It was stinking hot in Canberra, but I couldn’t very well use the heat as an excuse not to attend the Climate Action Summit, could I? I slid into my seat in the packed ANU auditorium as Clive Hamilton delivered some political truths, all bad news. That much I already knew, as he outlined the sad collapse of the Rudd government on climate change, described as ‘in thrall to the fossil fuel lobby’. The Emmissions Trading Scheme will enshrine the right to pollute (with rewards) to the worst polluters. That just set the scene for the session on coal in the afternoon.
Marcus Clarke, staring down sternly from a portrait, might have observed that some things don’t change, but ah, the difference today is in the scale. That was one conclusion at the end of a long and sometimes upsetting day.
Then David Spratt, co-author of Climate Code Red, told us some more things I sort of knew, but with extra facts. Emissions are increasing more rapidly, and with graver consequences, than the consensus-driven IPCC proclaims. Partly due to the compliance of the media, there is a gap between what scientists know about the urgency of the situation and what the public and politicians think is happening. Oh, yes, and the West African monsoon might collapse by mid-century. Food and water will become scarcer, and as the Chinese have demonstrated, you can’t live off melamine for very long.
The day progressed, with over 500 activists from all over the country sharing their information and plans for changing the system. A few pollies, mostly from councils, also were there. One stall gave info from the group behind the TV ads advocating vegetarianism, but that didn’t make the vegan food more satisfying.
The real interest for me was the coal session, although I imagine the one on peak oil would have been an eye-opener also. For example, I didn’t know that Xtrata is planning to double Australia’s coal exports, including creating the Southern Hemisphere’s largest open cut coal mine in western Queensland. One organiser mentioned the prominence of women in PR functions for the mining industry, such as the NSW Minerals Council. I noticed that tune decades ago, when the tobacco lobby had a young, attractive black woman whistling their song.
The discussion covered the need to engage local communities, whose job loss is less than the industry proclaims, and who in any case see that there are more jobs in renewables. It mentioned the ALP infrastructure spending, which will include $580m to build rail lines to take coal to the coast, and the rising anger and demonstrations worldwide over coal plants.
It also mentioned the collaboration between state and federal governments to deter anti-coal protests. In this context it reminded me of an article from some weeks ago about Martin Ferguson, that not-so-great supporter of the public good and labor interests. That article said he had requested ‘as a matter of urgency.. a formal review of penalties for unlawful distruption…noting the importance of energy security’…bla bla. These are another form of SLAPP suit, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, which have been an anti-democratic feature of the legal landscape for some time.
Coal is the big challenge for Australia, even as gas and oil present similar challenges to the green credentials of Norway. I can see that government and industry might need some time to wrap their heads around the inevitable need to phase out the coal industry (although that time has come and gone and now the need is urgent). but I cannot grasp why any human with any duty of care to this country, much less the environment of the planet, would actively seek to increase coal exports and energy production, or to pursue the blind alley of ‘clean coal.’ That is like a sick person ignoring their symptoms while they worsen. The clean coal trick first arose when the industry was fighting attempts to control acid rain. (Can you hear the rhythm of power, money and politics playing in the background? I’ve heard that sound track somewhere….)
At an informal gathering of the Canberra activists, we found out that the NSW and federal govs are also working quietly to produce biofuel power from the southern forests. In an echo of a failed attempt to build a charcoal factory using forest wood some years back, it is clear that more open government is not exactly unfolding as promised. No threat ever goes away, it just changes its beat a bit. The only urgency governments seem to recognise is to sell off whatever they can, however they can, regardless of the longer term consequences.
The good guys are collaborating, too, but their pockets aren’t very deep. As always, it is humbling to see the dedication of so many activists, old and young, who are building the networks for change in the face of political back-pedalling and lack of vision or courage. Here, too, having given up on Rudd, we turn our gaze towards the US, hoping Obama will find a different drum for the beat of the economy.
I leave you with this elegant but anonymous video, a morphing of the 44 US Presidents, with a well-known and thrilling beat in the background:
http://www.flixxy.com/presidents-morphing.htm

My partner alerted me to this phrase. Listen for it, coming from the mouths of policy advisors or pollies. It used to imply a plan, but now it just seems to cover a vague idea of the future. We can’t do otherwise, can we? Except, of course, if moving forward is taking us backwards, into a time of less rhyme, reason or plenty.
Four items from the weekend media deepen my conviction that our leaders are indeed taking us backwards, even as we progress through time towards an uncertain future. One was an article in the Sydney Morning Herald by an Australian of Bangaleshi origin. He is a psychiatry registrar, so it seems the sister back home he refers to is also a professional. He wonders why so little attention is being paid to action on climate change, given that in his country alone, 150 million people are likely to be displaced by the impacts in this century. He quotes a report saying that a sea level rise of just 50 cm would affect 2/3 of Bangladesh’s land mass. Well, the latest (conservative) estimates from the US government are saying 4 ft. That’s well over a meter, and since it is also more than twice the previous estimate, it indicates that the margin of error is quite wide.
Perhaps one can say ‘Toodle-oo, Tuvalu!’ knowing that the number of refugees will be in the thousands. However the thought of 150 million souls seeking shelter is daunting and must surely give rise to some serious thought and risk assessment on the part of our leaders. But perhaps not, and in any case, we are all relentlessly ‘movng forward’ regardless.
The second thought provoking item was a program on SBS last night about changing climate, changing people. It was filmed in several countries, and used the reliable docu-drama approach. This uses plausible people and case studies to exemplify future scenarios. The computer enhancements to show how Paris would be re-done for greater energy conservation were particularly good. And much of their suggestions on where exactly we are moving forward to were already within the scope of current news reports.
Set in 2075, the program used the entwining of 4 groups to show how solutions may be found, but also how drastic the imposition of penalties will be. Palm trees in a semi-arid Burgundy? Endless floods in Europe? Challenges and opportunities of many kinds. The actors were all beautiful, either in body or soul. There was resolution, and optimism. Even so, it was hard enough not to cry at the pathos.
The third media item was on Background Briefing. It was about serious consideration of engineering the climate. One of these would permanently turn the sky grey or white, and no one on earth would ever see a blue sky again. That is just an indicator of how extremely arrogant these plans are. Although part of the program discussed the political difficulties of implementing such massive geo-engineering, the lack of balance still loomed. How could turning over literally control of life and death through manipulation of the environment ever remotely be a positive thing to do? Hasn’t anyone been paying attention to the Russian’s use of gas as a political prodder? My Phd touched on design issues for technology and society; democratic principles apply here, just as in urban planning.
The fourth media item was on food security, again on ABC radio national. Investors are moving into food futures. This has long been one of my hobby horses, especially since no level of government is prepared to address it. Over the years I watched in horror as orange trees and most recently fruit trees have been ripped out, the first due to globalisation and competition from Brazil, the second due to drought. But the program seemed to focus on food shortages and high prices elsewhere, such as the third world. The idea that these matters could affect the affluent is just too hard to contemple.
It seems the scenarios of the climate change film lie much closer than 2075. And it also seems that positive governmental action is even less likely than shown in the film. Going just a few thousand years back, the Romans were able to be sensible administrators. They would incorporate the territories they captured into their civilisation. The benefits generally outweighed the imposts, so that when the Roman Empire imploded, the core was left to build on.
The US empire doesn’t seem to bring much, only exploitation. Certainly not democracy or human rights, or there would have been a regime change in Saudi Arabia long ago. And the US also doesn’t seem to be planning for the drying up of oil supplies. Obama is clearly another insider, beholden to too many powerful groups to realise the public is who he should be pleasing. Instead, he is talking about rolling back entitlements to Medicare and Social Security. That won’t win him many friends.
It is also likely that his push for renewable energy will resolve into massive subsidies for the long term, high centralised forms of power generation: coal with carbon capture and sequestration and nuclear. Neither have much potential to enhance democracy. They also are very capital intensive, rather than distributed, high employment options such as wind and solar thermal. Ditto the Rudd government. Why is Australia always just a rubber stamp for the US? The election imperative given to the ALP in 2007 was more clear than that given to Obama. Yet he disappoints.
But enough, the day is passing, there is much to do, and it is time for me to move forward.