We are told the US invasion of Iraq was all about oil. Or was it? In fact, the oil wars began almost as soon as oil became the common mode of fuel. This enlightenment comes from a book by Paul Roberts, ‘The End of Oil’.
The British switched their navy quickly from coal to oil, a smart decision since oil was more energy dense and lighter weight. But this led them also quickly to realise they would need to position themselves in the Middle East for the forseeable future. Somewhere around the beginning of the last century, the age of petro politics began. Out of this has followed much of the turmoil around Palestine and onwards east.
The Second World War also was influenced by the search for secure oil, according to Roberts. The Germans wanted access to Russian oil, and the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour partly to stop the Yankee fleet from blocking Japanese access to Indonesia’s oil. Plus ca change…
The oil shocks of the 70s didn’t wake up almost anyone, or not for long. Now, nearly 40 years later, peak oil is in sight and we are lulled yet again to postpone serious thought about what comes after.
A sensible union official in the US called for the car companies to just stop producing cars. The growth in car ownership can’t go on forever, nor is the US likely to catch up with more agile foreign manufacturers. Instead, she said, they should retool as was done during WW2, except this time they should be making mass transit systems and wind generators. Now that would make sense!
Nor has the intelligent Mr Rudd grasped the essence of what needs to happen to reduce Australia’s carbon emissions. Cap and trade won’t work, as it will disencentivise individuals from cutting their emissions: these will just show up as credits to the larger companies that hold the credits. These critiques are widely discussed, yet the Rudd government plows ahead.
Perhaps, just maybe, the emerging Labor Environment Activist Network, or LEAN, (http://www.lean.net.au/) which is steadily gaining support in Sydney, will become a force for bringing some sense to the table. Here’s hoping.
December 07, 2008 | Ronda Jambe
Oil wars are nothing new
December 04, 2008 | Graham
A blow to Citizen Journalism
Labor MP James Bidgood is in trouble for taking a photograph and selling it to a newspaper chain in return for a donation of $1,000 to a charity of his choosing. Perhaps I have a tin ear, but what has he done wrong? Or is this an extension of the principles that have led to the Net Nanny State?
Was the taking of the photo what is said to be wrong? Or was it selling (what he calls “passing”) the photos to Newscorp for a donation.
If you read his statement to parliament, it is hard to tell. Here are his words:
Mr BIDGOOD (Dawson) (7.00 pm)—Mr Speaker, on indulgence: this afternoon at an event I took photographs of a serious incident. I later passed those photographs to a news organisation in return for a donation to charity connected to disabilities. My actions were highly insensitive and inappropriate. I am tonight writing a letter of apology to the family involved. I deeply regret my actions and I apologise once again for any offence that I have caused.
How can taking the photos be a crime?
The promise of the ‘net, and the premise on which OLO is founded is that making the news, and analysing it, is not, and should not be, the preserve of professional journalists, many of whom have no expert understanding of the areas on which they report, and operate to commercial criteria which are frequently antithetical to good reportage.
We have participated in a number of citizen journalism projects (YouDecide2007 and QldDecides.com) that have tried to expand the pool of those who can contribute directly to the news gathering process. If these photos had been sent to me I would have been happy to publish them.
The photos in their own right represent no moral or ethical dilemmas that any other piece of dramatic press footage doesn’t offer. The iconic photo of the Vietnam War is naked 9 year old Kim. Should the photographer not have taken the photo because he was sensitive to her current or potential distress? Should the photographer have tended to her obvious physical needs, rather than take the shot?
Quite clearly we expect news journalists to capture images like this, or we wouldn’t reward them with Pullitzer prizes.
So is the problem that Bidgood is not a professional journalist and that he had other duties to fulfill? If the man trying to douse himself in petrol was in the process, and Bidgood was the only person in a position to stop him, then perhaps that would be the case. But the photos are actually taken after the event, and they include police who are acting to save the subject from himself. Budgood had no higher humanitarian duty that could have trumped his interest in taking the photo.
In fact Bidgood’s case suggests that the distress to the parents should take precedence over everything else. In which case, given many events of historical moment represent distress to someone, should our media only be able to display photos that are uplifting?
Or is the real “crime” that he sought to profit from the photos? Surely not. As far as I know there is no ethical problem with a politician supplementing their income – both John Howard and Kevin Rudd have done it. Bidgood understands photography, and has taken passable photos. Why shouldn’t he sell them (and directing the money to the charity is no different from a sale)? Surely the proposition isn’t that he should have given them to News so that News could profit from them, but no-one else?
As all these questions should, I think, be answered in the negative, it leads to only one conclusion. The high tide of citizen empowerment is being deflected by an opposition and a government who have decided to try to force Australians back into a hierarchical world where select groups have a monopoly on the provision of particular goods and services.
It is this lack of faith in the public which informs the Net Nanny State, and which apparently poisoins much else beside.