IPCC report indicates urgent action on climate change

With a 37 degree day in Melbourne in November and the severe ongoing drought, the scientific predictions of the latest United Nations IPCC report such as intensified water security problems in southern and eastern Australia are well validated.

Projected surface temperature changes for the late 21st century (2090-2099) Source: IPCC Report 4

Finance Minister Nick Minchin stated (ABC radio AM 19/11) that Kevin Rudd "has recently become an economic conservative after a decade of being an economic vandal". Unfortunately, the Howard government has only recently become a "climate change realist" after 11 years of climate change vandalism.

Nick Minchin stated in March this year that he was still skeptical about human activity causing climate change. Mark Vaile said in October (ABC radio PM 29/10) that "there is conflicting scientific evidence on it".

The Howard government has been economic vandals by shutting Australia out of the booming world market for genuine renewable energy technology. Instead they have diverted around $500m more of our money towards subsidising risky research and development for the coal industry, which should be funding these activities on its own.

The latest IPCC report clearly states that the world is now facing a looming "abrupt or irreversible climate catastrophe that will spare no country", but it also says that many available measures combined can avoid the worst catastrophes at an estimated cost of less than 0.12% of the global economy annually until 2050.

These measures include transitioning away from coal to renewable energy and gas-fired power stations, developing hybrid cars, using more efficient electrical appliances and protecting our forests to store more carbon.

The Howard government is still basically stuck in denial about climate change while Labor is committing to little immediate action on reducing our carbon emissions. It seems that our political system is failing to address the urgency of the situation.

Voting for the Greens' strong emission reduction and energy efficiency targets is a good option, but we also need to consider how we can get climate change out of the political arena so that it can properly addressed with a bipartisan approach properly informed by science.

Links

• Environment goes from bad to worse, Marian Wilkinson and Stephanie Peatling, November 19, 2007
• Minchin denies climate change man-made , Wendy Frew Environment Reporter, March 15, 2007
• Denial industry in full cry, John Quiggin, 16 Aug 2007
• Cabinet divided over climate change: Coalition MP, Karen Barlow, ABC radio PM - Monday, 29 October , 2007 18:14:00
• Summary for Policymakers of the Synthesis Report of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report
• IPCC Synthesis Report: Greens respond with comprehensive climate action plan (PDF), The Greens, 19 November 2007
• A signal leaders 'cannot afford to ignore', The Age, Federal Election 2007 News, November 19, 2007
• What turned the Liberal party off climate change action? , Guy Pearse, Friday, 16 November 2007
  

You can help to turn Kooyong marginal

Senator Bob Brown and Peter Campbell, Greens candidate for Kooyong

Your help in Kooyong handing out "how to vote cards" for me on the 24 November would be greatly appreciated.

While Kooyong is a fairly safe Liberal-held seat, we can change the political landscape by making it marginal. There is even a very slim chance that the Labor candidate Dr Ken Harvey might tip out the Liberal incumbent (Petro Georgiou).

Kooyong has the 10th highest Green vote in the country, with your help we can move further up the ranks and force reaction from both the old parties.

Everyone in Kooyong can benefit from an increase in the Greens vote - if the margin the seat is held by continues to decline the seat will become "marginal" so it will benefit from the largesse that is showered on such seats during election campaigns. Voting 1 Green really does count.

You will notice that Kooyong has received no such attention this campaign. The Howard goverment takes voters in the seat for granted.

If you would like to help with the campaign, please contact me via Facebook or via this web form (which sends an email)

Regards, Peter

Greens win mock election at Canterbury Girls Secondary College

Canterbury Girls Secondary College holds a "mock election" event during the campaign of every federal election. This is an excellent opportunity for the student to hear from political candidates from a variety of parties, ask them questions, then vote on ballots similar to those used for the House of Representatives (lower house) in the upcoming federal election.



The ballots (votes) are then counted from the "voting booth" and preferences distributed. This provides hands on experience for how our prefential voting system works.

This year, I spoke as the Greens candidate for Kooyong. My "opponents" were the Petro Georgiou (MP for Kooyong), Senator Lyn Allison (Leader of the Democrats) and Barbara Norman (Labor candidate for Higgins).


A wide range of topics were covered and as usual many good questions were asked.

I was fortunate enough the win the majority of primary votes, and be declared the "winner" after preferences were distributed. Here is the primary vote percentages:

Lyn Allison	16.4
Petro Georgiou	11.3
Peter Campbell	46.8
Barbara Norman	22.4
Informal	3.1
Total	100

While this does not set a precedent for the outcome for Kooyong in the upcoming federal election, it was nonetheless pleasing to see and hear so many year 9 students with a keen interest in taking real action on climate change and many other Greens policies I spoke about.

Greens how to vote card for Kooyong

I have been getting some recent questions about Greens preferences. The first point I make is that we recommend to voters that they carefully choose where to place their second preference. Voting 1 Green sends a powerful message, and if I don't get elected then the vote flows at full value to the next preference chosen by the voter.

This is our "how to vote card" recommendation for Kooyong in this election, in the order of the ballot draw:

3. Harvey, Ken (Labor)
6. Laidler, John (Family First)
4. Georgiou, Petro (Liberal)
2. Collyer, David (Democrats)
5. Curtis, Pierre – (CEC)
1. Campbell, Peter - Greens

Remember, this is only our suggestion to you. We recommend that you choose carefully where your second and later preferences go after you vote 1 Green.

We have carefully examined the other party's policies. The Democrats have many policies that are very close to the Greens, such as emission targets for addressing climate change and mandating energy efficiency standards for example. Our how to vote card has the Democrats as number 2.

In Kooyong in the 2001 and 2004 elections we left it voters to choose whether their preference ended up with Labor or Liberal. We did this by issuing a "split ticket" how to vote card which had a "to Labor" option and a "to Liberal" option after voting 1 Green.

However, this election Labor has committed to 2050 emission reduction targets, to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, and to a 20% renewable energy target by 2020. While they are still avoiding setting 2020 emission reduction targets, we think their policies on climate change are significantly better than the Coalition. Our how to vote card has Labor as number 3.

The Liberals are taking no real action on climate change this election and are supporting nuclear power and spending excessive amounts of taxpayers money on coal research and development, rather than investing in renewables. In addition, many in the Liberal Party such as Nick Minchin and Mark Vaile are still openly skeptical about whether humans are causing climate change. However, Petro Georgiou has taken a principled stand on the treatment of asylum seekers over the term of the Howard government. The Liberals are number 4.

Family First have very poor policies on climate change and are lobbying hard to reduce the retail price of fossil fuel which will increase its use therefore our carbon emissions. They also voted against the Greens Senate motion (along with both Labor and Liberal) to set a 2 degree temperature increase as the maximum tolerable rise and use this to guide energy policy and regulation. We have therefore put Family First at number 5.

The CEC come last at number 6. They are openly skeptical about whether climate change actually exists - which is an untenable position to take in this time of decreased rainfall, rising temperatures and bushfires. Science clearly demonstrates the humans are causing climate change by excessive greenhouse gas emissions.

Please contact me via mobile 0409 417 504 or email if you have any questions about this.

Street stalls around Kooyong

We have been out in the community visiting strip shopping centres such as Balwyn, Glenferrie Road and Camberwell. We hand out the Green Times newspaper which has some excellent articles on the problems with WorkChoices, setting climate targets, how to improve public education, forest conservation and West Papua.

Many people have told me they are greatly concerned about climate change, and that the old parties are not doing enough about it.

I think it is becoming increasingly apparent that if you want real action on climate change, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, your best option is to vote 1 Green.

Jenny handing out the popular Green Times newspaper in Camberwell

ABC TV Difference of Opinion on climate change

I was in the studio audience of the ABC Difference of Opinion TV program on climate change on Thursday 8 November.

I was lucky enough to be able to make the statement that Australia really should ratify the Kyoto protocol and participate in good faith with international efforts to tackle climate change, then ask Guy Pearce whether we should have shorter term emission reduction targets for 2020. Guy's emphatic answer was "yes, these are essential" You can read the transcript and watch the program on the Internet here

AUDIENCE MEMBER (me): On the issue of Australia's leadership position, I have a question for Guy. If Malcolm Turnbull can lead the world on light globes by saying, let's move to the compact fluorescent light globes and the rest of the world follows California and Europe, surely we can do the same thing, by developing our clean energy and getting it 25% renewable target. And short-term energy targets in place.

GUY PEARSE: I couldn't agree more. APPLAUSE I think what we've seen is a very deliberate attempt to steer clear of the fact that really counts, and that is, that Australia' emissions are on track to rise 70% by mid century. That's the trajectory we're currently on. But, instead we're snowed with a series of press releases about how we're banning the bulb, we need 800 steps of that scale in order to cut our emissions by 60% by mid century. We hear all about our $3.5 billion climate change budget. But, you know, on day one of this election campaign, John Howard gave away 10 times as much in one tax cut, the sixth tax cut in a row. APPLAUSE What really matters is whether we're pursuing those deep cuts in emissions. Right now we're headed in exactly the opposition direction.

Links

• Should Australia ratify the Kyoto protocol and push for binding global emissions?

We need real action on climate change

It is disappointing that both Labor and Liberal party election policies on climate change announced so far do not provide any immediate action to reduce our carbon emissions.

The scientific evidence on climate change clearly indicates that immediate action is required, yet the Howard government has only committed to an emission trading scheme in 2012 after a decade of denial. No details of their proposed scheme are available yet. There is considerable risk that it may not result in any emission reductions.

The Howard Government is also promoting nuclear power as part of their solution, which will be too expensive, too late, produce toxic waste and not be renewable.

On the other hand, Labor has committed to 2050 emission reduction targets, but not too any shorter term 2020 targets that are essential for achieving the longer term ones. However, Labor’s 20% renewable energy target by 2020 is a step in the right direction.

Neither the Labor or Liberal party will commit to the essential policy goal of limiting global temperature increase to 2 degrees, yet science tells us even this temperature rise will have widespread deleterious effects on global ecosystems.

I encourage the many people in our community concerned about climate change to attend the Walk Against Warming rally on Sunday 7/11 to show their support for immediate bipartisan action to address climate change.

Setting energy efficiency targets and increasing our utilisation of renewable energy is achievable immediately, but we need the political will to do so.

Vote 1 Green for real action on climate change, rather than a load of hot air

This video succinctly explains why we really must take immediate action.




Peter Campbell
Greens candidate for Kooyong