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. 

.

Budget grumbles - 2. Education and unemployment.

This is a continuation of the previous post: Budget grumbles 1.

Those protesting at the recent marches could have been apprentices, child care workers, nurses, firefighters, or people training to be paramedics. These are all valued and respected careers where course fees are likely to increase significantly. Protesters could be anyone deeply and negatively affected by the budget. Are they all ferals as the front page of the Daily Telegraph would like us to believe?  I seriously doubt it.

University degrees will cost up to three times as much under a deregulated fee system, leaving graduates with $120,000-plus debts, according to the architect of the HECS student loan scheme.

This is significantly more than the fees paid by current MP's. Many of whom enjoyed a free education! 

ThIs loud, demanding headline, and indeed most of the page, blithely disregards the actual facts about getting a job. But you wouldn't want to let a fact get in the way of an eye-catching smokescreen of headline.

Such inconvenient things facts. 

"GET A JOB" 

 
In February, there were a total of 140,800 job vacancies in Australia, and more than 700,000 people out of work. Here and here. 

They are the official figures and don't account for those who are chronically underemployed, those on short term contracts who have no idea where there next job will come from, or the people barely able to make ends meet working a few shifts per week with no job security.

University students who are the target in the article above, study in a wide variety of areas. Most will work extremely hard to earn their degrees.  When they graduate they're understandably excited to have achieved a goal, and naturally would like to work in a career related to their field of study.  Instead, far too many are under-employed in unfulfilling, un-challenging jobs, not related to those years of study. 

Under-employment and unemployment is devastating for them, their parents and others who understand the challenges and difficulties of finding a permanent job in this climate, particularly one drawing on their specific training and skills. Is it any wonder they might be protesting at the budget? 

To nastily and falsely imply that all students are lazy spongers is disgusting. To encourage others to deride and vilify them is shameful. If anger is to be expressed, it should to be directed at those who manufactured this unfair budget, not those most affected by its consequences.

Some of the protesters could well be science graduates who've watched formerly respected and valued jobs in the sciences disappear with whirlwind speed before their eyes.

Until the current government gained power, science was generally respected in Australia. We have a long and proud tradition of innovation and inventions which have been celebrated the world over. Only recently has that changed dramatically.

Science graduates, particularly those with specialties in environment, climate, climate change adaptation, sustainability, oceanography and a range of other areas are unlikely to get a job in their chosen career in the near future in Australia. The jobs aren’t there any more. 

Our young people haven’t chosen these difficult courses on a whim, for status or for the money. They've chosen them because they want to contribute. They want to be involved in a positive and proactive way, to help Australia adapt responsibly and resourcefully to the significant and ongoing challenges we all face with our changing climate. 

When the current Minister for the Environment was writing passionately about saving Port Phillip Bay from dredging, (but doesn't apply the same logic or respect to the Great Barrier Reef), these students could have been choosing their demanding senior year maths and science subjects to enable them to get into high scoring, and extremely challenging courses.

They’ve been working towards their degrees for many years and are now seeing jobs that they would have aspired to in science gone, and whole departments and organisations disappearing. They've seen highly regarded world class scientists treated with derision and contempt by the Abbott government.  

And yet the headlines shout a very different message. Unpleasant headlines structured carefully to discredit and vilify students, the same students who are being lumbered with a budget and debt, designed to make their lives significantly harder. And if they can't find a job? Let's blame them, rather than looking honestly at the source of the problem or think creatively about solutions.

The unemployed go job hunting 

In Hobart this morning, Mr Abbott was unsympathetic about the prospect of people going interstate in their search for a job.

Really?! Is the PM so out of touch that he has no idea that without a reasonable job, or more than a few hours work per week, or without the luxury of a huge amount of savings, it’s a bit of a challenge to get a lease on an apartment? Where are unemployed people, moving interstate to find a job, meant to live? On the streets? Not to mention eating, transport, dressing suitably for interviews and paying for internet so you can actually apply for a job IF there's one advertised. The expenses of day to day living are high, as most normal people can attest to, and they go on, and on, and on …. and on. Living interstate to search for work is simply not feasible for many unemployed people. 

This ability for the PM to live so far removed from the reality of the lives of our students, the disabled, retirees, single parents, indigenous Australians and so many others, is astounding. This parallel universe reminds me of the much loved Enid Blyton book, The Magic Faraway Tree with the amazing revolving lands at the top of the tree. You never knew which land you'd end up in when you climbed the tree.

Unfortunately for everyday Australians it seems that the current government enjoys Fantasy Land where “everything is awesome” but they also regularly visit Topsy Turvy Land where lies are presented as truth, where integrity is passe, where less is more, and where it's good and proper for the weakest to support the strongest. 

Mere mortals, the bulk of everyday Australians, are stuck in Nightmare Land experiencing a callous, dismissive indifference to their concerns. Fearful about how they'll manage once the budget takes effect, their questions are flippantly avoided. Everyday Australians, my clients, my neighbours, my community, live in a very real world where wealthy parents may not exist to support you, and generous scholarships (and here) are the stuff of dreams.

But as a number of commentators are saying, what did people really expect ,when they voted for the coalition - kindness, compassion and tolerance?

Labor’s values 

We are all in this together. Where this means a community where everyone works towards the health and security of the whole community. The collective wealth of the economy serves this community. Not the other way around. 

Liberal’s values 

We are all in this together. Where this means a free-market economy where a person’s wealth determines their status, and in turn their status determines their privilege and their privilege determines their access to health and security. If someone can’t access health and security, this is their own fault and it’s not the free-market economy’s role to help them. So in fact, we’re not all in anything together. We’re all on our own. 

These values can be found in the true narratives of both parties, intertwined in every policy they produce, and every statement they make. To find them, you don’t have to look very hard. In fact, you don’t have to look for them at all. All you have to do is open your eyes. Australian voters have had our eyes opened for us. But I just hope that those who feel most let down, the ones who are suffering in silence now because they were the dopes who voted for Abbott, I hope they save some of their resentment for the mainstream media (see below) for so blatantly letting them down by feeding them to the wolves. (my bold)

http://theaimn.com/2014/05/17/a-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/

.

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

Big bangs, smoke and fun @ National Science Week 2012

Ya gotta love science!

Not only for the spectacular drama and big bangs, but for the delicate finesse of artistic creativity, researching our environments to ascertain their health, delving into cancer cells and DNA, learning from the stars, or working out how many people particular regions can sustain. I don't pretend to understand it all, but I love that there are people working in all these (and more) areas to better understand the complexities of our world and beyond.

National Science Week is a celebration of science, and the opening today in Brisbane's Queen Street Mall went off with a dramatic bang! Students, researchers and assorted scientists were scattered around the mall sharing insights and enthusiasm.

Garbage bins are usually pretty boring things, but today one was put to good use when liquid nitrogen was carefully poured in a drink bottle and put in a container inside a wheelie bin. The lid was quickly shut and the presenters scampered to a safe distance. An ear popping explosion was the result, with copious amounts of smoke, a wildly rocking bin and hugely smiling emos who'd been watching with feigned disinterest from the sidelines. Not bad at all!

I learnt that listening to the bush is not only delightful, but a valid way to ascertain the health (or otherwise) of environments. Scientists record the sounds, remove the extraneous "noise" then analyse the results. By doing this, (which is a rather complex business) it's possible to discover such things as the infiltration of cane toads to the west and south of the country (seriously not good for native animals of any size), the range and health of particular communities of animals, birds or frogs and how the populations are coping with assorted environmental factors.  

You can listen to some of the sounds of the Australian bush and learn a bit more at www.bush.fm

I love staring at the night sky, looking at the depth and range of colours, scanning for meteors, waving at the International Space Station and looking for satellites. Others become animated and enthusiastic when in the vicinity of telescopes of varying sizes. I heard oohs and aahs as people of all ages concentrated to look at sunspots and held my breath, hoping that no one would trip over the tripods that looked far too insecure to allow the bumbling public near.

Dr Jennifer  Loy seemed to be fielding quite a few questions along the lines of "Where can I get one of those?" and  "That looks like a great course" as she demonstrated a small tabletop 3D printer. I'd heard and seen some uses for 3D printers, but I'd never seen them used for jewellery and other elegant work. The lamp shade was exquisite and the jewellery would be fun to wear. As for more practical uses, glasses frames came to mind, and I expect a clever person could compete well with the outrageously priced stock in many spectacle stores.

Starting a conversation with anyone who is passionate about their particular field of interest can be a fraught business. Are they going to be interesting? Are you going to, for instance, have to resort to chewing your leg off to get away from a tediously boring, long winded, excruciatingly painful, bore? Thankfully, no dramatic, messy newsworthy stories were evident today. In fact, quite the opposite. At times I wondered if the scientists and presenters found the enthusiasm of the public a bit, well, enthusiastic to be honest. Wide eyed wonder, and lots of questions seemed par for the course.

I'm looking forward to having time to explore the Carrying Capacity Dashboard which "is an online application that estimates the resources needed to support a human population" given particular lifestyle choices. You can explore what happens when there are changes in such things as diet, energy usage, agricultural techniques and recycling practices. Adapting our lifestyles has a dramatic effect on the estimated number of people that different areas in Australia can carry sustainably. Given what I learnt today, it's clear some areas are already well beyond their ability to be sustainable.

Australia faces huge challenges with our changing climate. We already have divisive and competing land use demands - farming versus mining, agriculture versus housing development subdivisions.

Communities and states are at loggerheads about fair and equitable use of water - should it be used for farming, irrigation, mining? How much for manufacturing? Which areas get how much? Who decides? What proportion should be left in the environment for healthy rivers and groundwater? What about contaminants? How do we rationalise the use of this impermanent, precious natural resource?

It's vital that our policy makers address these issues with a deep understanding of the ramifications of their decisions and not make decisions as a knee-jerk response or for short term electoral gains or to satisfy the most strident lobbyists. Carrying Capacity Dashboard is, I suspect, going to provoke a lot of discussion, and hopefully some deep reflection on the sort of society we hope to become.

National Science Week is just beginning! To find out what's on near you, go to http://www.scienceweek.net.au/ it's not just big bangs to entertain the kid in us all, there's also challenging, entertaining, creative, welcoming sessions around the country for people from all walks of life.

.

Some days Google just cracks me up!

or, Finding Humour in Little Things.

I'm bemused by the advertisement Google has placed above this latest example of thick headedness by the Queensland LNP (the political party in power up there).

The representative of the good people of Noosa, a man named Richard Pearson, has "attacked the "false prophets who would poison the minds of our children in our schools". (link here)

Strong words to describe tertiary educated science teachers, and hardly the sort of comment to warm the cockles of your heart if you're a normal, decent, hard working teacher who loves your subject and enjoys your chosen career. 

It's also extremely discouraging for students who love science, to hear a political representative undermine their teachers by calling for mainstream climate science to be cut from the state's school curriculum.

It's just what we don't need; politicians choosing what to be included and excluded from the curriculum. Can you imagine where this would lead? Books being printed to present the views of one group of politicians and the vested interests who support them financially, then when they're voted out, the whole curriculum being changed, new books printed, videos made, retraining undertaken. 

It's certainly not an economical or sensible way to invest our meagre educational resources. When this kind of thing happens in other countries we're often critical and sometimes outraged. But perhaps Mr Pearson or the people who voted to remove a valid part of the curriculum, haven't considered where this kind of manipulation could lead.

However, back to the rather black humour here and the advertisement in question. It's in blue (or turquoise if you're 'into' colour).

If you are experiencing stress in your life, please seek help from your health-care professional or local professional organisation such as: 

http://www.blackdoginstitute.org.au/

http://www.mensline.org.au/

http://www.lifeline.org.au/

And a last comment. Let's support our students and their teachers by celebrating their achievements. As a society we face many challenges, not least regarding our changing climate and the massive implications of that. Undermining those who devote their lives to educating our future leaders at the expense of common sense and forethought isn't helpful for any of us.

.

Climate Matters. A is for Advertising

This is the post for A in the A-Z Blogging Challenge 2012. Link in the sidebar.

How do corporations manipulate us? How do they sell the unsellable? Where does science fit in the mix? What does advertising have to do with climate?

The Gruen Transfer has aired in Australia for about 4 years, entertaining and educating us about the effective tactics used daily by advertising agencies to manipulate and persuade us to agree with their brief. After one short viewing they’ve had me believe, or at least entertain the thought, that it’s a good idea to: farm whale meat commercially, to invade New Zealand or for New Zealand to invade Australia, to support child labour, and vote for an alternate political party.

I’ve sat there, knowing what’s happening, yet been convinced that a point of view, contrary to what I thought I believed, is worth considering. Advertisers have researched their target market thoroughly, and will shamelessly use whatever tactics are necessary to get their message across: voices of authority, fear and smear campaigns, derision, over simplification of an issue, bamboozling tactics, undermining, raising doubt, effective targeted music and colours and appeals to well researched inner desires.

Advertising and lobbyists
Their goal is to present a particular point of view as it relates to their brief, not the facts of the issue. On the whole, companies with vested interests use lobbyists and advertising to shape our opinions. They're well co-ordinated and well resourced. Their desire is to maintain the status quo, they don’t want to lose market share. So if they find a scientist who is prepared to toe the company line, they’ll be recruited to present a particular viewpoint. It’s irrelevant to them if their “expert” is trained in a different field, whether they’re respected by their peers, whether they’re even up to date with the latest research.

Scientific research
In contrast a scientist will rarely present a point of view, they are in the business of presenting accurate data no matter how unpallatable, complex or uncomfortable it might be. Their goal is to remove bias (as much as humanly possible) from their work and words - they're cautious and don't insist on absolutes. Unlike those trying to sway opinion, scientists don’t use language, imagery and sound to appeal to our emotions, to manipulate and persuade.

Unfortunately when scientists present information, they can appear awkward - they choose their words cautiously, carefully and precisely which reflects the very nature of their tradition. They’re not always slick and polished performers; their tradition is to deepen knowledge, not to win votes, increase ratings or shine in popularity contests.

In ‘real’ life we don’t have the luxury of sitting back and reflecting, questioning or critiquing data we’ve been presented with. We’re bombarded persistently, aggressively, relentlessly: on TV, in print media, on billboards, through social media platforms. We can be putty in the hands of elite advertising agencies.

If you have time, have a look at some of the examples of “selling the unsellable” they’re about 4 minutes and are fascinating. This cringeworthy pair of advertisements are promoting plastic surgery for the under 10’s.

And this one is for the CEO’s who’ve been made redundant, and who might be struggling in their new life:

Last year I wrote about Angst and Anguish for A for my theme of workplace bullying. Here.
.

GM foods - why is the public suspicious?

The video link to Science Under Attack from SBS On Demand will only be available for 13 days from the date of posting in this blog - it will expire by the 12th Feb 2012. The documentary looks at the responsibility of scientists to present their findings in a way that is understandable by everyday people. Link here.


The programme is described as follows "Nobel Prize winner Sir Paul Nurse examines why science appears to be under attack, and why public trust in key scientific theories has been eroded - from the theory that man-made climate change is warming our planet, to the safety of GM food, or that HIV causes AIDS."


It's well worth viewing to get a feel for the complexity of the scientific process and the challenges scientists face. However there was one aspect that I felt could have been explored in much more depth and that is the suspicion surrounding GM foods. 


I've read that the advances in technology of genetically modified food and disease resistant strains are what will be vital for our very survival as our climate becomes more volatile. That I understand. 


The missing link in my mind was the discussion about how companies doing the research into GM foods take complete control over seed 'ownership' and via laws such as the NZ Food Bill, threaten the health, livelihood and resilience of communities the world over. 


Powerful companies could also manipulate data to hide adverse findings and gag or dismiss whistle blowers such as is reported to have happened with United States FDA scientists and doctors studying medical devices for patients including those with cancer.  Link here.  

The Food and Drug Administration secretly monitored the personal e-mail of a group of its own scientists and doctors after they warned Congress that the agency was approving medical devices that they believed posed unacceptable risks to patients, government documents show.

It would appear that business interests of the FDA took precedence over the safety concerns of its own reputable professionals. These professionals are reported to have since been dismissed. 

"Information garnered this way [accessing private emails] eventually contributed to the harassment or dismissal of all six of the FDA employees, the suit alleges. All had worked in an office responsible for reviewing devices for cancer screening and other purposes". 

There was apparently a claim that the whistle blowing  "improperly disclosed confidential business information about the devices" even though the the scientists and doctors working on the devices "believed [they] posed unacceptable risks to patients." 

I'll now move on to a bill (NZ Government Food Bill 160-2)  which apparently allows for a range of very restrictive controls about what citizens may or may not grow in the privacy of their back yard, and how they choose to sell or barter their produce, how often they can sell it, as well as how they gather and share seed.


New Zealanders are understandably outraged. They have a fantastic system of roadside stalls and vibrant local communities interested in becoming increasing self sufficient. 


They grow interesting varieties of fruit and vegetables for sale at roadside stalls, for trading at food co-ops, for bartering as well as for fun! 


The NZ Government Food Bill is reportedly backed by the very same FDA mentioned above. The same group who appear to have gagged and bullied their own employees, the employees who alerted the US Congress to concerns about unacceptable risks in some medical devices. If it is indeed the same FDA, no wonder New Zealanders are concerned. 


A comprehensive discussion is here with links to more in-depth commentary. Here is a short excerpt from the post:

I read that the bill is being brought in because of the WTO, which of course has the US FDA behind it, and of course that is influenced by big business (Monsanto and other players).  It looks like this NZ food bill will pave the way to reduce the plant diversity and small owner operations in New Zealand, for example by way of controlling the legality of seed saving and trading/barter/giving away; all will be potentially illegal.  The best website to read about the problems with the new bill is http://nzfoodsecurity.org 

By controlling seeds, the bill takes the power to grow food away from the public and puts it in the hands of seed companies.

Growing food for distribution must be authorised, even for “cottage industries”, and such authorisation can be denied.

Under the Food Bill, Police acting as Food Safety Officers can raid premises without a warrant, using all equipment they deem necessary – including guns.

Seed banks and seed sharing networks could be closed down in they don't get sufficient approval. 

More information here.


Globally we're facing increasingly severe and extreme climate events. We face immense challenges associated with rapidly depleting fossil fuel reserves. Resourceful communities do not need restrictive bills that could erode their vital formal and informal networks as they face these challenges with courage and hope. They need support, not demoralising restrictions.

Already communities around the world are working diligently to be more self reliant and self sufficient. This should be celebrated and supported by all levels of government  - not dangerously restricted. That these bills play into the hands of companies and organisations some of which have a track record of not having the best interests of the community at heart is disgusting. 


Too few people in too few companies have too much power.  They are showing obscene levels of greed and manipulation to ensure they rule absolutely. They are acting like bullies. Unfortunately many governments are bowing to the pressure. That's wrong. We all suffer. 


No wonder there is a climate of distrust surrounding GM foods and some of the companies promoting them. 


It's a shame this aspect wasn't covered in the programme as I suspect the problem lies not so much with the food produced but with the companies involved. 


A petition objecting to this bill is here.


And, just in: Monsanto voted worst company of 2011 by Natural Society -- for "threatening both human health and the environment." here


and Monsanto to face biopiracy charges in India here


What do you think?
.

Economic growth at all costs?

How much are we prepared to gamble on continuous economic growth?

Some of you will be aware that I've been reading widely and deeply about climate change, global warming and peak oil in preparation for the A-Z blogging challenge in April. It's been a remarkable journey so far; I've met some amazing people, attended scientific lectures and corresponded with scientists, journalists and super switched on people around the globe.

What has been surprising is that far from being the devastating, miserable, depressing experience I anticipated,  I've become more resilient as I've begun to discuss openly and understand the implications of the change we're experiencing. Perhaps it's a bit like the expression: "Know thine enemy", or possibly "Knowledge is power", or as Dr Russ Harris (ACT and mindfulness expert) says: "Make friends with your demons".

With greater knowledge has come a shift in the chasm of fear I'd experienced earlier - intriguing!

That's not to say I'm not pretty spooked at times, particularly with the lack of foresight and action on the part of governments and some major companies, but far less so than 6 months ago. (I'll save my anger at the greed, lies, obfuscation and lack of ethics and integrity for another time.) Hoping that climate change, global warming and energy depletion is all a bad dream that will go away when I wake up isn't, unfortunately, going to work.


The following 6 minute video produced by the Post Carbon Institute is one of the many informative, accessible explanations of looking at the change that we are beginning to experience as cheap plentiful energy begins to decline.

They explain that the Industrial Revolution was possible due to the harvesting and use of cheap energy. We imagined that this energy was inexhaustible, and many of us in the western world have enjoyed the abundance of goodies available as growth and rampant consumerism overtook values of restraint and moderation. Many of us, including governments have borrowed against the future and are not sure how we're going to repay the debt (or even in some cases if it's possible at all).

More and more economists are questioning the wisdom of continual growth, and are expressing their concern that our current measurement of Gross Domestic Product isn't working as well as they'd been taught. It isn't measuring the health our our economies adequately - as any carer or parent knows, their work isn't included even if they're working 24/7, yet the quality of many people's lives depends on their unpaid work.

We know growth can't go on for ever. There are practical limits to our energy sources and disposal of the wastes we're producing.  The earlier we address these and aim for improvements in our lives that don't include increasing consumption of fossil fuels and other resources, and work to build local prospering communities, the easier the transition will be.

How would you measure the health of our economies?

.

Follow the money trail and you find ...

*Alliterative drabble for the letter D,  re-posted from the 2011 A-Z Blogging Challenge at jumpingaground.  (edited)

Hundreds of distinguished scientists drown us in detailed data describing the devastation that will dampen our spirits due to our voracious determination to drill for oil continuously and use all the dark coal completely 'till it disappears forever.

Those with vested interests delve deviously to detect a difference of opinion, then jeer delightedly and defame the dedicated scientists calling them dreary, deranged and deluded. They are determined to make a dramatic beat up and decide to discredit the danger. 

Oh dear; ruthless dealers, dumping on the deeply knowledgeable. 

Dangerously deluded politicians also choose to ignore our Earth’s degeneration.

Dollars dominate.

We need all the help we can get.

***

A Drabble is a story told in 100 words. No more, no less.

.