Australia's climate change response, Guy Pearce

Guy Pearce spoke on 24 October at the Melbourne Town Hall on why the Australian government has failed to take real action to reduce our greenhouse pollution. Find out the interesting details from someone who's been on the inside. I took a video and have put it on YouTube in the following segments (videos are restricted to 10 minutes length).

Guy is on a speaking tour around Australia that has been organised and promoted by Greenpeace. His talk covers information that is included in his recent book High and Dry

Guy's talk gives some very good reasons why we need a change of government in Australia and Greens in the Senate to take real action on climate change.

Part 1: Guy's journey and forgotten Liberal Party history

Part 2: I love a burnt country?

Part 3: Behind Australia's world leading spin

Part 4: Carbon capture and the greenhouse mafia

Part 5: Denial, delusion and the election campaign

Part 6: What can we do?

Part 7: Being climate clever, not climate conned

Walk against Warming on 11 November 2007

John Howard's and Kevin Rudd's policies on climate change both fall well short of what is required to take real action on climate change.

Howard has not committed to any targets, while Rudd says Labor will ratify the Kyoto Protocol and set emission reduction targets for 2050.

We don't need more reports, we need short term targets for 2010, 2015 and 2020. In particular, we need to set a firm target of 30% emissions reductions by 2020.

You have the opportunity to attend Australia's biggest day of community action on climate change.

Date: Sunday, November 11, 2007
Time: 1:00pm to 3:00pm
Location: State Library, Swanton Street, Melbourne

I encourage you to "walk against warming" to highlight the need for action on climate change. I will be there.

See http://www.walkagainstwarming.org for walk locations in your capital city.

This advertisement from Getup summarises the Howard Government's position well. Demand real action on climate change: I can do that!

Burning forests is not green power

Peter Campbell joined Senate Candidate Dr Richard Di Natale and Melbourne Candidate Adam Bandt to protest over the plans by Gunns to sell power back to Victoria as Greens power at the Origin Energy Shop in Richmond on Friday.

Greens lead Senate candidate in Victoria Dr Richard Di Natale said that now the giant Gunns pulp mill had been given the go-ahead, consumers needed to be warned about the insidious link between old-growth forests and their power supply.

"When the pulp mill goes into production we will see a massive increase in the level of native forest logging for wood chips in Tasmania," Dr Di Natale said."'This will lead to the extinction of threatened wildlife and will significantly increase global warming.

"Forestry Tasmania has initiated proposals to burn wood chips from native forests for electricity generation. This power source will grow after the Gunns mill comes on line. Victoria and other states that are part of the national electricity market will be able to import electricity from Tasmania via Basslink.

"At a time when we desperately need renewable energy, the logging industry proposes to burn native forests for power generation under the guise of renewable electricity or 'green' power.

"We call on Origin Energy and other power suppliers, including TXU and AGL, to state explicitly to their customers and their shareholders that they will not purchase electricity from Tasmania generated from the burning of wood chips from native forests."

Why voting Green is vitally important

With climate change, drought, energy and a sustainable future now high on the political agenda, there has never been a more important time to vote for the Greens so that we get real action rather than rhetoric.

In the House of Representatives

Some residents I have spoken to recently have said they support the Greens by putting them as number 2 on their ballot after either Labor or Liberal.

They are surprised when I tell them that 2 for the Greens does nothing if you have a Liberal or Labor as number 1.

Nobody ever notices your number 2. Unfortunately, this doesn't help the Greens or show your support at all. Your vote just goes directly to the Labor or Liberal party and stays there.

However, if you like the Greens policies and would like me to represent you in Canberra, you can vote 1 Greens, then for the other parties of your choice.

This is really effective because you actually get double the value for your vote. Here is how it works:

Select 1 Greens. You make a really strong statement that you support the environment, open and fair government and a sustainable future. If I get enough votes, I will be elected and will be privileged to represent your views in parliament so I can work for a better future.

Select 2. This is your second preference, it is your choice. If I don't get elected, your vote is distributed to this choice on your ballet paper. The vote is counted again, at full value.

• So if you would like to John Howard returned, you can give your second choice to Petro Georgiou, the Liberal candidate.
  
• If you prefer Kevin Rudd, you can give your second choice to Ken Harvey, the Labor candidate.

If you prefer other parties (such as the Democrats) above either Labor or Liberal, you can give them your second preference. What really matters in the end is where you put Labor with respect to the Liberals. Whichever has the lower number will invariably get your vote. So if you vote 1 Green, 2 Democrat, 3 Liberal, 4 Labor then the Liberals will end up with your vote.

Need to know more? See the Australian Electoral Commission notes for more details.

Make no mistake: I’m serious about getting elected to represent you in Kooyong, but given that that is a big, BIG task, it is good to be able to reassure supporters that their vote will STILL BE COUNTED (twice, in fact.)

In the Senate
Even if Labor win enough lower house seats to form government, the polls and analysts indicate they will not win control of the Senate. It is important that more Greens are elected to the Senate so that it can act as a real house of review. The Greens will ensure there is balance in the Senate so that no major party will hold sway pushing their own agendas.

Either Vote 1 Green (above the line) in the Senate (the big ballot paper) or number the Greens candidates 1 to 6 then number every other square below the line in the order of your choice (also known as voting "below the line"). If you make a mistake or miss a number then your vote will be invalid and not be counted. Ask for another ballot paper if you have made a mistake!

Gunns pulp mill will not be clean

Both Kevin Rudd and John Howard support the proposed Gunns pulpmill in the Tasmania’s Tamar valley. Peter Garrett supports it too. This is in spite of polls showing that two out of three locals in the valley oppose the mill due to serious concerns about the air and water pollution it will produce and the native forest it will consume.

Once again we see major party politics let down the people of Australia. Why not have a local plebiscite on this divisive issue?

The Lennon government has abandoned its own environmental assessment and public consultation to fast track the mill. Malcolm Turnbull is keeping his options open with a huge majority of voters in his marginal seat of Wentworth also opposing the mill.

If it were truly a world-class, best environment standards pulp mill then I think it would proceed. But this would mean a plantation-based, chlorine-free, closed-loop pulp mill that doesn't use a Kraft (sulphur-based) pulping process.

This would enhance Tasmania’s growing green image and ecotourism appeal that the Government has spent millions promoting. This is where Tasmania’s long term future, employment and prosperity should be.

See also: Greens Kooyong website

Kooyong climate change forum

I spoke at the Kooyong climate change forum on the evening of Monday 3 September 2007.


It was encouraging to see about 350 people turn up to hear the candidates for Kooyong talk about climate change. Greens policies on climate change are fairly close to the Democrats (David Collyer) in that we both specify short term emission reduction targets. However, Labor (Ken Harvey) is still refusing to specify any targets earlier than 2050, with the Liberals (Petro Georgiou) are still refusing to set any targets at all.

Interestingly, all candidates set their "temperature arrow" to 2 degrees, even though both Labor and Liberal voted against the Greens motion for this in the Senate in April, and John Howard has stated that "Australia can adapt to climate change of up to 5 degrees", a statement which is bordering on lunacy.


It really is a case of separating what politicians say from how they or their party votes in parliament. There is often a world of difference. So now we can hold John Howard to the two degrees rise maximum, courtesty of Petro Georgiou. But maybe this is just another "non-core promise".

Below are my presentation slides. Click on any to enlarge them.

Why the Gunns pulp mill proposal for the Tamar valley should not be approved

There are serious concerns about Gunns proposed pulp mill for the Tamar valley in Tasmania.

However, the Lennon Labor government in Tasmania has cut short their public consultation process that was supposed to address social and environmental concerns about the pulp mill.

And Malcolm Turnbull, the Federal Environment Minister, has granted preliminary approval for the mill to proceed, despite stating his "concerns about the poor process followed by the Lennon Government"!

Turbull has now called for public submissions about the mill, with a closing date of 31st August. Please consider writing your own submission. You can send your submission via email to epbc.pulpmill@environment.gov.au

My submission to the "Invitation to comment on draft recommendation report - 2007/3385 Gunns Limited Proposed Pulp Mill, Tasmania"

To whom it may concern,

The Gunns pulp mill proposal for the Tamar valley in Tasmania should not be approved until:

• Full consideration of the impacts of the mill on Tasmania's native forests and wildlife habitat are assessed.
• An independent assessment of the flow and dispersal of effluent in Bass Strait is undertaken.
• All toxic substances are removed from the mill effluent - no output of dioxin should be allowed.
• Adequate local consultation has occurred - this was cut short when the Lennon Government abandoned their RPDC process

In its current form, the pulp mill would pollute the ocean with toxic dioxin, and have a very serious negative impact on fisheries and local tourism ventures in the Tamar valley.

The mill proposal should not be approved until these matters are resolved.

Peter Campbell

*** End of submission ***

Links

• Invitation to comment on proposed decision and conditions for the pulp mill proposal in Tasmania's Tamar Valley
• Comment sought on draft Pulp Mill decision and conditions - Malcolm Turnbull MP
• The Wilderness Society - Gunns' Proposed Pulp Mill
• PM's pal damns pulp mill proposal | The Australian
• Turnbull to clear way for pulp mill | The Australian

Videos

• Natural Tasmania brand worth more than a dirty pulp mill (Greens)
• Tasmanian scallop fisherman, John Hammond, on the pulp mill
• Pulp mill 2007... Back to the future with Christine Milne