Part 2: Discussion of the 2014 Coalition budget. A Christian perspective.

This is a continuation of my discussion of the article by Dr Brett Parris which appeared in Ethos.

Dr Parris discusses five factors which make the budget a low point in Australia’s modern history and which he believes should “continue to spur Christian leaders into outspoken and courageous resistance.”

Discussion of factors 1- 3 here.
Factor 1: Lies
Factor 2: The failure of neoliberal economics
Factor 3: Seeking a return to surplus on the backs of the poor, the sick and the marginalised

  

The fourth factor:

’… the abolition of the mining tax and particularly the price on carbon pollution is a triumph of ideology and climate change denial over both economics and science. For a government that would rather cut benefits to the poor than to raise revenue from mining companies, and with no science minister, these moves were not a surprise – indeed they were election promises.

I’ve commented before that I doubt many people who voted for the Coalition fully understood the implications of the manipulative, finely crafted 3 word slogan: AXE THE TAX. We’re now experiencing the logical, expected outcome.

When ‘reporters’, who we naively expect to do a bit of rudimentary research and actual reporting, encourage us to accept anorexic sound bites, instead of explaining what happens if mining companies are protected from taking responsibility for their emissions, this is the outcome. We pay. 

The governments ineffective and discredited direct action plan "will cost tax-payers $2.55 billion to pay big polluters to reduce their emissions if they want to" (my emphasis) 

At no point in Coalition policy is the social cost of carbon addressed. In my analogy of the golden goose, it’s the equivalent of the goose flapping grubbily around the neighbourhood entering your home uninvited, and pooping everywhere - but not laying any golden eggs. You come home every evening and have to clean up after the messy goose, disinfect your home and go to the doctor to be treated for avian flu virus – all at your own expense. The lazy owner of the golden goose, who has allowed his dirty goose to wander at will, simply shrugs his shoulders, shakes his head and says “tough luck, not my problem”.

“our current coal exports are causing between A$12 billion and A$110 billion of damage globally each year (in 2014 dollars). None of which is included in the coal export price.”

We, the Australian taxpayer are consistently and expensively paying for the costs of cleaning up the carbon from hugely profitable, multi-national companies. How does that make sound economic sense?

Factor five:

Lastly, making higher education far less affordable by deregulating student fees is a catastrophically stupid policy. It will increase poverty levels for students, increase class-based social stratification, decrease overall skill levels in the workforce, and make public debates of complex policy issues even more difficult over time as fewer people can afford a broad education that is not narrowly tailored to a particular job. Graduates will emerge with large debts which will harm their well-being and pressure them to seek high paying jobs at the expense of more community-minded jobs such as teaching, nursing, child care, social work and public service 

As for the persistent, and in my opinion scandalous treatment of reputable scientists, and science in general by the Coalition ministers, we’re seeing the shameful outcome of their dark ages attitude. Australia has enjoyed world acclaim for the inventions of our outstanding scientists, engineers and researchers. We have had good cause to be proud of some incredible inventions. 

We enjoy the benefits of science every day, yet this government chooses to cut funding, dismantle whole departments and trample on the hopes and dreams of children, teenagers and university students with their persistent attacks on science and allied fields.

The inevitable outcome [of funding cuts] is big reductions in the CSIRO’s research output. ... Research fields slated to go include neuroscience, colorectal research, urban water research and marine biodiversity. Research will be scaled back in radio astronomy, astrophysics, renewable energy, metallurgy, Nano science, and social and economic sciences. Labs and facilities that will close include the Mopra telescope, the Aspendale laboratories, the Highett laboratory, the Ardig field station and the Griffith laboratory in the Riverina.

People will be lost to science. Australia loses. Young people who have dreamed of work in a wide variety of scientific and allied areas will have to rethink their options. Those in the middle of, or who have recently completed challenging degrees, have had the rug pulled out from under them and are being callously told "earn or learn" when they've already accumulated many thousands of dollars of debt and now have little chance of getting relevant employment in Australia. 

We will all suffer in some way as a direct result of this frightened, frightening attitude that science is something to be scared of so it's being stamped out.  Scientific research and the positive outcomes we have come to appreciate from our extended world class scientific community take a bit longer to come to fruition than the proverbial golden egg. The long term implications are all negative.

Labor’s Kim Carr told Guardian Australia that "this is a government that has no science minister, no science policy, no technology policy, and no jobs policy.” There's a sustained attack on the environment, renewable energy and research. No matter how much they bleat otherwise, we see valuable jobs in a wide variety of areas being lost. We can see their anti science agenda. We see a marked lack of job creation schemes.

Kim Carr noted that the government is "not interested in developing our capacity to attract new investment, so it's not just the thousand scientists that will lose their jobs, it is the knock-­on effects that taking out that type of capacity has on the broad economy and particularly industry”. ( here ) In the topsy-turvy world of the Coalition, this is being presented as positive. 

Back to Dr Parris:

some of the most strongly ‘Christian’ electorates voted for these cruel and regressive policies. ... This surely points to a colossal failure of leadership among the Christian churches over many years. ... If one good can come of our current malaise, perhaps it will be the re-ignition of a Christian sacred activism grounded in Jesus’ teachings, fuelled by deep prayer and with the courage to speak truth to power no matter what the cost. (my bold)

Challenging closing words indeed.

I hope other religious people not only from the Christian tradition, but from the many other faiths represented in multicultural Australia, find the strength and courage to speak out where they see injustice and oppression and join Dr Parris to make a stand and speak confidently and openly about the damage the Coalition, as well as the vested interests directing policy (not just the figurehead, Tony Abbott), are doing to Australia.

I don't know the source of this poster
but will happily credit it. 

.

Part 1. Discussion of the 2014 Coalition budget - a Christian perspective.

I've just read an outstanding article; it's long and well worth reading in its entirety. It appeared in Ethos and was written by an intelligent, articulate, well educated Christian man, Dr Brett Parris, who is concerned by the 2014 federal Coalition budget. He discusses a number of significant factors in detail.

Unfortunately mainstream public perception of Christian groups is deeply tarnished, and this hasn’t been helped by the government requiring schools to employ Christian chaplains in order to receive a particular funding package. In my opinion, Mr Pyne has also aggravated the situation with his comments to Christian School Leaders that "the Abbott government had a 'particular responsibility' to private education, that they 'don't have for state schooling'. This sets up an unpleasant 'if you're with us you'll get funding, if not you won't'.

For non-Christians the original article provides positive insight we rarely hear about in the main stream media, where if it isn’t a catchy slogan, a smirking comment about a Christian acting foolishly, or a priest behaving badly, it isn’t reported. And that’s a real shame because this article is worth reporting and discussing.

Dr Parris discusses five factors which make the budget a low point in Australia’s modern history and which he believes should “continue to spur Christian leaders into outspoken and courageous resistance.” 

The first factor  is the one many people including me have commented on - lying. “Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s and Treasurer Joe Hockey’s wholesale trashing of so many pre-election promises is breathtakingly cynical, surprising even a jaded electorate” 

When public trust in our elected representatives is eroded so badly and people feel betrayed, shocked at the blatant disregard for common courtesy and decency, and feel that they’re being treated with contempt, it’s going to be very hard to have an informed discussion about anything. Trust lost is hard to regain, although, sadly, having a trusting, well informed electorate doesn’t appear to be either valued, or high on the agenda of the Coalition.

The second factor is related to neoliberal economics. Dr Parris describes neoliberalism clearly and without fuss. Do you remember the story of the goose that laid golden eggs? Neoliberalism is to do with the fantasy that trickle down economics will provide golden eggs for everyone - it's a win/win situation!!! …but really, money only flows to the owner of the goose who doesn't want anyone else to benefit from his wealth.

"Neoliberalism is obsessed with small government as a matter of principle without understanding the important role that public investment and good governance plays in sustainable prosperity." My italics

He then reminds us that a healthy, well functioning society is supported by a variety of public investments. The myth of the self made man conveniently ignores the important underlying role which public infrastructure plays. He couldn't have "made it" without access to the infrastructure which government borrowing and our collective taxes paid for. 

In my goose analogy, the golden goose is tended by a variety of skilled workers including vets, researchers into diseases such as bird flu and the people who designed and built its pond. The incubators for the golden eggs are heated by energy from a grid built by public utilities, and the eggs are nurtured in other ways, for instance by people using our public transport infrastructure to get to work at the golden goose egg farm. In other words, the golden goose owner relies on public investments even though they aren’t acknowledged or directly paid for by him.

This unacknowledged infrastructure is called INVESTment for a reason – they’re positive for the whole country, this is where governments borrow in a very different way to families. These are long term investments from which we all benefit, not just the privileged and powerful.

In addition he writes, “Australia has one of the lowest levels of public debt of any country in the OECD." That’s impressive! It’s also a bit of a furphy to also say that Australians are highly taxed, we aren’t.

The third factor where Dr Parris is quite scathing is “seeking a return to surplus on the backs of the poor, the sick and the marginalised.” Basically, "people cost too much" More here.

He discusses the massive cuts to foreign aid, our local social safety net being eroded, seesawing income support the unemployed under 30s, and cutting benefits for poor families which “is surely a recipe for increased depression and other mental health problems, family violence, alcohol abuse, suicide and crime”.

Allied health workers are expressing concern that they’re already seeing an increase in depression and anxiety. They expect this to only get worse as the hidden costs of the budget are implemented, and the flow-on from state and local government takes effect.

It’s also important to note here that the vilification of groups by the use of divisive or derogatory words isn’t going to make jobs magically appear. Imagine being a rural job seeker on unemployment benefits or a uni graduate with a strong work/study history, continually hearing yourself referred to as a dole-bludger who isn't trying to get work.

After tailoring your resume to specific jobs, attending interviews and not being employed through no fault of your own, you’re trying to remain positive in the face of derogatory, uninformed, cruel comments that don’t acknowledge or reflect the reality that there simply aren't enough jobs for the number of people actively job hunting.

According to the ABS March data there were

140K vacancies

724K unemployed.

These figures don't account for the many thousands of under-employed well qualified people, or those who have become so disillusioned, beaten and demoralised that they've given up hope. The hidden unemployed. 

How do we want our youth (and other job seekers) to see themselves BEFORE they attend stressful interviews? As failures? bludgers? As the guilty party who have somehow manipulated the country so there aren't enough jobs to go around? Do we want our graduates to see themselves as not worthy of a career after a long, challenging and expensive education? How do we want employers to view candidates who may have been unemployed for some time? As losers and bludgers? This kind of vilification is hardly a recipe for success. 

We know the negative, undermining effect of name calling, and how it erodes confidence and self esteem, yet not only the media, but government ministers are encouraging this sadistic, divisive pastime. In addition the government is doing nothing to address the complex underlying causes of unemployment, (here) and are persistently negative about supporting jobs growth in areas such as renewable energy.

It’s lazy to vilify people and call them names. It takes maturity to openly discuss and address the complex local, national and international causes of un and under-employment. It's shameful that with this Coalition government we see the former, complete with unfair blame, not the latter.

4: The abolition of the mining tax
5. Higher education will be less affordable
Continued here ...

.

When will Australia's fossil fuel industry stop receiving handouts?

Corporate welfare!

Tax-breaks!

Subsidies!

and fawning adulation!

What more could an undeserving industry lust after?

At the expense of other industries, Australian governments choose to generously support the already wealthy, demanding, powerful and often foreign owned, fossil fuel industry. Petulant, entitled, selfish, like an indulged only child, they suck up our taxes, demand more, and throw hissy fits and stamp their collective feet with fury, whenever a suggestion is made to curb their excesses. 

To continue to support the wealthy fossil fuel industry to the tune of around 10 BILLION dollars every year is unnecessary, unsustainable and unconscionable.

And yet the current government has shown by word and deed that when thinking of an energy future for Australia, they are only prepared to consider fossil fuels. 

It's a case of:

fossil fuels = all good

renewable energy = all bad.

There seems to be no concept that a mix of energy sources would be a sound investment, a buffer for a frighteningly heating country where unprecedented temperatures create a demand for energy to feed fans and air-conditioners. Not unexpectedly there are times when there is peak usage. Australians don't want to be cooked alive in their own homes. And while that seems like an overly dramatic statement, the statistics are there. There are significantly more deaths during, and immediately after heat waves, and heat related deaths are on the rise.

In late January 2014 in this article, "Ambulance Victoria says it received a 700 per cent rise in the number of call-outs it received for cardiac arrests on Friday, when temperatures spike at almost 44 degrees Celsius." There's also a rise in other illnesses as discussed in this paper.

And yet, it's at precisely those times when the air is superheated, that in Victoria, citizens have been asked to go easy on the electricity.  There have been rolling blackouts. The fossil fuels so beloved of the state and federal governments can't cope. 

This seems to the government to be time to roll out the welcome mat and increase our already significant reliance on, and subsidies to, the fossil fuels industry, to increase our emissions and to show that we aren't ready to take our rightful place on the world stage of sustainable energy.

Put simply we're being left behind. Australia is a 'has-been', following the same well worn coal fired path, spewing emissions carelessly into the air, sullying water and leaving sick people and ailing communities in its coal dust wake.

There is massive potential for growth in the alternative energy sector. We have skilled professional, and trades people keen to be involved with what should be a positive growth market. This is a real opportunity for jobs creation! Yet, obstacles are created, hurdles erected and alternatives to fossil fuels are consistently, persistently talked down. 

I've worked with people who are enthusiastic, ready, willing and able to take up positions in the sustainable energy field. It's where their passion lies and they want to be part of a positive future for Australia and see us take our place alongside other countries looking forward, not backward.

They want to have hope that their children will have a positive future, not one supporting climate change and contributing to appalling pollution in developing countries.

Our creative talent is going to waste in this area. We could be proudly sponsoring people and groups to attend international sustainability forums and strut our stuff on the world stage. As a nation, we should be receiving positive accolades, and celebrating!

We're an international laughing stock when it comes to wind power and having a Prime Minister who listens to fringe, discredited pseudo-science as opposed to reputable evidence. Too many other countries to mention are harvesting wind, solar and wave energy. We are far, far behind the 8 ball and need to do a lot to catch up and join this positive, growing international movement.

To take our place alongside the rest of the world who are actively investing in sustainable energy technologies and consequently employing thousands of people, we need to encourage and support our best and brightest minds. Encourage them to stay here and use their expertise to assist Australia to catch up with what's happening in sustainable energy in other parts of the world. How exciting it'll be when we join in with other countries who are already getting up to 40% and often more of their energy from sustainable sources such as wind, wave and solar.

How embarrassing that in this day and age, we'll need to catch up to the rest of the world. How shameful that 5% use of sustainable energy is referred to by our PM as "reliance".

We're not even in the ball park we're so far behind! It's already bad enough attempting to explain to people in Scotland, Ireland, Germany, The Czech Republic and many other European countries as well as a significant number in Africa, why we don't harvest our abundant sun and have solar panels on every roof and wind turbines capturing the wind. They shake their heads in disbelief.

So many countries and regions are doing better than Australia in lowering their emissions. We look pathetic and incompetent while they can strut around pointing at their reduced emissions and be proud of what they're doing in contributing less to climate change. Not only are they reducing their emissions and increasing employment in sustainable energy, but they are therefore less reliant on our fossil fuel exports. Good on them I say!

If Australia is genuinely dedicated to ensuring future energy security, stability and needs, we'll plan for a solid mix of alternative sources alongside fossil fuels.

It should not be a one size fits all either/or scenario where fossil fuels are the only option. It's not a competition, though it's often presented as one. When all our energy sources come from the one kind of energy basket it's a recipe for disaster. There is no back up plan, no plan B, no choice - we are completely at the mercy of that industry.

We should be focusing on Australia going into an uncertain and increasingly volatile climate future where a balanced portfolio of energy is supplied from different sources. 

I'd love to see the government have the courage to remove subsidies, tax breaks and all other forms of hidden assistance from fossil fuel companies and put that level of support into renewable energy. Predictably, the companies become hysterical whenever they're asked to play fair, but it'd finally show how much they rely on government support via our taxes.

The next best thing would be for the subsidies and supports that the fossil fuel companies receive, to be mentioned with the same enthusiasm that the supposed negatives regarding sustainable energy are. 

Illnesses directly related to the extraction of coal have been known for many, many years. They're real, verifiable and have a huge cost, not only on the person suffering, but on their family and community. Yet this massive cost is consistently ignored when fossil fuels are discussed. These real, genuine illnesses, which leave people with asthma and cancers which have occurred due to coal dust, should be mentioned alongside EVERY spurious comment made about renewable energy. 

It's then that the true cost of fossil fuel energy would begin to be understood and a more informed, balanced and honest discussion could take place.  

Any government that is serious about jobs growth will support alternative energy.

Any government that is serious about community health and the significant costs associated with illnesses as a direct result of fossil fuel extraction and in particular coal, will support alternative energy.

Any government that is serious about planning for the future will support alternative energy.  

What will Australia's government choose?

Part of a small mixed farm - including solar
 The Czeck Republic

Now that's what I call a wind farm. Tehachapi Pass. California.

And just in from the IMF:

The planet is "perilously close" to a climate change tipping point, and requires urgent cooperation between countries, cities and businesses, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde has said.  

Addressing an audience in London, Lagarde said reducing subsidies for fossil fuels and pricing carbon pollution should be priorities for governments around the world.

More reading: 

From Laggard to Leader. How Australia can Lead the World to Zero Carbon Prosperity
http://bze.org.au/laggardtoleader

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/big-fall-in-electricity-sector-emissions-since-carbon-tax-20140205-320a6.html


http://theconversation.com/when-will-australians-finally-stop-wasting-our-energy-21574?utm_source=ReNew+eNewsletter&utm_campaign=a05760e871-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b6052baff3-a05760e871-248887757



.

The environment minister receives a massive petition from GetUp to "Save the reef"

"Look mummy, there's a shark!"

A young child squeaks in delight as a shark, turtle, crab, assorted fish and a man in a wet-suit complete with spear gun, walk past the Fred Smith Reserve playground in Hastings Vic, with the express purpose of delivering a petition, recently signed by 243,236 people (and still coming in!), to the Environment Minister's office. 

Small groups of people formed, chatted for a while, then reformed as they either met up with acquaintances or used the opportunity to expand their network of friendly, local, like minded people. 

The atmosphere was warm and welcoming. I'd been unsure what to expect as I hadn't attended a GetUp function before, but the email I received had been positive and explained what to expect when I arrived. What they hadn't mentioned was to expect dozens and dozens of cheerful, local people, many decked out in orange, all with the purpose of standing up for what is important. Some people clearly knew each other but there was a welcoming air and above the general hubbub of chatter you could hear words like 'dugongs', 'turtles', 'mangroves' and 'our children's future'. It was great! 

I chatted with someone who had taken time off work to attend. She'd told her boss that she had an important appointment that she couldn't miss and which couldn't be changed. She also hadn't been to a Get Up event before but felt this was too important not to support. It was local, and she wanted to be there in person to show solidarity for our natural heritage.

Young mums had picked their children up from kinder and come down, a couple of tradies seemed to have downed tools for a while to make time to come along. All age ranges were represented from children in prams to the elderly with walking sticks and everyone in between. 

After a short briefing we set off like a long undulating, orange reef-worm past the playground and shops towards Mr Hunt's office.  Enthusiastically waving drivers were tooting and cheering - that was unexpected and fun!

I remember hearing once that each person who shows up at something like this represents hundreds of people who are unable to attend. I wonder how many people are represented by tooting?!

There was no guarantee that Mr Hunt would be there in person to receive the masses of signatures and see the large group of people from the electorate who had made the effort to show support. But Sam, a GetUp organiser checked; it seems that Mr Hunt was expecting us!  Sam escorted Mr Hunt out to meet the enthusiastic throng.

Sam spoke to Mr Hunt, the media and the crowd about why we were all there - in short to protect the Reef. He was professional, respectful, assured ... and very tall!

Fiona Maxwell, another Get Up organiser also spoke and gave Mr Hunt the placard stating that "243,236 Australians say SAVE OUR REEF". She was thoroughly professional and spoke courteously, yet strongly about how the reef needs to be protected for future generations. 

People who speak disparagingly about Gen Y, about the cult of the self, of selfishness and self-centredness, could get out and spend time with the young activists who will be impacted dramatically by climate change. Many of them are not only aware of the damage climate events will have on their lives, but are committed to doing whatever they can to avert the worst of the impacts. They are truly wonderful and worthy of our respect and commendation.

 

Mr Hunt appeared to listen and was gracious in his reply. He acknowledged the organisers and crowd and accepted the petitions with respect. I was quite relieved as a friend had been involved in presenting a petition to a state minister who had received them with a smirk, then with her watching, had put them straight in the bin. Hardly the response worthy of an elected representative. Mr Hunt, in contrast, appeared to acknowledge the concerns and gave the impression that he'd listen. He then invited a small group into his office to discuss the matter. If/when I hear the outcome of that meeting, I'll add a link.

I've written a bit about the Great Barrier Reef in the past, the first post was in 2011. It's incredibly disheartening to realise that it still has no real security and even though Mr Hunt spoke soothingly, and appeared to acknowledge and understand the concerns expressed, I don't feel entirely reassured that he fully realises the enormous implications from continuing and increasing the use of fossil fuels. However, that's a much bigger issue that what was being specifically addressed today. 

The Great Barrier Reef has been described as one of the 7 wonders of the natural world, as a treasure, as a gift. Surely we should be responsible stewards for this magnificent area and not continue to treat it as a temporary and irrelevant inconvenience. How about we stop treating the fossil fuel industry with kid gloves and kow-towing to their every whim? 

How about we factor in the cost of health care, pollution and environmental damage for those people and areas impacted by fossil fuel mining? My grumpy post about that is at: The vital topic that's not being discussed this election.

Whether the Great Barrier Reef will be adequately and appropriately protected - who knows. However, for myself, and for many others, we can say "we did our best". I know there are many, many other groups both in Australia and around the world trying to get assurance that the reef shouldn't be lined with ports to transport fossil fuels and that dredging shouldn't be allowed. Let's hope that once and for all, sound action is taken to preserve what's left of this incredible wonder!

I grumbled here after seeing the excellent 4 corners programme: The Great Barrier Grief. 

A year later, in 2012, not much had changed, the threats to the reef continued and I wondered if it was to become an open sewer. 

Why the Great Barrier Reef is worth preserving from GetUp!

• The Great Barrier Reef is the largest coral reef in the world and is recognised as a global treasure, due to the amazing biodiversity which it sustains and it's unparalleled beauty.
• The Great Barrier Reef is one of the 7 Wonders of the Natural World.
• The reef brings in billions of dollars of economic activity every year and supports tens of thousands of jobs in tourism and the fishing industry.
• The largest dredging project ever undertaken in Australia was approved to occur within the Great Barrier Reef WHA, at Gladstone Harbour, and is slated to remove a total of around 50 million cubic metres of soil.
• The ecosystem of the GBR is already very fragile and is facing total collapse with the added pressure of the dredging, which releases toxic chemicals into the sea.
• In the past 6 months (the first stage of dredging) there has been a steep increase in deaths of endangered marine wildlife - 6 dolphins, 10 dugongs and 231 turtles have washed up dead near Gladstone on the Great Barrier Reef.
• Fishermen and their families have been getting sick and have noticed that many of the fish have washed up with a strange flesh disease.
• The Australian government failed to inform UNESCO of the approval of the gas facilities in the Great Barrier Reef WHA.

And if you would like to email Mr Hunt and ask him to say no to all mega-ports and shipping superhighways along the Great Barrier Reef coastline: 

www.getup.org.au/email-greg-hunt 

.

The vital topic that's not being discussed this election

For a long time I've been trying to get my head around something that seems completely illogical and so far, I'm simply not getting there. Maybe you can show me where my logic is out of whack?

The role humans play in climate change is accepted in 97% of the world's peer reviewed climate papers, the burning of fossil fuels is a known factor in climate change. The scientists conducting the studies are experts in their field and have devoted their careers to the study of climate, and I accept and respect their expertise.

Health impacts
What is routinely overlooked are the health impacts from the extraction and burning of coal - coal dust makes people ill. Not just an itchy throat kind of ill, but debilitating, health destroying cancers, strokes and lung diseases - extremely unpleasant illnesses to have and all because of exposure to coal dust (also here).

At the moment those health costs are borne by the individual and community while our government subsidises the companies to extract the coal. Seriously, our government pays foreign owned companies to remove part of our country which can never be replaced to sell it overseas. And that's good because some jobs have been created. And any job is a good job. Even if it's slowly poisoning you. So they say.

But if the cost of personal and environmental ill health was factored in, and the generous subsidies removed, how viable would fossil fuels really be? 

"A major Chinese power company is in line to win millions of dollars in federal and state government grant money to develop Victorian brown coal." The Age

Development? How is it development? That implies to improve. I've tried to see where this is good and how we benefit, but try as I might, I'm at a loss. Not only are we paying a foreign company to rip out our coal and poison our communities, but it's also directly contributing to climate issues. That's not particularly smart is it? Or else I've got it all wrong. And so have the doctors, the scientists and every other trustworthy person involved.

We are only ever told that coal mining is good for the country. How is this good? Our taxes are at work to subsidise foreign companies to dig up our coal (which can never be replaced) and ship it away to other countries. We're not stockpiling it for future use, to use within a mix of sustainable technologies. It's gone. Forever. And we're left with the clean up bill. And we're told we don't want these companies to be taxed for polluting our land, our water, our sky, our communities. Really? Why not?

Some people have jobs with the fossil fuel companies. Some people get very ill. So more of our taxes are used to assist them with doctor and hospital visits, medications, nursing, maybe even palliative care. And funding is pulled from hospitals, there are cuts to nursing and beds are closed. What a lucky country!

We're left with the costs of pollution of land and waterways. With the loss of drinkable water. Loss of environment. With the ongoing expensive health impacts, not only for the people who made a conscious decision to work in coal dust, but for the innocent families and children living nearby. And this is good. So they say. But I'm not convinced.

Alternative energy
Then, in Victoria, we have the vilification of alternative energy, and in particular wind power. On health grounds. Some people report getting headaches and not being able to sleep. Really? And in its wisdom, the Victorian Government makes the wind industry jump over all sorts of hurdles that aren't applied with the same enthusiasm when it comes to coal and CSG.

The government listens to a cashed up, vocal minority who are repeatedly discredited and yet NEVER comment on the very real and negative aspects of reliance on coal. It's hard not to be cynical. The vocal minority who don't like wind power and with spurious claims have more clout than those suffering with real, genuine and identifiable diseases. It's as if the people living in and around coal mines and coal fired power stations are expendable. Their lives are of less importance. That seems to be the unspoken message from the government. And this is good. So they say. But it doesn't seem right to me.

Doctors warn of "the costly legacy unfolding for Australia from under-regulation of the pollution caused by many [coal and CSG] resource projects" (link). Yet simultaneously we have over-regulation and rejection of studies in the case of wind power. Who benefits from this inconsistency? ...

"It is clear that State government approvals of coal and coal seam gas projects are often influenced by potential economic gain without thorough assessment of potential harms," said DEA spokesperson, Dr David Shearman.  

"Permitting dangerous pollution is creating a costly legacy for Australia that is being picked up in the healthcare and other sectors."  

"The social and financial costs of this pollution are not being measured or factored in when projects are given the go ahead." (here) 

But 'no worries' says the government, and gives the green light to more and more coal and CSG operations - and people who live along roads and train-lines where the coal is transported continue to get ill. But this is good for the country. So they say.

My apologies. I don't have the source for this graphic.

The end of coal?
And while all this is happening (or not in the case of wind farms) ...

"Goldman Sachs this month produced an explosive report, titled "The window for thermal coal investment is closing." In it, the bank revealed that "thermal coal's current position atop the fuel mix for global power generation will be gradually eroded by the following structural trends:
1) environmental regulations that discourage coal-fired generation
2) strong competition from gas and renewable energy and
3) improvements in energy efficiency." 

and of a statement that should be of great concern to everyone:
"there is little evidence Australian Governments are acting to adjust our economic and social structure to the reality that coal is over: despite knowing this must be the case if we are to avoid dangerous levels of global warming and if emerging economies are to act on the health and water crises precipitated by their too-fast growth of coal power." (here) (my bold)

And so we come to an election where none of this is mentioned. Not climate change. Not our role in it. Nothing about building a resilient country. Nothing at all from the major parties about plans for the inevitable impacts of rising seas, changing and erratic weather patterns and the effect this will have on food production or communities and cities. Nothing about the clash of water requirements for people, farming, agriculture, mining. Nothing to do with the incredible heating of our country. Nothing. Not a hint that with climate change, we are currently facing what has been described as "one of the greatest threats posed to the future of human-kind and the world"- Stephen Hawking.

In the minds of Australian politicians feted by our embarrassingly mediocre media, these issues don't rate a mention, and in the case of Tony Abbott they're shunned. And I'm appalled because our changing climate affects us all whether we like it or not.

To date, glib politicians are showing a marked lack of understanding, wisdom, courage and leadership on climate change. Hiding their heads and continuing to support coal so generously doesn't appear to benefit Australia or the world. (For an Indian perspective on Australian coal being shipped there this is an interesting article.)

And if I'm wrong, could you please explain how. Nicely of course!

Or if you happen to also be uncomfortable about our reliance on fossil fuels, and the dreadful associated health impacts you can do something and encourage your super fund to divest from fossil fuels. (Are you the Vital Few) Because fossil fuel investments are seen as being increasingly risky and you wouldn't want to see your super go down the gurgler would you. (Forbes)

.......

On the importance of voting thoughtfully: Why vote? Because if you don't vote, someone will speak for you.

........
Some of the articles used in the above spray:
http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/not-much-climate-change-doubt-science-says-20130515-2jmup.html

https://theconversation.com/our-carbon-black-hole-the-real-budget-shortfall-17282

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/leadership-us-insurance-companies-climate-change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/24/arctic-methane-climate-change_n_3643917.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/living-in-the-dusty-shadow-of-coal-mining/story-e6frg6z6-1226255705308

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/08/get-fact-has-rupert-got-it-right-on-climate-change/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

http://dea.org.au/images/general/DEAtheHealthFactorV2_2013.pdf

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/note-to-australia-thermal-coal-is-over-65519

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/15/tony-abbott-climate-plan-maths

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-14/doctors-fear-coal-dust-health-impacts-going/4572022

http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2013/02/04/558676_latest-news.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalworker's_pneumoconiosis

http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/the-critical-decade-2013/

Australia’s legendarily irresponsible mining industry has a new plan: while the planet faces catastrophic climate change, build the world’s largest coal mining complex, and then build a shipping lane to that port straight through the greatest ecological treasure we have - the Great Barrier Reef! 
http://www.avaaz.org/en/australian_coal_disaster_global_rb/?pv=43&rc=fb

http://aweablog.org/blog/post/wind-turbine-syndrome-farm-hosts-tell-very-different-story
.
Blogged by Sue Travers

One simple way to get the community and ratepayers offside.

The photo below shows the area which is currently the subject of deep emotion and distress to the people of the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria Australia. It's a disused quarry site nestled between arms of the Arthurs Seat State Park, organic farms and businesses, homes and schools.

In the background it's just possible to see a sliver of water which is part of Port Phillip Bay. Behind the hill, flourishing in the bay are mussel farms and the magnificent beaches are safe with little pollution. The bay is home to pods of dolphins and is occasionally visited by migrating whales. The state park is a sanctuary for eagles, owls, koalas, bandicoots and rare or threatened plant species.

In short it's a special place, but the Mornington council and the Ross Trust who owns the Pioneer Quarry site have decided this is the place for a tip with no recycling facilities. The proposed tip "would be servicing mainly other regions. At current figures, approximately 70% of the 150.000 tonnes annually would be coming from outside the Mornington Peninsula." (SaveArthursSeat)

The logic appears to be "It's a hole in the ground. Let's fill it up with unfiltered, un-recycled garbage and make this dumping ground available to businesses outside the Shire. What a good idea!"

photo - Melanie Cameron

Anyone would be excused for assuming that the Ross Trust isn't involved or interested in the environment. They'd be wrong. 

The following information comes from the RE Ross Trust website. 
The Trust will direct resources towards projects that will ...  "Protect and preserve Australian flora and fauna". It seems contradictory that a trust which actively supports environmental programs would not undertake to protect the Pioneeer Quarry site and surrounding areas including the creek which runs directly into Port Phillip Bay.

The Save Arthurs Seat community group have been working tirelessly to ensure that best practice guidelines are met:

The protection of environment and public health in waste management delivery is non-negotiable (State Government Vic)

“Encourage, promote and develop ecologically sustainable waste management” (Mornington Peninsula Regional Waste Management Group)

“Today’s landfills must not leave an unacceptable environmental legacy for our children to address” (EPA Vic)

The following is an open letter written by Francois Schamberger regarding his opposition to the proposal. (Edited and formatted for ease of reading)

**********

The Proposed Landfill at the former Pioneer Quarry Site 

There are many very serious concerns about this project which we are going to come to light over the coming weeks. 

Tip Liners
The first one is about the liner for the proposed landfill. All manufacturer of liners stress the limited performance of their liners and clearly state that no warranty as to their performance is ever implied. When the bottom liner fails, leachate migrates directly into the environment. All reports ever written by environmental protection agencies on the performance of landfill, state that all liners being made out of clay, plastic, and composite will have some leaks. Even the most up-to-date and elaborate ones (compacted clay with a minimum required thickness and a maximum allowable hydraulic conductivity, overlaid by a 2mm high-density polyethylene geomembrane) do not pass the 10 year test. 

All liners will have some leaks, due to their limited performance parameters, and their degradation is usually the result of insufficient tensile strength, tear resistance, impact resistance, puncture resistance, and susceptibility to environmental stress cracking. 

The role of discarded household chemicals
Quite a number of common household chemicals will also degrade them. The United States Environmental Protection Agency has stated that all barriers "will ultimately fail," while the site remains a threat for "thousands of years”, suggesting that even the most modern, up-to-date landfill designs delay, but do not prevent ground and surface water pollution. 

Location - in a water catchment area
Let’s not forget that the proposed site is at the bottom of a substantial water catchment area and within a very short time the leachate, and its toxic constituents, would flow into the underlying aquifers, the nearby creek and into Port Phillip Bay. 

If this proposal goes ahead, it will be undeniable: the legacy of the Ross Trust will be that of a polluted Bay, creek and groundwater for hundreds of years. 

How are we going to explain to our children and grandchildren that the beach is closed, the creek fenced off, the groundwater polluted and The Ross Trust and Mornington Shire Council were part of that lunacy? 

From the R E Trust website we know that "Mr Ross was a keen bushman, had an extensive knowledge of native plants and trees and made a study of the habits of birds and their calls."  We can only imagine what Mr R E Ross would say to his Trustees: “You are fired, you are destroying my legacy."  

Technical Reports
The quality of the technical reports and analysis so far, tabled by the proponents of the landfill is very disappointing - notable for their omissions, their unsuitable comparisons which are very generalist, almost direct copies of reports compiled for other landfill sites. 

I would like to draw your attention to Mr Latham’s statement that “they are very keen to consult the community on the project.” 

“Keen to consult” No! Just a slap in our face. For 5 years the council and Ross Trust have been secretly planning to turn the quarry into a tip and now they want to establish a Community Reference Group, chosen strictly by them, to advise them how the project could work better. 

Another statement which merits our attention was made by Mr Maltby, The Peninsula Waste Manager “Mr Maltby predicted shire residents would see an extra $100 on their rates bill each year if the shire had to send waste out of the area.” To make such a statement, you would expect somebody in such a position of authority to have the figures on hand to back his claims. So Mr Maltby please can we see those figures? If you do not produce them, we can only conclude that it was a cheap self serving quote, totally inappropriate for a person in your position. 

So now for my predictions and I am very happy to back them up. 

The proposed landfill is going to cost the residents a lot more than if the waste would be send out of the area; 

Why ? 

1. The proposed landfill is going to be operated by a private company which wants to make a profit (unlike now, Shire operated for the benefit of the residents) 

2. The proposed landfill is going to be in the top 5% cost bracket. 

3. The proposed landfill is going to be viable only if it becomes a regional landfill for the Bayside and Southern Councils. Peninsula Link would see hundreds of rubbish trucks making their way down the Peninsula every day. 

What horrifies me the most, is to see the incestuous relationship between our Council and a private company - a council which has already factored in the proposed tip (since 2009) as a fait accompli, even well before the proposal has been lodged. A council which would accept any tipping charges Peninsula Waste would demand. A council also prepared to accept the private company’s reports as their own, by-passing the need to get independent expert reports. A council putting the wishes of a private entity well before their residents and ratepayers. 

If the Councillors have any decency they would resign now - if not, the Victorian Government should dissolve the Shire of Mornington Peninsula Council and appoint an administrator, as the Council is failing the simplest test of impartiality and decency. United we stand, to stop the biggest threat ever to our environment, to our beautiful Mornington Peninsula and to our cherished Arthurs Seat. 

signed
Francois Schamberger.

********

It's cold comfort that "As a wholly owned subsidiary of the R E Ross Trust, 100% of the profits of Peninsula Waste Management will be distributed to community organisations through the Trust’s GRANTING STRATEGY." Loss of environment will remain lost, not just for this generation, but will be a toxic legacy for future generations as well, and no grant can fairly balance that out.

For detailed information regarding the poor location, lack of recycling facilities and outdated "technology" with the proposed tip see the Frequently asked Questions at Save Arthurs Seat. 

The Story of Stuff:The Story of Electronics, why designed for the dump is toxic for people and the planet - as it relates to the proposed tip site

On the contradictions in waste 'management' and being a transition town, "sustainable" and a UNESCO biosphere reserve.

.... http://www.visitmorningtonpeninsula.org/OurRegion/NationalParks.aspx

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/thousands-rubbish-plans-for-arthurs-seat-dump-20130604-2nndt.html


.