Coast, Rockhampton, Toowomba, Cairns, Bundaberg, Townsville, Mackay, Darwin, Launceston and Hobart. There are none left in WA.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Climate Change in Australia

The CSIRO and the BOM put their heads together to work out what the findings of the 2007 IPCC Report means to Australia.

In a nutshell, we have to dramatically reduce emissions to keep Australia's average temperature from increasing more than the 1% that is already programmed into the system.

If this is a Government agency report, then how can any self-respecting Government ignore the implications.

clipped from www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their fourth assessment report, concluding that: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal Humans are very likely to be causing most of the warming that has been experienced since 1950 It is very likely that changes in the global climate system will continue well into the future, and that they will be larger than those seen in the recent past. These changes have the potential to have a major impact on human and natural systems throughout the world including Australia. The IPCC reports provide limited detail on Australian climate change, particularly when it comes to regional climate change projections. For this reason the Australian Greenhouse Office, through the Australian Climate Change Science Programme, engaged CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology to develop climate change projections for Australia.

Australia don't follow US climate policy failure — ACF

It seems I am not out-of-line describing Australia as the lap-dog of the US when it comes to climate policy, although Don Henry put it more diplomatically, when commenting on the White House-sponsored climate change conference, the Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change in Washington.

Don Henry, executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, said Australia needed to stop copying the US position on climate change immediately.

"It is disappointing the conference has not delivered,'' Mr Henry said.

''(US) President Bush is still resisting setting binding targets or commitments on greenhouse gas emissions.

"He wants the flexibility of voluntary targets.

"The US is the world's biggest climate laggard and are holding up global action on climate change.''

Mr Henry said Mr Bush's climate change policies were "disastrous'' and Australia had to "disconnect'' itself from them. "More than any other country on Earth we should tackle this issue seriously with our water supplies at risk and the Great Barrier Reef,'' he said.

"At the conference every developed country has taken on board binding targets and every developing country has committed to cleaning up their economy and set long-term aspirational goals.

"The only two that have not are Australia and the US who have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol and stand out like sore thumbs.''

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Emissions reductions — aspirationals miss the binding obvious

Condoleeza Rice sounds as convincing a leader on climate change, as she is on the Palestinian crisis. But at least she knows that others regard her warily:

THE US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, has tried to assuage European and green group concerns the US is trying to hijack the United Nations process for developing a new global deal on climate change. "I want to stress that the United States takes climate change very seriously," Dr Rice said at the start of a two-day conference. "Managing the status quo is simply not an adequate response."

Oh goodie... they are now up to speed in Washington. So how to they plan to respond?

But she repeated that the US did not support binding targets on individual countries - a key difference between the US and European position.

Oh — back to the status quo. "Yip, yip, yippy", yapped her lap-dog Downer-Under, issuing discombobulated climate policy like flying fur-ball:

Australia's Foreign Affairs Minister, Alexander Downer, predicted that Australia, like the European Union, Canada and Japan, would ultimately embrace binding targets. This was because it was essential to make the Coalition's proposed carbon trading scheme work, he said. "In our case, the way the binding target will work, we'll set next year an aspirational goal, then to make that work, we have to get the emissions trading scheme into operation and you have to have binding targets under an emissions trading scheme, otherwise you can't create a price for carbon," Mr Downer said.

The South Africans don't sound too convinced by the conviction of the Kyoto Protocol hold-outs.

Critics have questioned whether the US approach of voluntary targets would work. "We appreciate the sentiments expressed by Secretary Rice, but the devil is always in the detail," said South Africa's Environment Minister, Marthinus van Schalkwyk.

The Europeans are wary of a process that circumvented the United Nations. They were right about Iraq; they are right about climate change. A target is not a target if it is not binding. If it is not binding, if it is an aspirational target, it is a mere wish.
Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Australia most global warming aware. No, really!

I've come across this before, but it still catches me by surprise — the fact that Australians are at the forefront of global warming consciousness. A September poll by World Public Opinion.org shows that, despite our fossil-fuel fixated Government's penchant for future non-binding emissions targets we, the governed, want proper action now. A whopping ninety-two percent of us.

Twelve countries were asked whether steps should be taken to address climate change and majorities in all but one of them favored action. The largest majority in favor of measures to combat global warming is found in Australia (92%).

China and Israel are the next most likely (83%) to favor such measures. Eighty percent of respondents in the United States—the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases—also support taking such measures. The lowest level of support for taking steps to address the problem is found in India, nonetheless nearly half (49%) favor taking action while just 24 percent oppose it (26% do not answer).

In no country (out of 12 asked) does more than one in four endorse the statement, “Until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs.” The countries where the highest percentages favor delaying any action are India (24%), Russia (22%) and Armenia (19%). The countries with the lowest are Argentina (3%), and Thailand (7%).

How is it that we ended up so ahead of the curve for climate change, despite the long-standing counter-efforts of our Kyoto Protocol combatant of a Federal Government?

It's tempting to go for the low-hanging fruit and put it down to an outdoor lifestyle that allows us to connect with nature, or some other self-congratulatory nod to some aspect of Aussiedom. But I think it has more to do with the El Niño-Southern Oscillation inspired drought we endured. It impacted the countryside the worst, but even the comfortable suburbs of all major cities copped it in the daily image stream of cracked earth and farmers kicking the dirt. Soon the seriousness was driven home by domestic water-restrictions as local dam levels dropped alarmingly.

We responded. The masses let it mellow if it were yellow,and the immediate reaction of the wealthy was to ward-off zealous water-inspectors with signs indicating a bore had been sunk for garden irrigation. In time the water-inspectors appeared less Orwellian and somehow fitted in with the spate of suburban gardens that abandoned their thirsty, mother-country heritage to go native. Grey water was redirected over lawns, and Australia showered with a bucket to catch the cumulative waste. While the water drummed down on this latest symbol of a changed world, the plastic bucket, and we stared at the unhelpful dribbling from the water-efficient shower heads, our entire citizenry had daily opportunities to consider how things got to this stage. That's perhaps how ninety two percent of us decided that we are living through global warming induced climate change. A newly enlightened media, and Al Gore's phenomenally successful An Inconvenient Truth only confirmed our suspicions.

Giving this theory weight is that we did save a lot of domestic water. In Sydney I remember being down 25 percent on the previous year's consumption atone stage. The year-to-year worsening of the bush fire seasons also helped — another dramatic, big ticket item for the evening news that is easily linked to global warming.

In summary, I believe that a reason for our high awareness, is because our continent is highly susceptible to the effects of climate change. And it's only going to get worse. So close to the election there is no way John Howard's latest ploys to delay emissions targes are going to fly— in this climate.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Amazon Deforestation down by 25%

For whatever reason this has happened, surely it is a good thing. Long may it continue.

clipped from news.nationalgeographic.com Amazon Deforestation Drops 25 Percent, Brazil Says The pace of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon fell by 25 percent in a recent 12-month period, according to recently released government figures. Even so, some conservation groups claim the decrease is due to lower demand for crops that grow on cleared forest land, and not successful environmental policies. Between July 2005 and July 2006, the amount of cleared forest fell to about 5,400 square miles (14,000 square kilometers), as compared to 11,681 miles (18,800 kilometers) cut in the same period between 2004 and 2005, according to government figures. (Related: World's Forests Rebounding, Study Suggests [November 13, 2006].) In his weekly radio address Monday, President Luiz Inácio da Silva said he expected further declines for the 2006 to 2007 period—drops that he said will not crimp economic growth, the Associated Press reported. "I am plainly convinced that it is possible to grow while preserving the environment," da Silva said

Government splits climate change message

Today was the day that the Australian Government, notorious for dragging its feet on climate change, tabled its carbon trading system recommendations by the House of Representative’s Standing Committee on Science and Innovation. For a moment it looked like the Government was finally coming clean; The report begins with the statement “there is now compelling evidence that human activity is changing the global climate". There must be an election on. It appears Howard has minimised damage of his abrupt change from years of neglect, and encouraging activities that aggravate the problem.

But then the nutters of Flat-Earth Society of the Liberal Party broke ranks.

FOUR Coalition MPs have questioned the consensus that humans are causing climate change.

The four backbenchers have questioned the link between human activity and global warming, saying Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and Neptune are also warming up.

Nuclear physicist and West Australian MP Denis Jensen, former ministers and NSW backbenchers Jackie Kelly and Danna Vale, and Northern Territory MP Dave Tollner say the hypothesis of “anthropogenic" or human created global warming was based on theoretical models and unproven economic assumptions.

In a dissenting chapter to a parliamentary report, the four labelled as fanatics those who believe humans are causing climate change.

"The science related to anthropogenic global warming is not, despite the assurances of some, settled in the scientific community,'' they wrote.

"Another problem with the view that it is anthropogenic greenhouse gases that have caused warming is that warming has also been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Pluto, Neptune and others.

In this day and age, hey? My immediate instinct is that Howard is up to his old and mean tricks again. Mars, Jupiter.

MP Peter Garrett, Labor environment spokesman: "Mr Howard which planet are these backbenchers on?"

John Howard, Liberal Australian Prime Minister: "On the planet inhabited by people who hate the Australian coal industry."

Huh? Howard's nutters are equivalent to people who recognise that we have to cut our emissions? And he ties them, us, to alleged hatred of the coal industry. That's clever Johnny for you. But, he's not stupid either.

Peter Garrett: "Mr Prime Minister, do you agree with their views?"

John Howard: "No I don’t agree with their views,"

He's not going out of his way to censure them, though.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Alexander downs Alexander Downer

There were atmospherics over climate when Alexander Meekin, 17 years old, from Canberra's Narrabundah College took Alexander Downer to task over the Government's logic behind its climate change/energy policy in a panel debate.

Reprinted in full from the new-look SMH:

Alex v Alex: verbal joust has Downer hot under collar

By Craig Skehan

THE Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, may have taken a cue from the Sesame Street character Oscar the Grouch yesterday when a 17-year-old got under his skin on a live panel interview dealing with climate change.

Alexander Meekin, from Canberra's Narrabundah College, was one of four high school students participating in a filmed session sponsored by the National Australia Museum and the Parliamentary Education Office.

He asked if Mr Downer was a climate change sceptic. Mr Downer calmly acknowledged that scientists did "tend to favour" the view that greenhouse gases were a contributing factor.

The persistent student asked whether it was "appropriate" that Government figures such as the Finance Minister, Nick Minchin, did not believe humans were to blame. Mr Downer shot back that people should "escape from intolerance" about others' views.

But Alexander wanted to know if Mr Downer saw a moral comparison between tackling climate change and the recent 200th anniversary of the British Government outlawing slavery.

"No," Mr Downer replied curtly.

But was not climate change enslaving future generations to today's conspicuous consumption, queried Alexander. His peer audience signalled its approval at that inquisitorial strike.

The minister hit back with "Not too many people I know support slavery."

Yes, agreed Alexander, but slavery was abolished by the British only after a long, bitter debate about whether or not it was justified.

As the jousts continued, Mr Downer's temper frayed.

His tormentor asked why a regional program to reduce greenhouse gases was only worth about $20 million a year for five years - less than the Government was spending on political advertising to get re-elected.

His interjection as Mr Downer was answering another student was too much. "I am trying to answer her question and you are trying to make some sort of cheap shot about the Liberal Party," he said, later implying some questions were Labor Party plants.

Alexander later made a point of shaking Mr Downer's hand and denied being affiliated with any political party. He said he thought the minister was being a "bit paranoid".

The slavery argument is a doozy. The parallel holds under scrutiny. Slave-labour powered past economies just as cheap fossil-fuels powers our modern economy. The transition out of slavery to a free labour market didn't hurt the economy in the long run, back then , and made the society we inherited much better. The transition out of our carbon-slavery powered economies won't hurt us anywhere as much as not transitioning out will hurt.

That Downer could not respond in a civil manner to straight-forward questions from a bright 17 year old says volumes about the Government's inability to defend its climate change policy and, being kind, nothing about Downer. I'll make a prediction. Note this as the first face-off of many to come between an older generation addicted to preserving power in all its trappings — at the ultimate expense of the very climate stability they enjoyed all their lives — and the younger generation who will have to live with the devastating consequences of a global climate thrown out of kilter.

If people 25-45 are whinging now about home ownership or mortgages now, they should think about trying to chase the great Australian dream when the climate keeps changing on you. That is what today's teenager will face when he or she starts to think about partying less and making babies more — if the 10-year window that we have to get our global-warming act together is correct. That 10-year prediction comes from James Hansen, chief scientist at NASA.

Alexander Meekin can proudly claim to have won the opening salvo in this intergenerational contest that must happen. Tomorrow's voters must wrest the control over their future from the status-quo now — if they are to have a half-decent one. Clearly some don't want to wait until they vote to start the good fight. Good on 'em: They either fight hard now, or spend the rest of their lives fighting much, much harder just to survive. We need more Alexander Meekins to stand up, speak out and stake their claim on their futures.

In the sixties the younger generation challenged a self-serving status-quo with peace, love-ins and flower-power, rock 'n roll and pot. This time there is far more at stake, and Meekin just showed how today's young people can challenge far more effectively with unforgiving logic, and a handshake. That was a deft touch.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Kevin Rudd and Tasmanian Gunns control

He's a good 'un, that Kevin.

He definitely does not want a repeat of Howard's surprising ascendency in Tasmania with the forestry union at the last election. So he has gone to spread oil on potentially troubled waters where all the elements are at play — the loggers, the greenies, nimbys, and now a group worried about the due process — not — that the Gunns pulp mill development applications is going through.

Tasmanians could be due for another rush of blood to the head from being on the national stage once again, come the elections.

clipped from www.news.com.au KEVIN Rudd has announced a $20 million Labor package to support the Tasmanian forestry industry and assess the possible impacts of climate change. Included in the package is: $9 MILLION to boost the export of forest products through a Forest Industries Development Fund; $8 MILLION to address major gaps in knowledge concerning the impact of climate change on the timber industry and the vulnerability of forest systems; $1 MILLION for a Forest and Forest Products Industry Skills Council to be known as ForestWorks; $1 MILLION to develop skills data, and; $1 MILLION to help regional governments and the industry combat illegal logging. Mr Lennon said. "It gives equal weight to both sides of the forestry debate and would be welcomed by reasonable observers who believe in a balanced approach," Mr Rudd said his position on a proposed pulp mill in Bass would depend on environmental impact assessments. Gunns Ltd wants to build a mill in the Tamar Valley, north of Launceston. Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Australia's nuclear power created in Kirribilli

I hear John Howard will sign us up with the US in a nuclear pact. I haven't followed it, as I haven't followed any of his stunts since he jumped the shark, oh, so many stunts ago, so I am not really qualified to comment. But this does dovetail in with his ambition to make us radioactive green — the network of 25 nuclear power stations, the Switkowsky report — and his obsequious modus operandi when dealing with anything Bush. I don't have to expend too much mental energy to join the dots, especially now that his wife, Janette, has spilt the beans on his compulsive lying (I bet you she's sleeping on the couch at the moment).

Before he does sign, I hope he click this link by The Antidote. It is a catalogue of currents mishaps and disasters from nuclear installations around the globe. Would he have one in Kirribilli? Well — would he have had one if he had his time over again?

:::[The Antidote: So you like nuclear power...?!]

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Albrechtsen externalises, but not on externality

Janet Albrechtsen of the Australian newspaper shamelessly channels the spirit of Edmund Burke during the French Revolution when she laments that Howard's good work on climate change is just not understood by the Australian public. :::[Now for some sensible talk on climate change]

I love the way the headline implies that the talk up to now has been insensible. There's more irony in store — what follows is barely sensible in itself:

It's easier to listen to Missy Higgins, Wolfmother and Sneaky Sound System than read a copy of the Government's report from the Task Group on Emissions Trading.

It's boring to learn that Australia's economy and abatement challenges are different from those of many other industrialised nations, particularly those in Europe. And that our natural resources and access to low-cost energy are integral to our international competitiveness. And that any model for long-term emissions reductions must take account of the need to protect that prosperity.

Her reference to "access to low-cost energy" is were the flaw in her logic lives. Fossil fuels are not low cost fuels that protect our "prosperity" if the real cost is externalised into the future, and onto the generations to come, making that prosperity short lived. Leaving a tab to be picked up by our grandchildren in the the form of a debilitated climate. Albrechtsen's argument needs to address this to have any merit. Especially since it protects those who benefit now from leaving us with a debilitated climate, and all the implications.

What's so wrong with Wolfmother, anyway?

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

John Howard 2.0 launched on stiff, clunky platform

Things have moved on since the Office of Prime Minister John Howard first launched their rather flat HTML website on December 3, 1998. Internet stocks boomed, bubbled and burst. Enron collapsed and then, 9/11. Everything changed — we perfected the art of no longer needing words to describe things. We had WMD, WoT, GWoT hit in quick succession. Now we have AWAs, SARS and GHGs to contend with. Even technology has caught ADHD and spawned the iPod and Web 2.0.

What's Web 2.0? Well, from an election media strategist's perspective, it's where you will catch the elusive 18-36 voting audience hanging out, after not finding them in the tv, radio, and print media audience studies. This new Technorati will be updating their FaceBook profile, fine-tuning their Google reader, catching up on their favourite Blogger's, or uploading YouTube video responses.

They tuned out to push media a while ago, and turned on the interactivity, personalisation, collaboration and immediacy offered by a slew of social networking sites, wikis, and other self-publishing platforms. The media is the message.They don't read or watch news any more, they pick out their highlights with Clipmarks to re-contextualise and recycle it, or bookmarking it at site like de.liscio.us, thereby voting for their preferred news in the great, big, Google on-going page-rank election. Web 2.0 turned the passive audiences of yore into a growing cast of a dynamic, interactive play, writ large.

Has the PM and his Office been taking notes? From JWH's debut on Web 2.0, apparently not...



However, it seems from their rapid YouTube video response, that Rudd and his Office has...



At the unofficial start of the election Rudd promised to play with Howard's mind. By luring him online with his FaceBook profile, Rudd just pwned Howard's arse and exposed him, once-more, as behind the times.

On consideration, maybe I am being a bit unfair to Howard. It's just that my broadband is so damned slow.

Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Will Tony Jones demolish The Great Global Warming Swindle?

It is my fervent wish that Tony Jones exposes The Great Global Warming Swindle as a hoax and fraud on ABC TV after the documentary viewing at 8:30. He is a thorough and dogged interviewer and I hope he takes Martin Durkin to task.

It looks like he might.

The ANU's Dr Janette Lindesay and Professor Malcolm McCulloch, along with their Stanford University colleague, Professor Robert Dunbar, will address the scientific flaws in the claims of climate change sceptics at the public forum on Friday titled Debunking The Great Global Warming Swindle.

The forum will focus on claims that global warming is not due to greenhouse gas emissions but other natural causes.

Respected journal The New Scientist has also re-issued a guide to climate change myths and misconceptions it put together earlier this year, when The Great Global Warning Swindle was aired in the UK.

"Despite the claims made in The Great Global Warming Swindle, there is now an overwhelming amount of evidence that the world is warming, and that this warming is due to increased levels of greenhouse gases caused by human activity," said the journal.

One of the so-called experts on the ABC's panel that will debate climate change is retired James Cook University professor Bob Carter.

Professor Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community.

He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

Maybe it is a good thing the TGGWS is being shown on ABC TV. Their promo website message board is getting a workout, 800 messages in two days. Most of them indicate the public have a reasonable, layman's grasp of the science, and a sense that oil companies are behind the manufacture of the denial industry.

clipped from www.smh.com.au ABC TV came under renewed pressure today about its decision to air a misleading and scientifically flawed climate change documentary, with the Australian National University holding a forum to debunk the program. ...rumours circulate about editorial in-fighting at the ABC about the UK documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, that will air tomorrow night. In what appeared to be a defensive reaction to initial criticism from scientists of the decision to air the film, ABC TV asked Lateline presenter Tony Jones to interview the film maker, Martin Durkin, and to lead a panel discussion about climate change. Jones' interview raises questions about Durkin's use of statistics and graphics, and his omission of more recent research contradicting the claims made in the film. ...raise questions about why the ABC bought the highly discredited documentary... the Herald believes there were robust discussions between Jones and head of Factual Entertainment, Denise Eriksen, about his interview.

Robust is good. The question of why the ABC bought the "highly discredited documentary" is not hard to answer — the ABC board is newly stacked with Howard Government appointees.

Downer: Iraq war is about oil

The Aussie government ping-pong championships are on:

clipped from www.smh.com.au THE Foreign Minister has contradicted the Prime Minister, saying that the mission in Iraq is linked to safeguarding the war-torn nation's oil reserves. A day after John Howard said oil was neither a motivation for invading Iraq nor for staying there, Alexander Downer said allowing al-Qaeda to prevail would affect Iraq's oil industry and cripple the country economically. "They have to be able to generate some income in Iraq," he said. "The suggestion that the Iraqis shouldn't be able to export oil and generate any income to sustain an economy which has already been attacked by terrorists is pretty absurd." Global Warning Climate Change Energy

War for oil! Who would've believed it?

Flying a kite for the election, Australian Prime Minister John Howard backtracks on claims Iraq is about the oil, but is wrong-footed by current opinion. How will this play out?

From howardout:

clipped from howardout.blogspot.com Well, Howard may still be in denial, or damage control mode, or insane, but the rest of the world now knows the truth: Iraq - Oil supply is an essential factor of Australia’s presence in Iraq Pakistan - Daily Times: Oil key motive for Iraq involvement: Australia United Arab Emirates - Gulfnews: Oil 'key factor for Australia's role in Iraq' Turkey - Oil a factor in Australian role in Iraq: minister India - NDTV.com: Iraq oil security a priority for Australia: Nelson Germany - Oil slick hits Australia's Iraq policy Ireland - RTE News: Mideast oil priority for Australia Etc. Even the Canberra Times has a refreshing glimpse of the truth: The Japanese and the Chinese have proved that it's possible to achieve energy security without resort to force. Indeed, gas and coal producers line up to win contracts to supply their industries. Energy producers and consumers have a symbiotic relationship: both have an incentive to do business, a fact sometimes lost on Americans.

Carbon trading junction up ahead

The Australian Federal Elections 2007 will bring us to a crossroad. With the Howard Government committing to a cap and trade approach to developing a carbon market, aimed to be established by 2012, we now have choice at the election. In this article Steve Burrell of the SMH surveys the terrain up ahead.

clipped from www.smh.com.au Welcome to the Carbon Rush of the 21st Century, a potential bonanza that, globally, could make the 19th century gold rushes look small by comparison. But the precise path to the future - and the biggest winners and losers - will depend a lot on who wins the election later this year. While both sides now agree on the broad framework for solving the problem, they differ on crucial aspects, creating a new layer of uncertainty for business at least for the next year or so. Crucially, neither side has specified their short and medium-term targets for reducing CO2 - and won't until after the election. And that means the likely carbon price that will emerge is difficult to estimate even if you could predict the uncertain election outcome. But the price that emerges is central to which of the alternative technologies become economically viable, as well as the broad path of investment in existing generation technologies. Global Warning Climate Change Energy

Will Howard be alive to trade carbon?

Yesterday winter officially began in Australia, yet here I am still wearing me favourite t-shirt and blogging away in me favourite grundies. You, dear reader, should consider yourself seriously honoured.

So it is with a certain sense of irony that I witness that our prime global warming denialist, Prime Minister John Howard, release his Report on the Task Group on Emissions Trading into such an under-dressed climate. While his unprecedented acknowledgement of the need for emissions trading is a radical departure from his previous stances, and a welcome one, it is still hard to throw off those nagging doubts sparked by those within own party referring to him as The Lying Rodent.

ANALYSIS OF THE REPORT OF PRIME MINISTER HOWARD’S
TASK GROUP ON EMISSIONS TRADING

by Wadard

1. The PM's terms of reference are biased towards sustaining coal and uranium exports.

“Australia enjoys major competitive advantages through the possession of large reserves of fossil fuels and uranium. In assessing Australia’s further contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, these advantages must be preserved.
Against this background the Task Group will be asked to advise on the nature and design of a workable global emissions trading system in which Australia would be able to participate. The Task Group will advise and report on additional steps that might be taken, in Australia, consistent with the goal of establishing such a system."

2. Some of the submissions by interested parties are confidential, that is, not publicly available for scrutiny.

Why so? Is transparency not important? The list of 'non-confidential' submitting parties is here:

3. The Task Group Committee comprises of senior bureaucrats, mainly economists, and fossil-fuel industry representatives, not scientists or renewable energy experts.

The Bureaucrats:
David Borthwick – Economist and former member of the Office of the Prime Minister; Ken Henry - Secretary to the Treasury in 2005; Michael L’Estrange - secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade; Mark Patterson - the chairman of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (2001).

The Fossil Fuel & Industry Representatives:
Peter Coates - coal miner Xstrata; Tony Concannon - International Power managing director; Chris Lynch - BHP Billiton executive director; John Marlay - Alumina Chief Executive; Margaret Jackson - chairwoman of Qantas; John Stewart - National Australia Bank.

So honestly - do I really need to take this analysis further?

If the godfathers of the local Mafia and the Yakusa, the snakeheads of the Chinese Triads, as well as the financial manager from the Al Qaeda in Afghanistan opium franchise, their Russian Crime Syndicate partners, and the Columbian Cocaine Cartels were all brought together at the taxpayers' expense to form a working group to develop a framework to combat drug trafficking, and they sought submissions from the Banditos, Nomads and Hells Angels motorbike gangs, amongst others, would you read their report with confidence or amusement?

Well, that's how I feel about this task force's report, which you can download here and judge for yourself. Let me know what you think.

I don't like being so cynical, but Howard's track record in the integrity stakes makes Judas look like Jesus. I may be wrong to be so dismissive; it's just that they want to wait to 2012 to kick-off their carbon trading. That's five years away; Given Howard's advanced age I wonder whether he is having a lend of us all?

Global Warning Climate Change Energy