News from the Secretary for October, 2007
The Good News
Dr Peter Tait
We congratulate DEA member Dr Peter Tait, who has been awarded The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners’ (RACGP) General Practitioner of the Year Award for 2007. The General Practitioner of the Year Award recognises an individual general practitioner’s understanding of, and commitment to general practice; their service to their community; and their involvement in ongoing training and continuing professional development. The full citation is at the College website www.racgp.org.au “Peter has an active engagement with peace and climate change issues including as a member and office bearer with the Medical Association for the Prevention of War and as a key member of the Alice Springs Climate Change Action Group. He is a true leader in Australian general practice. Dr Tait works actively to improve the health of indigenous Australians and plays a critical role in working for health equity in some of Australia’s most disadvantaged communities. His integrity and dedication is reflected in his efforts to speak three key local languages – Warlpiri, Arrnete and Pitjantjatjara – as well as in teaching others.”
The intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
It is significant that the Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded to the IPCC and to Al Gore. It recognises the huge potential for conflict when global warming further reduces the diminishing supply of fresh water and food together with thousands of environmental refugees seeking refuge in other lands. It emphasis war and environmental destruction as the interlocking threats to humanity; the annual $843 billion expenditure on armaments, the green house emissions and land destruction and pollution they produce. Many commentators therefore reflect their ignorance when they ask what has this award to Al Gore and to the IPCC got to do with peace.
Several members of DEA and the DEA Committees have been involved in IPCC work and we offer our congratulations to them on their contributions
This brings me to Al Gore. Whatever his decision on the next US presidential election, Gore represents the prototype of the required leadership if we are to survive the forthcoming crises.
For those interested in US politics and the need for the US to accept world responsibilities there are two recent articles in the New York Times, worthy of your time
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/13/opinion/13sat1.html?th=&emc=th&pagewanted=print
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html?th&emc=th
Congratulations to the Al Gore Messengers
Bill Castleden (Chair) and Grant Blashki (DEA Committee member, Victoria) were selected for the first group of messengers. They have considerable achievements as you will see from the long list of talks in the forthcoming annual report. A further group has now been selected under the Al Gore scheme and includes Nick Towle, (DEA Committee member for Tasmania) and Linda Thomson, DEA member in Queensland. Congratulations to all these members on their contributions to health and climate change.
Please take time to peruse the web site!
The recent article The successful campaign (2005-2007) to force the publisher of the Lancet to divest itself from the arms business and the accompanying article on the same topic is worthy of your attention. It again emphasises the relationship between environment and conflict discussed briefly at the beginning of this newsletter. It illustrates an important and symbolic outcome as a result of activism.
Our website is under constant change, new policy is posted, the mission statement has changed to a vision statement and is less stuffy, and the latest poster will be unveiled soon. Please give us your comments, criticisms and suggestions. It is your site.
The entire site is open, apart from the blog – you need to apply for a password for this
The Bad News
Pulp Mills
More than anything the Tasmanian Mill saga illustrates that governments show fickle concern for their own environmental regulations. When these regulations impede what is called progress they are cancelled, manipulated, or over-ruled (by passing Indenture Acts). That increased logging to feed this Tasmanian mill will significantly increase greenhouse emissions is not considered under any environmental process because it is legal under an archaic RFA which provides the cloak of legality for both major parties. The RFA is archaic because not only was it a political agreement without secure scientific basis but it was enacted before we knew the urgency of reducing emissions. The ridiculous machinations of the Tasmanian government have now been trumped by the slick approval on the Penola Mill in SA. Rather than fight in the trenches like Tasmania’s major parties, the SA Labor government with support from the Liberal opposition declared the Penola Mill to be a major project which circumvents the state’s EPA assessment. Who can oppose progress? SA parliament approved it this week. Game, set and match in one year, eat your heart out Mr Lennon
DEA has worked hard on the Tasmanian Pulp Mill issue. In the previous newsletter we detailed all the work we have done. More recently we have been working through a source close to Mr Rudd to try and get recognition that this is a climate change issue. What have we done about the Penola mill?—nothing. We have not had the resources, for to take on an issue we need a DEA member prepared to spend time on the issue. The wood used for the Penola Mill is plantation so the green house emissions result only from power used in the operation of the mill. No doubt the mill has a dioxin issue but it isn’t out into the open. There is a water problem; the mill will take groundwater from a farming area which depends on a falling groundwater table for its survival. Protest has been from the farmers, the Greens and the Democrats. But the $1.5 billion mill proceeds. The mind-set is epitomised by the statement of one member of the House “The problem with going through the normal process (as per the Development Act) is that the developer has to be able to answer every question the EPA, DWLBC (the Department of Water, land and Biodiversity Conservation) and other government agencies put to them about how they will meet standards”. Some of us were naive enough to think we had come a long way in the past 50 years! How wrong we were. The standards were approved by a Standing Committee and the Federal government gave approval under the EPBC Act.
The Election
Not going very well for the issues of the future! Good resolutions have already been lost in what many commentators call bribes to the electorate. I mused upon what the $34 or 31 billion tax cut proposals of both major Parties would do for the environment and the future of our children. Greenhouse related measures—more public transport including light rail, kick starts to renewable manufacture in Australia, health infrastructure to help with the heath effects of climate change, replacement of water supply infrastructure, intensive reafforestation. The standard reply is that many of these necessities are state responsibilities. Of course $34 or $31 billion is inconsequential compared to what is really needed for environmental and climate change restitution but it would have been a good start. It is depressing to realise that despite all the education and rhetoric, the fundamental political mindset remains much the same.The Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter says ".....the majority of politicians, on the evidence available to us are interested not in truth but in power and in the maintenance of that power. To maintain that power it is essential that people remain in ignorance, that they live in ignorance of the truth, even the truth of their own lives. What surrounds us therefore is a vast tapestry of lies, upon which we feed". A bit harsh but it can be applied to some pulp mills!
What can you do?
Support, our forthcoming adverts in the national press advertisements with a donation. Politicians are at their most receptive in the pre-election period
Follow the issues as assessed by the ACF scorecard and Online opinion
The Australian Conservation Foundation's first assessment of the main political parties' climate and environment policies gives both Liberal and Labor a score below 50 per cent .http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1439&c=1836
“The ACF scorecard rates the policies of the Coalition, Labor, the Greens, the Democrats and Family First on climate change, water and the environment. While Labor has committed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and the Coalition hasn’t, in total the major parties are failing on climate change and the environment, said ACF Executive Director Don Henry.
Modest or weak climate change policies, a poor performance on forests and a lack of action on water and sustainable cities means both major parties have low scores. We are hearing a lot of talk and not seeing enough action on climate change from both major parties. The Greens and Democrats and scoring well, while Family First’s scores are poor.
All parties and candidates should be in no doubt that climate change will be a huge consideration when Australians vote on 24 November. The big questions for politicians who want to be taken seriously on climate change are: Do they support strong binding targets to cut emissions? Will they legislate to massively boost the amount of electricity sourced from clean, safe renewables? And will they ratify the Kyoto Protocol? We urge all parties to achieve a ‘high distinction’ on climate and environment by campaigns end – our children’s future deserves nothing less,” he said. ACF is strictly non-party political – we do not advocate a vote for any particular party or candidate. But we are vigorously and unashamedly pro-environment. ACF’s scorecard will be updated every week during the election campaign to reflect new commitments from the parties”.
Look at On line opinion http://www.youdecide2007.org/content/view/263/101/ to get a feel of how issues are impacting
Remember that politicians are most receptive at this time and even if you have never written to them before a letter to you members or candidate which includes the words “future”, “climate change”, “renewables” and “water conservation” will be heard more than at any other time. Have a go!
This report will go on the Blog so you can make comment if you wish. Please toss in your own thoughts. They will be edited only if we feel they might have legal connotations.