Crikey: Can lawyers save the planet?

I find this so fascinating!

Pioneering conservationist Aldo Leopold broached the subject in his influential 1949 book A Sand County Almanac, arguing that extending our idea of community to include animals, plants and the land itself could break humankind’s tyranny over the environment.

Christopher Stone expanded on that premise in his 1972 article “Should trees have standing?”, arguing that natural objects, such as trees, forests and streams, should be appointed guardians to represent them in court.

“In parliament or in a public platform you can say anything you like …The reason science is taken more seriously in a legal system is what you say is subject to cross examination and you’re required to produce your evidence,” Lowe told Crikey.

It’s a view echoed by other environmentalists. Executive chairman of carbon offset company Cool nrg, Nic Frances, said the percentage of Australians wanting action on climate change had fallen in the last couple of years, and the political debate about the issue had deteriorated. “So the only place that we may be able to resort to is the courts. Because science within the courts still has meaning.”

Frances has even sought legal advice on whether it is possible to sue industry groups and vested interests for “telling lies” about the carbon tax. “Can you sue these people for crimes against humanity?” asks Frances.

As the political process fails to curb carbon emissions or halt encroaching development, we may see more bold legal moves to protect the environment. One thing’s for sure: all those jokes about lawyers being in it for the money will need to be revised.

Big change or a lot of hot air?

Fantastic article, which seems to have mastered the art of explaining the carbon tax, the politics of business and parties that surrounds it, with a good dose of moral argument thrown in. Best thing is, it does so very clearly, with comparisons and examples that help take some of the complexity out of explaining seemingly dry financial schemes like this.

Definitely worth a read, especially if you’re still curious as to what impact this scheme will have as it gears up for implementation next year.

(Richard Denniss)

Australia is now one of the wealthiest countries in the world living at the wealthiest point in world history. In turn, our greenhouse gas emissions are among the highest in the world. If we, as a nation, believe that we cannot afford to do more to tackle climate change then it is virtually inconceivable that anyone else in the world could either.

The problem is, the climate scientists assure us that we cannot afford not to drastically reduce our emissions.

Someone is completely wrong, and I don’t think it is the climate scientists.

Forbes: 'The Australian Carbon Tax: Finally, Someone Gets it Right!'

The Australian Carbon Tax: Finally, Someone Gets it Right!

7 comments, 0 called-out + Comment now Tim Worstall

Hurrah, finally someone has managed to get a carbon tax to beat climate change right. Yes, it’s the Australians, with their new carbon tax that have got it right. The important point is this one:

The tax-free threshold for wage and salary earners to rise from A$6,000 a year to A$18,200 from July 1, 2012, and to A$19,400 from July 1, 2015.

Having written an entire book on just this subject of course I’m cheering this move.

The economics of this is just right. OK, well, if you think that climate change isn’t happening, we’re not causing it and that we shouldn’t do anything about it, sure, you’ll not be all that impressed. However, if you do think that all of those three things are true then this is the first such tax that has got things right.

We’ve an externality, something that is external to the market prices that we use to make decisions. The answer to this is to internalise the whatever it is into market prices. This means a Pigou Tax and that’s just what the carbon tax is.

Good, so we’re correct there. However, there’s no reason at all that fighting climate change means a higher level of taxes in general. Sure, we might want higher (or even lower) total taxes for all sorts of other reasons but fighting climate change isn’t one of them. So, we’ve got this extra money coming in because we’re taxing carbon emissions: but we don’t want to raise the general level of taxation. So, of course, we should lower some other tax.

Which is exactly what Australia has done. And they’ve lowered the best tax to lower: income tax on the incomes of the poor. So, now we’re taxing bads (emissions) and lowering taxes on goods (the incomes of poor people).

All of which is just excellent and what most economists have been saying everyone should be doing for the past decade or more. The problem this reveals of course is that only one country has in fact done what economists have been recommending.

*The other problem is that even our own politicians can’t get this relatively easy political sell across. But at least it’s through! (Unless the devil really does respond to Tony’s ‘pledge in blood’ to repeal it, but that seems unlikely)

Fighting fear with reason

The Age newspaper is running a series of ten article on climate change, answering ten questions voted on by OurSay.org users. However, the questions are currently totally dominated by sceptic/denier talking points. As in, they’re leading by thousands of votes.

Submit or vote for some rational questions, for god’s sake, or prepared to be overrun by Alan Jones and his Army of Ignorants.

 

Power consumption makes historic drop

Wow!

One of Australia’s largest electricity providers says Australia is experiencing a “historic” cut in households’ demand for power.

Ausgrid, which powers much of New South Wales, has announced demand for its electricity by regular households has fallen 2 per cent each year for the past four years.

It is the first time the company has seen a fall in demand since the 1950s.

Ausgrid says the drop is caused by consumers switching to energy efficient hot water systems and light bulbs after seeing their power bills go through the roof.

“We’ve seen reductions even greater than 2 per cent, even up to 8 per cent per year,” he said.

It is expected the Australian Energy Market Operator will also announce a fall in power demand of 5 to 6 per cent in the next decade.

Turnbull defends climate science

THIS! Why can’t we see more of this in the Australian political and media landscape?
(and thanks to littlesing for giving me a heads up!)

Turnbull is one of the few rational, thoughtful politicians we have - big respect. I don’t say that just because of the content of last night’s speech (although I do support it); I say it because regardless of his political leaning, he has the conviction to speak against his leader and his party’s policy in the recognition that it is does not present the most credible alternative for Australia.

I know this stance is nothing particularly new for Malcolm, but it has come at the best time. What are the chances this will lead to a leadership spill? *fingers crossed*

The real public opinion on renewable energy

It suits the Opposition and some sections of the media to pretend that the only thing we care about is our cost of living but you’d think Australians would be smart enough to walk and chew gum at the same time. We all watch our bills but that doesn’t stop us from also considering issues like pollution and the costs of energy into the future.

So to test the case, the 100% Renewable Energy campaign decided to bypass the media and get it straight from the horse’s mouth. We wanted to hear directly from our communities what they thought about renewable energy.

From February to May of this year, community groups associated with the campaign conducted over 14,000 face-to-face conversations at people’s doors, in their lounge rooms, at markets and community events and on the sidelines of football matches. Conversations took place from Bega to Bunbury and Cairns to Hobart.

The sheer number of people we spoke to eclipsed any of the focus groups or randomised polls that are traditionally used to gauge the public mood.

The support we found for renewable energy was overwhelming. The people we spoke to support renewable energy and they want to see politicians get on with the job of bringing it online.

Some 91 per cent of participants thought that the government should be implementing strong policy to support new jobs and investment in renewable energy while 86 per cent of participants thought Australia should develop a plan to move to 100 per cent renewable energy.

Another finding was that 90 per cent of the people we spoke to thought we should be installing more renewable energy to counter rising energy prices.

* I will add that the methodology of this poll hasn’t been published (as far as I’m aware), so the statistics can’t necessarily be taken on face value (thanks to johannesvandergraaff for pointing that out). However, the journo is correct in saying that the scale is much larger than most others, which might count for something. Plus, the methodology of Galaxy (etc) polls aren’t always perfect - or rather, they aren’t correctly reported by news outlets. A recently asked question about whether Australians think the PM has a mandate to legislate for a carbon tax, for example, is very different to extrapolating to the consequently-reported story that most Australians don’t want a carbon tax. Whether or not you support the policy, the reporting of that particular poll wasn’t scrutinised enough. But then we come back to media cycles, potential bias and spin etc etc.

I probably jumped on this story a little quickly, but maybe if general polls were more balanced/trustworthy this one might not have seemed so exciting. Anyway, nice to get a bit of debate going :)

Hockeynomics 101

Another reason I can’t understand why the government is having such a hard time:

Here’s a quick essay question that should be easy marks for a high school economics student:

Discuss the contradiction in the following statement: “You’re facing higher interest rates over the next two years, rising prices, Australian families are doing it pretty tough and the best relief you can give them is to reduce the tax burden.” For an extra mark, explain the compatibility of fiscal policy whose stated primary aim is returning to surplus with giving income tax cuts and scrapping a resources rent tax – if you can.

It is the benefit of being in opposition that you don’t really have to make sense - you can’t do any of the stuff you rave about and it’s pretty safe to assume the electorate will only remember the simplistic slogans and most outrageous claims, not the boring detail and more mundane realities.

For god’s sakes, can’t Australian politics even function on a basic level anymore? Or is this just the new standard? I don’t know why I bother imagining we might one day have intelligent politicians who can have sensible, robust debates about things that matter…

Monckton compares Garnaut to Hitler

Denialists have such fantastic imaginations! Climate change is a communist ploy one day, fascist the next…

Oh, and we can’t forget Andrew Bolt’s claim of repression by the ‘church’ of scientists, ala Galileo!

Call a politician!

Just called Conroy and Sterle, that’s my VIC and WA reps done! It’s really easy too, I always feel like I stammer and blabber a bit, but I think all that matters is to get your name down. Anyway, get onto it, we’ve only got a day left!

Very soon, a decision on the carbon price is going to be finalised and announced to the public. We need to make sure that every politician who has the power to make or break this deal knows that we want a price on pollution that invests in renewable energy

We’re mobilising thousands of young people to put in calls to Labor Senators in the next 24 hours. We have volunteers in offices across the country and a national support team on standby. This is our moment, and together we can have an impact!

NY Times: In Australia, Reality TV Tackles Immigration

Leaning against a bed in the modest home that she shares here with six other family members, Maisara Masudi, 37, a refugee from Congo, tells her Australian guests what drove her to flee her homeland years ago. After militia members killed her father and brother, she said, they raped her sisters, ages 8 and 12, before her eyes. One sister contracted H.I.V.

With the cameras rolling, Raquel Moore wipes back tears and strokes Ms. Masudi on the shoulder. “You’re a lovely lady, and you didn’t deserve what you went through,” she says.

Moments later, however, away from her hosts, Ms. Moore stops to reflect into the camera.

“Yeah, well, I guess they’re nice,” she says. “But that doesn’t mean that every African or refugee is going to be as nice as this family.”

Immigration is, to say the least, a complicated issue in Australia.