Peter Garrett, once rock star in Australian band Midnight Oil, then President of the Australian Conservation Foundation and board member of Greenpeace International, then parachuted into federal politics, and now, following the elevation of Kevin Rudd to the position of leader of Australia’s Labor Party, the Shadow Minister for Environment and Climate Change.
On ABC radio this morning Garrett talked about the need for “targets and timelines” to address climate change. He didn’t mention alternative energy sources.
Some say that the only real greenhouse neutral alternative to coal, for baseload power generation, is uranium. The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, recently commissioned an inquiry into nuclear energy and is likely to make nuclear power an election issue next year. Interestingly Peter Garrett has always been an ardent critic of nuclear power and uranium mining.
Few would dispute that climate change is likely to be a focus for the next federal election. Is Garrett, as shadow environment minister, going to limit the potential for the Labor party to do anything except back carbon trading and Kyoto? Furthermore, how effective is carbon trading likely to be, if there are no realistic carbon neutral sources of energy generation in Australia?
It is also interesting to ponder the extent to which Peter Garrett has been an integral part of the Australian environment movement. In June 2004 I explained in The Land that:
“Perhaps the best kept secret is Garrett’s significant contribution to building and giving impetus to the Australian environment movement through the Mittagong Forum.
Peter Garret was President of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) from 1989 to 1993 and then most recently from 1999. It was in 1999 that the ACF Strategic Plan announced the need to ‘broaden and strengthen the environment movement in Australia’.
The concept was realized through a series of meetings held in Mittagong in the Southern Highlands.
Garrett also lives there. He played a key role in getting the big environmental organizations together including Greenpeace, World Wide Fund for Nature and State conservation councils.
Early discussion included methods to increase movement wide collaboration on issues and campaigns, along with understanding emerging issues and developing potential strategies to tackle them.
In 2000 ACF received a substantial grant from a philanthropic trust and directed the funds towards the Mittagong Forum, which has met at least 14 times since 2000.
Its vision is to, ‘develop capability, generate strategic insights, and to work collaboratively, to enhance the effectiveness of Australia’s Environment Movement.’
‘Fundraising to increase independence of organizations and for the Mittagong Forum’ has also been a key goal.
The forum recognizes that different environmental groups will not ‘necessarily agree on issues’, but says by working together they can more effectively achieve broad and specific environmental conservation outcomes.”
Garrett has always been outcome focused… and he has always opposed uranium mining. An interesting combination for a potential Environment Minister given the current overwhelming concern about global warming.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
If the only thing Garret did on climate change in the next year was to strongly back carbon trading, and he avoids getting distracted by the nuclear debate, I for one would be extremely happy.
Carbon trading doesn’t require carbon neutral sources of energy to be realistic, as you put it. It just requires a range of actions that will effectively decrease our emissions, and there are an enormous range of such activities – from the more overt solutions like wind and solar power, to less obvious ones such as switching to gas, energy efficiency, tree planting, more efficient coal generation, and (one of the quirkier actions) flaring waste methane gas (so that you put carbon dioxide into the air instead of methane, which is more greenhouse intensive).
Please just focus on carbon trading Peter. Its the most logical next step, and is by far the best co-operative solution on offer. By cooperative solution, i mean that it is a policy that has been developed over many years with input from a diverse range of contributors, a policy that seeks to deal with an environmental problem while also minimising economic inefficiency and wasting taxpayer money.
Don’t get distracted by the nuke debate – nuclear is a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 10th step in the 10 step program. Carbon trading is the 1st.
Well, quite obviously, Garrett is completely compromised by connections with big money from the Greens.
Green foundations blow on average, worldwide, about $400 million annually. That’s way beyond what conspiracy theorists believe Exxon-Mobil is giving to “climate denialists.”
Money walks, and Garret talks.
Now I’m a nice guy, so I would never suggest that anyone here would “adjust” their public statements in exchange for a piece of the $400 million pie.
But some will. Imagine just getting just half of the interest rate off that chunk of money. Just half the interest.
Politics attracts the corruptible, and a $400 million budget draws them like flies.
Steve “Please just focus on carbon trading Peter. Its the most logical next step”
Steve: I doubt Peter Garret ever reads Jen’s blog
maybe you could get Bono to pass the message onto Garret then
How to reconcile these conservative arguments?
1) the greens are a well-funded bunch with clever financial management skills. They extract large sums from their backers & put their hefty investments to good use by using the bottomless returns to influence public issues
2) the greens are incompetent financial managers who’d couldn’t keep a chook raffle in the black. You’d never entrust them with the economy because they’d create a banana republic and replace the dollar with gumnuts
Pinxi,
You forgot
3) the people who have staked their livelihood and the future of their children on a piece of forest manage it as best they can so that it doesn’t turn into useless charcoal.
Schiller how much of Australian forestry industry ($$ value) is family enterprise and how much is corporate owned or operated?
Schiller,
in your comments on the other thread here about bsuhfires in Tassie you claim eco-tourism operators would not engage in volunteer firefighting.
Does that not contradict with your statement here?
The people who have staked their livelihood and the future of their children on a piece of forest manage it as best they can so it doesnt turn into charcoal?
Why would your latest statement here not apply to eco-tourism operators????
Jen,
Implicit in your statement the head of this blog is that everyone who is part of the overwhelming concern about global warming must necessarily be favourably disposed to nuclear power in Australia, and that to be otherwise is inconsistent.
I am concerned about the possiblity of global warming, but I for one do not consider the develpment of nuclear power in Australia is definitely the best way to go – I need convincing.
That just means I am cautious and open minded about the issues, not inconsistent.
I must admit I am pleased with the idea that Garrett might actually be the Minister for Environment one day. For the first time in Australia’s history you would have an Environment Minster who is genuinely interested in the environment and issues associated with it, rather than the normal run of the mill politicians who chafe in the portfolio while they fret about getting into a more important position that will promote their own selfish goals.
Russell,
Most Australians, extrapolating from recent polling, are for carbon trading but against nuclear power stations.
I’m for both.
In the above blog post I’m just pondering how you can have one without the other. Steve did a good job of answering my question/pondering.
The radioatcive polonium that killed the ex Russian spy Litvinenko was traced to a nuclear reactor in Russia.
The nuclear power plants are not as safe as the authorities state.
In Sweden 2 or 3 very serious incidents have happened during the last months that could have ended disastrously, pure luck prevented this.
This mentioned , I am open to discussions on nuclear, but we mustn’t believe that it is a solution to climate change and greenhouse emissions.
If emissions are going to be decreased we have to build a HUGE amount of nuclear plants, and that is unrealistic and very, very expensive.
One of the solutions must be renewables and first and last more energy -efficiency.
Oh Ann you just don’t know the Aussies. We learn. We had one major train crash disaster, never another. No more mining incidents. Our aeroplanes never fall out of the sky. We’ll apply our impeccable track record in public-private schemes. We’ll be sure to exclude locals and environmentalists from the review panel. You guys have had your nuclear problems but we’ll do better, we’ll deny such possibilities. And we’ve got so much empty space, btw, we won’t even need to decommission the nuclear station when we’ve finished, we’ll just leave it to the rabbits & kangaroos. And it’s fabricated rubbish that aborigines living near a big uranium mine have more than double the normal cancer rate or don’t want their lands mined. They’re keen to have their lands dedicated to nuclear waste dump actually, its easier to hunt animals before sunrise when they glow. And it increases the possibility that Midnight Oil will stage comeback outback tours with new lyrics.
Hey Pinxie, they play Midnight Oil on my radio right now!
There are a range of efficiency options Jennifer that would have economic as well as environmental and health benefits. The problem with efficiency and assumptions that free markets will solve all issues beliefs is that efficiency isn’t a sexy sell. It doesn’t increase revenues or profits. Private utility operators want to increase use, not decrease it. Even if it increase customer loyalty in the shortterm if and while you have a market/product lead, that doesn’t necessarily translate to more profit. Efficiency measures are often easily copied so there’s usually little market lead.
The other consideration is where the efficiency measures are located. If they’re at the usage end, not the supply end, then there’s little incentive for backbone operators or energy suppliers to offer or distribute them. Others can offer such measures but there are disincentives to their take up. Eg invest $2x now to save $0.1x per quarter is never an easy sell. THere are also differing motivations between purchasers of the capital and users, for eg landlords/car owners and tenants/lessees; or between providers/operators of backbone infrastructure and those who lease it; or between corporate procurement of capital equipment or utility supply and between usage and those who bear the running costs.
Ann, do you details of these “2 or 3 very serious incidents?”
I had a quick google, transformers blowing fuses are not very serious, trivial even, although they do trigger a complete shut down of the plant
Rog,
Gonna check out the details , don’t recall them right now… but at least two incidents were serious according to the authorities and methink every reactor in Sweden was closed down during a shorter period to carry out inspections.
In Sweden , there is as well a debate if it is morally justified to buy uranium from a totalitarian country as Uzbekistan whose president puts all the uranium money in his own pocket and persecutes its own people.
Methink the authorities prefer to buy the uranium in Australia and Canada, that is the official version.
By adopting a universal carbon trading system, the world will undertake its greatest economic experiment since the communist parties commandeered a good slice of it for fifty years, with results that were as spectacularly disastrous as they were economically instructive.
By erecting a system of investment and pricing that is removed from economic reality, the cap and trade brigade will create an enormous new arena where boondogglers, carpet baggers and plain criminals will go on a spree the likes of which we have never seen. I dont think the powers that be have thought it through, game theory wise.
hazard one…the initial quota. The creation, out of thin air, so to speak, of $ trillions ? worth of tradeable securities/co2 permits will be interesting, given the unlikely event of it coming to pass. The prospect of free money is a well known cause of undignified behavior. The europeans have started this process…watch for some spectacular improprieties to unfold…
hazard two…cheating….the level of policing required will be impossible to execute. particularly when economic contaction sets in.
in any event this sort of scheme only applies to power generators….cement?…doesn’t it? What about the zinc galvaniser? The potter? Where is the incentive to change for them in a cap and trade? Have to draw a line somewhere. More importantly, look at all the holes in it for the exercise of feral self/corporate interst, below the line.
I saw that a UK Govt report recommended a properly universal trading system based on the allocation of co2 quota to INDIVIVUALS! Not corporations. Fix the problem, game theory wise. Anybody want to swap me their fishing dinghy fuel license for my lawnmower permit? The worlds gone barking mad. phil sawyer
yeah Phil’s right, a tax would be better
These three news reports appear to sum up Mr Garrett’s action plan on climate change:
Mr Garrett says he is eager to join the frontbench and hold the Federal Government to account on climate change.
“Climate change represents one of the most significant and important issues that Australians must confront now and into the future,” he said.
“I want to work for leader Rudd to make sure that we roll up our sleeves and do the very best that we can, and I want to put the Howard Government on notice that it’s fiddling while Australia burns.”
ABC Online News 10 Dec 06
Climate change
Mr Garrett says he wants to put the Government on notice that it is fiddling while Australia burns.
“No more talk, no more task forces, get on with it Prime Minister – if you’re serious about the environment, get on with it, if you’re serious about climate change,” he said.
“Because Labor is serious about climate change, Labor is serious about making sure that this most significant environmental issue that we face is dealt with resolutely and it’s a matter of urgency.”
ABC Online News 11 Dec 06
Mr Garrett said today he would not compromise his ideals in his new role.
Mr Garrett said he was determined to stick by his personal beliefs.
“I don’t believe in compromise, I believe in good solutions and that means bringing everybody along with you as you go,” he said on ABC radio today.
“But I’ve also said that I’m a member of the Labor party and I’ll abide by the decisions that the party makes,” he said.
“I’ll be a team player, I’ll argue the case for those things that I believe very strongly in within the Labor caucus and within the shadow cabinet.”
Mr Garrett said Prime Minister John Howard’s new taskforce on climate change was a joke.
“I just see this as another example of the Prime Minister moving too slowly, setting up a process and not getting stuck into the real action of dealing with climate change,” Mr Garrett said.
Mr Howard’s taskforce will look into Australia’s possible involvement in an emissions trading scheme and finding practical solutions to climate change.
Mr Garrett said Australians wanted action now.
“Australians are ready to get stuck into action straight away and the Government just wants to set up another taskforce,” he said.
“We can’t afford to sit on our hands and wait; we need to commit to targets and timelines – something the Howard Government persistently refuses to do.”
News.com.au 11 Dec 06
Bit of an aside, on mining in general:
Lead risk for Mt Isa kids
Ian Gerard
December 12, 2006
CHILDREN in the Queensland mining capital of Mount Isa could be at risk of delayed brain development and reduced IQ levels after testing for lead poisoning in the town found 10per cent of kids had readings above the level recommended by the World Health Organisation.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20912206-2702,00.html
Pinxi – that’s irrelevant and you know it. Think of the considerable economic benefits and beneficial impact of mining on infant mortality.
What’s a few IQ points anyway – you don’t need them for blogging. Anyway if the mine was not there all the poor children would perish in the desert environment so I think we should be gratefuk.
you wrote gratefuk luke, you gratefuk