Tas to cut greenhouse gases by 60 per cent

This morning the ABC posted this story:

The Tasmanian Government will introduce legislation to reduce the state's greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent by the year 2050.

The Premier, Paul Lennon says the target will be based in 1990 levels.

Mr Lennon has used his first speech to parliament this year to outline several other measures to deal with climate.

He says the government's car fleet will be carbon neutral by mid 2010 and State Cabinet will consider making it mandatory for major government buildings to have solar power and hot water installed.

Mr Lennon has also announced an agreement with Greening Australia to offset the government's air travel.

Excellent. The question that remains is: will it be enough? I'm reading George Monbiot's Heat and he is calling for a 90% cut by 2050 in order to keep warming below the crucial 2 degrees threshold. Still 60% is a good start - I wonder if other states will climb on board?

Eating your way to a cooler planet

It turns out that facebook might actually be useful for something after all (other than the inevitable "how many 'friends' can you collect" competition).

A (real) friend in the US posted a link to this article in Saturday's New Your Times.

It seems she reads the Times on weekends too, not just to avoid ease my way into work weekday mornings, like me.

While I don't entirely agree with his argument, Mr Bittman raises some valid points, and it's good to see a declared non-vegetarian tackling the issues raised by the intersection of meat production and the environment.


Industrial farming (whether it be for meat or vegetables) is unsustainable. There is no argument to be had here, the facts speak for themselves. Even the (somewhat) less intensive factory farming practices in Australia has dire environmental consequences.

Anyone professing a concern for our planet's future (and that's everyone these days isn't it? It's a cause celeb and people toss phrases like "carbon offsetting" and "global warming" into every day conversations with reckless abandon) should stop and think about what they consume and how it got to be on their plate.

Not a day goes by without me hearing someone make some kind of declaration about the state of the environment. Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing, but if these declarers (and the rest of us) are going to implement the ideals they espouse (practice what they preach, so to speak), the first segment of their lives they should examine is their diet.

It's great to have a short shower (or no shower at all) and switch lights off when you don't need them, but sitting in the dark with slightly stinky armpits while guzzling down a factory farmed steak and three (monocultured) vege isn't making the workd a better place.

If we are going to get serious about global warming there is no time like the present (in fact, if we don't get serious about it soon, in future there may not be a present at all). And the first thing we should all do is a quick impact assessment of our eating habits.

It's not so hard:

In general, the less distance food has travelled from the farm to your plate the better. I say "in general" because you should make an exception for organically produced processed foods which are better than their non-organically produced counterparts - even if they have travelled half way around the world to get to you.

This leads neatly to the next point: eat organic where ever possible (especially processed foods). Organic farming methods enhance - rather than degrade - soils, produce healthier foods, and are far more sustainable.

Eat less processed foods. The shorter the ingredients list on the packet the better. No packaging is even better (farmers markets and co-ops are great places to avoid packaging - just remember to bring a few recycled bags with you)

Minimise your intake of meat. Obviously eliminating it altogether is far better, but one step at a time. Vegetarian (and vegan) foods are amazing if you make a small effort in the preparation. If you would like to try the vegie option (even just one meal a week makes a huge difference) there are plenty of easy and tasty options right here on this blog (or collated at our other blog - the political kitchen).

That turned into more of a rant than intended. Funny what can happen when you randomly log into facebook over breakfast (not something I make a habit of doing).

Cloned meat is safe for consumers, say US officials

And pigs, it seems, may well fly...

Next: Europe will legislate a ban.

And then, the US will submit a challenge in the WTO.

And win.

And then, Europe will submit.

And then, it'll be our turn.

Vegan anyone?

An ethical Christmas (part two)

[continued from part one]

3. Fair trade goodness
Another option for an ethical Christmas gift is to give people something fair trade. Things like coffee, tea and chocolate are a nice option here, because they are semi-luxury foods that lots people like (or may be slightly addicted to). Another benefit is that these are some of the products that are difficult to grow in Australia and generally involve incredible bad labour conditions (essentially slavery) when purchased from large corporations. A lovely spin off may be that some of your gift recipients may choose to make the switch to fair trade on a more permanent basis.

Other fair trade items might include clothing or home wears from shops like Cambodia House or Taylor & Khoo - who produce their products through fair trade practices in Cambodia and then send all of their profits back to Cambodia to run projects like an orphanage and other project work with people with disabilities, urban poor, female land mine victims and rural youth.


4. Eco-friendly gifts
Eco-friendly gifts are also a nice option for an ethical Christmas. This opens a whole range of possibilities and there a plenty of places stocking great gift ideas in this category.One of our favourite sites is Biome where you can buy a range of eco-friendly products, like these adorable wooden animals by Anamalz (available internationally), or environmentally responsible stationary (like the "I used to be a car tyre" mousepad) or the beautiful skin (and baby) care range from Tasmania's Beauty & the Bees.

5. Homemade & Handmade
Another option is to make something yourself. So, for example, if you enjoy baking, you could make gingerbread for people or other tasty treats (using organic & fair trade ingredients, of course).

If you are skilled in the arts & crafts area then you also have a whole range of other options - you could make a patchwork quilt for someone, using recycled & vintage fabrics, or you could make them some jewelry using recycled objects.

If you lack these kinds of skills (as I do, alas), then you might want to check out all the glorious items available on etsy. Everything on etsy is handmade and the money goes straight to the producer. Continuing with our ethical theme you could focus particularly on items that are made with recycled or eco-friendly materials or you could use the geolocator tool to locate sellers that are close to you (or to your intended recipient) so that you items do not have to travel too far and use up unnecessary fossil fuels.
6. Experiences
Finally, you could give someone an experience rather than an object. For kids this might include a gift of dance or gymnastic lessons, or a trail ride. For adults it might be something that they have always wanted to do - like the Bridge Climb (Sydney Harbour Bridge) or hang gliding.

P's sent me hang gliding for my birthday a few years ago and it was the best birthday that I have ever had.

Pesto pasta

The Walk Against Warming was on today and we were planning to attend. Lily even wore her "Save the Future for Me" t-shirt.

[Photo from a few weeks ago]

However, we had a family event to attend on the other side of town and arrived late (because Lily was napping) thus making us so late for the Walk Against Warming that it had already finished by the time we arrived.

Sad us.

Anyway, I had been planning to write about the walk and post our photos, but that was not to be. So instead I thought that I would post a recipe for our favourite pesto pasta dish.

Ingredients:

Pesto
1/2 cup basil leaves (tightly packed)
1/2 cup of rocket (tightly packed)
1/2 cup of walnuts
1/4 cup olive oil
the juice of one lemon
1/4 tsp salt

The rest
Penne pasta
1/2 cup marinated artichokes (roughly chopped)
1/3 cup Kalamata olives (pitted & halved)
1 cup button mushrooms (cubed)
1 tbp olive oil
2 cloves garlic (finely chopped) [optional if your little one doesn't like garlicky milk - like Lily)

Boil water and cook the pasta.

To make the pesto place all the ingredients in the blender and blend together until smooth. If it is too dry then add a little more lemon juice or olive oil.

Heat the olive oil over a medium/low heat. Add the garlic and stir for 30 seconds. Add the mushrooms and stir for 4 minutes. Throw in the artichokes and olives and mix together. Add the pasta and stir through several large tablespoons of the pesto.

Serve with a dollop of pesto on top.

Eat.

What's an ecotarian?

For a while now P. and I have considered ourselves to be ecotarians rather than just vegans, but we are generally reluctant to use the label because it is meaningless to most people (and probably confusing to anyone else). So, for a while now I have been meaning to do a post to explain what it means to us.

For us being ecotarians means that whenever we make a decision about our consumption (be that of food or any other product) we try to consider a whole myriad of ethical issues that relate to the impact of our choice on the earth. These issues include:

• Whether or not the product has been produced locally or whether it was transported half-way across the world to us.
• Whether or not the product was created using slave labour (or sweatshop labour) or whether it was ethically or fairly traded.
• How much packaging is used and whether the packaging is recycled and recyclable.
• What kind of chemicals were used in the creation of the product or whether it is organic.
• Whether the product is cruelty-free (in that it contains now animal products and was not tested on animals).
• Whether or not we actually need the product or whether we are simply consuming for the sake of it.
• How much energy and water was required to create the product.
• Whether the product is brought to us by a corporation that is highly unethical in its business practices (such as Nestle, Coke or Monsanto).
• And, well, you get the picture...

This may seem like an incredible pain to some people. It may seem like it would involve a life of constantly reading labels and standing, frozen with indecision, in supermarkets aisles. However, it is really not like that. Like any lifestyle decision it is something that becomes a natural part of your day to day routine. Good brands and products become familiar and what you buy becomes second nature.

So, for example, on Saturday mornings we go to the Farmers' Market to buy our fruit and vegetables. We try to focus on buying things that are in season and we prioritise the produce that is available from the organic sellers. Then we get our coffee from a coffee stand that stocks fair trade organic coffee and P. gets the coffee from East Timor, because it is our closest neighbour.

At the supermarket we start off in the organic/health food aisle. There we buy cans of organic beans and tomatoes (and prioritise the ones that were grown locally). We also pick up some Greens & Blacks Maya Gold chocolate when we are feeling a little naughty. It is vegan, organic and fair trade. However, it is also transported quite a long way to get to us and (like the coffee) we don't really need it, but this isn't about being perfect, it is just about trying to make the best choices that we can.

Sometimes there is no perfect choice. So, for example, we can choose between SunRice, which is grown locally, but in an area that really doesn't have enough water to sustainable farm rice, or Basmati rice, which is grown in Pakistan and transported a long way, but grown in an environment that is more suited to rice farming and in an economy that could do with our support. Sometimes, also, the best choice might be an non-vegan choice, but I am not ready to go there yet. I still feel pretty committed to veganism.

Sometimes the best choice is extremely expensive. For each change that we have made it has taken us a while to get our heads around the price difference. The first time we went to the supermarket to buy fair trade cocoa we came back with Cadbury's instead. It was $2 and the fair trade one was $10 and we couldn't bring ourselves to pay five times as much. But then we started thinking about the fact that each time we save money by buying unethical products we are simply externalising the cost to someone else. In the case of the cocoa we were externalising the cost to the slave workers that produce the cocoa that goes into all chocolate and cocoa that is not fair trade. For the non-organic products we were externalising the cost in damage to the earth and to the local environment of people that lived near the industrial farms. Slowly we are starting to be more consistent in living up to our own values.

It is still a challenge sometimes. Sometimes I baulk at the price of eco-friendly products and buy the regular one (like dishwashing detergent), but then P. is there to help push me along (he bought the eco-friendly one last time and now I will never go back). However, other changes have made things cheaper (cleaning with bicarb and vinegar is much cheaper for example) and all of them have made us feel better and made us all healthier - so the advantages make it worthwhile.

Finally, I still think of ecotarianism as a flexible approach. The aim is not to be perfect. The aim is simply to bring a conscious mind to our consumption and to to try live up to our own values. What this means will change with each situation and will our own awareness. I also think that this means that what ecotarianism would mean to anyone else would also be quite varied - which is why, for example, it is not a very useful label to use if you are going to someone's house for dinner, but this also means that it is a 'label' that makes you only responsible to yourself. It is simply irrelevant for someone to point to the inconsistencies in your lifestyle and call you a bad ecotarian the way that some people seem to feel compelled to do with veganism or vegetarianism, because the whole point is that you are simply taking each choice as it comes and making the one that feel right to you in the moment.

Hopefully, however, the end result is that we will leave a smaller footprint on the earth than we would have otherwise and we will set a good example for Lily to follow as she grows up and makes her own consumption decisions.

Blog Action Day? Missed it...

Yesterday was Blog Action Day. The idea was that bloggers all over the world would post (yesterday) about the environment.

It seems that thousands did. But we didn't.

Of course we didn't. We rarely do anything at anytime approximating the time when things are supposed to be done.

Not that either of us would have it any other way.

Anyway, despite the tardiness, you can consider this the peas' contribution to Blog Action Day.

Having said that, I should write something about the environment.

How about this.

As far as I can tell, and despite climate change being one of the key issues of the campaign, there is very little to distinguish the policies outlined by the major parties.

This is a bummer, obviously, but makes the difference between the major parties and the Greens that much clearer.

It's pretty simple really. If you are genuinely concerned about what we are doing to our planet there is really only one party worth voting for in this election.

Right, just because the election has finally been called doesn't mean I'll be writing green rants every day. Just some days...

Oh, and the other date that has now been set is the annual Walk Against Warming. Last year was a great day, so head to your local walk on Sunday 11 November. If one hasn't been organised yet, get organising.

I am now drowning in a tide of ecojunk

I've just stumbled on this post by George Monbiot.

I'm too tired (and have too many nappies to get out of the washing machine) to comment, but it's worth reading if you have a few minutes.

Once you're done, go out and don't buy anything. Jokes aside, Monbiot raises a valid question: is ethical consumerism just as bad as the unethical sort it is supposed to supplant?

On the one hand, yes, for goods we would be purchasing anyway. It's far better to buy fair trade coffee if you are going to drink coffee (and lets face it most of us aren't likely to give it up, nor do we need to if we purchase it in an ethical manner), but what about those other things that are less essential (okay, so perhaps coffee was a bad example - it just feels so essential at the moment)?

How many pairs of shoes do any of us really need? How many outfits? Irrespective of how ethically they are produced and how fairly traded, surely, as far as the planet is concerned, the less produced the better.

Trade, we so often hear, is the key to poverty reduction. This is all well and good, but what if we trade the poor into riches and then curse them to live in a trashed environment. Will we congratulate ourselves for eradicating poverty despite destroying the environment?

I'm not sure where the balance is, but C's mobile phone just died and she's borrowing mine. I'm not sure I'm interested in replacing it.

It's a start at least.

Growing genetically modified crops is our duty as a global citizen...

Trade Minister, Warren Truss, yesterday called for states to drop their ban on the growing of genetically modified crops, not because it would be good for the economy (though there is a certain subtext here...) BUT because "Australia needs the technology to help feed the growing Indian and Chinese populations".

Wow, that's very altruistic of us.

Couldn't have anything to do with transnational agri-business and the US putting pressure on the federal government to allow them to move into the Australian market and grow GM crops, could it?

Yes, GM crops do have tend to have higher yields, but there have been no long term studies to help us understand their affects on the human body.

And, really, it's not like the world doesn't grow way more food than could be consumed by 6 billion people already. We don't need to grow more food; we need to distribute it more equitably.

Oh, and one last shot before I go and do some work. It takes about 7 kilograms of grain to produce one kilogram of pork, and about 3,000 litres of water to produce one kilogram of beef.

Surely nobody could possibly think this is a clever use of resources.

*The quote above is from an article, Farmers, Minister urge GM in today's West Australian. Can't find it in the online edition, sorry.

Democracy and climate change, an interesting week

Perusing the Economist this morning (as I sometimes do, despite often disagreeing with the vast majority of their opinions) I saw a few things that spiked my interest.

The first was about democracy – its reluctant birth and flailing death.


The reluctant birth, or a trail run at least, happened in Bhutan, where, at the behest of King Wangchuck, mock elections were held as a trial run for the real democracy that the King wants to see implemented before his reign ends. Well, technically, his reign has already ended, as he, The Economist tells me, passed his throne to one of his sons late last year. It seems the people still adore him in general and would prefer him back in his place. It seems the majority of Bhutanese are quite happy under the yolk of absolute monarchy. And why wouldn’t they be?

At his accession, the average Bhutanese died at 40 after a life of uneased toil. Continuing a modernisation begun by his father, and underwritten by foreign aid, the king oversaw a transformation. Life expectancy for the 700,000 Bhutanese is now 64 years. The economy grew by 12% last year; GDP per person is reckoned to be $1,400—twice that of India.

Added to that is Wangchuck’s introduction of Gross National Happiness as the primary measure of development success over the more familiar Gross National Product. The Economist defines it thusly:

a policy most constructively defined as favouring sustainable development over growth at any cost.

Still, democracy is coming, like it or not. This, I’d hope, might be a good thing for all those Bhutanese languishing in refugee camps in Nepal – excluded from society for speaking Nepali and worshiping the wrong god(s).

On the flailing death side, Nigeria held "elections" guaranteed to return the People's Democratic Party – a dictatorship by any other name...

The other story that caught my eye was this one. It seems China is set to become the world’s biggest polluter in the very near future. I wonder if the US will redouble its efforts in response. Surely they can’t let China beat them at something as serious as this!

We, it turns out, aren’t much better. Our latest report card says we’re heading to miss our Kyoto targets (i.e. we’re going to increase emissions more than we were allowed to). But, wait. It doesn’t matter anyway because we never signed the protocol. Well, now I see the cleverness of the current Government.

Don’t sign Kyoto.

Tell the world that the protocol is fundamentally flawed.

Tell the world that we will meet and exceed the targets we would have been set under Kyoto.

Tell the world that we are doing so much better than them, even without Kyoto.

Repeat.

Repeat again.

And again.

Eventually, in the distant future of 2012, exceed our Kyoto targets.

Tell the world it doesn’t matter because we didn’t sign the stupid protocol anyway. And besides, we have AP6 – technology will save us.

Still, there's no way we'll reach the dizzying heights of the US and China. It's just not fair. If we had half the population of China we'd be so much better at polluting than they are.

Pill stops cow burps and helps save the planet

This is utterly ridiculous.

SERIOUSLY!

Stopping cows from burping will stop climate change? Surely just not eating the cows makes so much more sense than preventing them from burping while they live their short, miserable lives leading to a grisly and painful death and your local supermarket.

If you give half a toss about the climate one of the easiest things you can do is stop eating meat. If we look at the impact of any single action we can take to protect our environment, adopting a vegan diet clearly has the most beneficial consequences. A vegan lifestyle uses less resources (particularly water, but also energy and land) and emits far less carbon than that of a meat eater.

There can really be no dispute about this. Facts are facts, it's the will that is missing from the majority of the populace. And willful ignorance aims to keep it that way.

That might sound harsh, and sorry for that. I just can't understand why anyone would choose the (perceived) pleasure of carnivorous gastronomy over the easiest way to protect our planet for future generations (possibly even ours).

Having 3rd Pea has really put this into perspective for me. I've been a committed ecotarian for a while now, but becoming a dad is bringing the militant out in me (not attractive, (I know).

Besides, vegan food is just so delicious. I defy anyone to come and eat at our place and leave thinking veganism means compromising on gastronomic delights.

"These are not small bickies, these are big bickies."

So said our esteemed Minister for the Environment yesterday when announcing the eradication of inefficient light bulbs.


The phase out is set to take place over 3 years, which means that 3rd Pea may have no memory of them at all.

Still, I can't help but wonder what we'll use to replace the cartoon light bulb commonly used to represent a bright idea – I’m not sure how well a compact fluorescent conveys the image. I have visions of 3rd Pea asking: "what is that above that cartoon person’s head, daddy?", and me having to explain the whole thing. It’ll be like one of those jokes that should have been funny, but isn't because you had to spend so long explaining it. Small price to pay, I guess.

Halogen lights won’t be included, though, as they are (apparently) more efficient than incandescent bulbs, which is a shame because they are the only source of non-natural light in our apartment and I hate them passionately.

It’s not often I applaud our current government, but I’m totally on board with this one (notwithstanding reservations about halogens and the stupid "bickie" line).

Now, let’s start talking about plastic bags, water saving showerheads, petrol powered vehicles...

I’m moving to New Zealand

I’ve said that before. C and I have often lamented that Australia is so far behind our near neighbour on many fronts – particularly environmental. It’s just a shame there really isn’t any work in either of our fields there or emigration would be a much more attractive proposal.

Today, the yearning to live somewhere that actually considers the environment and climate change significant political and social issues was made more acute, as New Zealand announced a plan to become carbon neutral by 2012. The whole country is going to be carbon neutral! And, it seems, not just by offsetting, but by cutting emissions as well.

NZ PM, Helen Clark, has been quoted as saying:

I believe New Zealand can aim to be the first nation to be truly sustainable across the four pillars of the economy, society, the environment, and nationhood [...] I believe we can aspire to be carbon neutral in our economy and way of life.

Australia’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it seems, will, once again, come back to haunt us, as New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister (I can’t believe they have a climate change minister!), David Parker, announced yesterday that he won’t be looking to trade carbon with Australia any time soon:

There may be better places for us to trade with. If we've got Kyoto-compliant units, it might be in our interests to trade with other Kyoto-compliant countries [...] We could trade with Europe, for example, where they might be more likely to want to trade with Kyoto-compliant units that are more readily made to fit with their scheme.

In response to opposition claims that New Zealand going carbon neutral would have "an insignificant effect on global warming", Helen Clark said the costs of inaction would be far greater than those of action:

I believe that in the years to come, the pride we take in our quest for sustainability and carbon neutrality will define our nation, just as our quest for a nuclear-free world has over the past 23 years. The future economic costs of doing nothing are dire [...]

Two decades ago it was the threat of nuclear war destroying the world as we knew it which galvanized New Zealand to become nuclear free [...] So it must be with this century's environmental sustainability challenge [...] We have to make a stand for our world, and for our own sake.

Amen.

Corporate environmentalism - a contradiction in terms?

I know I have often ranted about corporate abuse of the environment here and occasionally about their seeming shifts towards environmental responsibility. But, in my view, with something this important there's no such thing as overkill.

Too much of one voice, though, can get a little drab, so I'm handing over to an "expert" - temporarily.

George Monbiot, a far more qualified ranter than I, has recently published a piece on the greening of Tesco and Walmart that is really worth reading.

Monbiot argues that while mega-corporations may spout enviro-speak (i.e. talk the talk) and may even walk the walk, this will only go so far.

But there is a bigger contradiction than this, which has been overlooked by both the supermarkets and many of their critics. "The green movement," Terry Leahy tells us, "must become a mass movement in green consumption." But what about consuming less? Less is the one thing the superstores cannot sell us. As further efficiencies become harder to extract, their growth will eventually outstrip all their reductions in the use of energy. This is not Tesco’s problem alone: the green movement's economic alternatives still lack force.

The market cannot replace government regulation of the environment. What incentive do corporations have to make the kinds of changes that are ultimately necessary when (as Joel Bakan has taught us) the corporation is a psychopath interested only in the relentless pursuit of profit and power. Corporations will never willingly cut into their bottom line in order to protect the environment or appease fickle consumers who may care about sustainability this week but will still want their goods as cheap as possible.

We need more government regulation of corporations (particularly where they intersect with the environment and human rights) if we are ever going to make a difference to the future (which is increasingly becoming the present) of our planet.

While corporations like Tesco and Walmart are saying all the right things it remains just that, talk, if they refuse to submit to independent audit of their environmental impact. And, as Monbiot notes, while they are pushing the big picture they are neglecting the small, everyday interventions that do so much more to protect our common future:

In his speech on Thursday, the company’s chief executive, Sir Terry Leahy, spoke of the sophisticated new refrigeration techniques Tesco will use, which will allow the chain to reduce its consumption of climate changing gases called hydrofluorocarbons. But at no point did he mention an environmental technology called the door. How can you claim your stores are sustainable if the fridges and freezers don’t have doors?

And there you have it.

Today it's Cameroon, Thursday it's Vanuatu...

8 January 2007 was a bad day for the environment. Not because anything terribly different happened – just the opposite in fact. Monday last week was the day on which the average citizen of the UK had already produced as much C02 as the average person in the world's 50 least-developed countries combined will all year.

8 days!

I hate to think how long it takes the average Australian, particularly as we are (on per capita basis) worse polluters than the UK. And then I think "how long did it take the average American?" and I shudder.

What we are doing to this planet (and the majority of its inhabitants) in the name of 'better' living and 'progress' is absolutely disgusting and I'm sick to death of it.

UK-based World Development Movement has put together a climate calendar marking off the days on which the average citizen of the UK passes the yearly emissions of the average citizen of other countries.

That was a confusing sentence, sorry. Best to just go check out the calendar and get the picture visually. It's scary.

Today the UK passed Cameroon. I'm sure Australia passed them several days ago.

When are we going to learn that we can't keep abusing resources and pumping crap into the atmosphere without major consequences – for us, the rest of the world’s inhabitants, and the planet)? Sometimes I feel like we’re living in the first half of the 20th Century. Remember when smoking was good for you, you couldn’t be healthy without eating red meat and drinking and consuming several glasses of cow’s milk a day, the planet’s resources were infinite, and economics was a zero sum game – a race to the top? Life was just peachy then – except it wasn’t. The world has changed, but we’re not changing fast enough to make the change for the better rather than the worse.

Some days I feel like it’s just not worth bothering and that we’re a lost cause. That tends to last about 5 seconds and then I get pissed off again (at our arrogance and ignorance) and vow anew to keep at it till everybody just gets it.

I’m very stubborn.

Has Schwarzenegger crossed the floor?

What’s going on with the Governator lately? I must admit I’m somewhat confused. He ran as a Republican, but is married to the most central democratic family in America. That was strange enough. Even stranger was that we got elected at all, but I guess it is California.

His first term didn’t produce too many surprises, though he seemed to lean more to the left than to the right – far enough, it seems to win democratic voters over, but not so far as to alienate the right.

I, along with lots of people I know, assumed that his governership would be a bit of a passing fad and that the people of California would elect an actual politician in the next election – but, again, this is California we’re talking about.

So Schwarzenegger has been re-elected and, somewhat like Chávez (but with a less cooky style), has made a shocking (for the American right) policy announcement – 2 actually.



The first came a few days ago when the Governator announced "near universal health care for the state".

Double take.

Umm, he is a Republican isn’t he? Surely this alone would be enough to get him tossed out of God’s Own Party. But then there’s this:

Under Mr. Schwarzenegger’s proposal, Medi-Cal would be extended to adults who earn as much as 100 percent above the federal poverty line and to children, regardless of their immigration status, living in homes where the family income is as much as 300 percent above that line, about $60,000 a year for a family of four. Medi-Cal is currently limited to adults with children, and children with documented residency are covered if their family’s income is up to 250 percent above of the poverty line.

REGARDLESS OF THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS! Wait till GW hears about this, you’ll be in for a talking to Mr Schwarzenegger – but only if he can pronounce your name and then only if he forgets that you are about a thousand times more popular than he is…

To make matters worse (for the right, but far better for the left) the Governator followed up this “wait, which party do I belong to?” moment, with another, even better one: Announcing a 10% cut in vehicle emissions by 2020 (see here and here).

This order amounts to the first, in what will have to be a series, of practical impacts of the deal Schwarzenegger struck with the Legislature last year to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 25 percent by 2020.

In his speech he said:

Our country has been dependent on foreign oil for too long […] I ask you to set to motion the means to free ourselves from oil and from OPEC. I ask you to encourage the free market to overthrow the old order. California has the muscle to bring about such change. I say use it.

Well, gosh.

It’s going to be interesting to see where all this ends up.

I guess you can't accuse him of greenwashing

Well, I was pretty disapointed to hear about Rudd's tour of Tasmania during which he has refused to meet with conservation groups and overturned Labor's policy of wishing to protect some of Tasmania's old growth forests. However, it did completely reaffirm my decison to abandon Labor and join the Greens.

I like MrLefty's summary of what this means for Australian democracy:

I think it's good that at the next Federal Election we'll have the choice between a Liberal Party that wants to log Tasmania's old-growth forests in the interests of logging companies, and a Labor Party that wants to log Tasmania's old-growth forests in the interests of logging workers. That's what democracy is all about!

And to think that I was pleased with getting rid of Beazley...

Red Sun Burning

Ariel over at Jabberwocky has a fantastic post about a red sun in Melbourne, the bush fires and the future of our planet. I highly recommend reading it.

I should warn you that the post is actually quite depressing, but it also gives cause for hope. It is because we do want a future for our children that I still believe that we will wake up from our collective stupor and do something about this mess that we have created.

I would have commented, but Blogger Beta appears not to want me to comment on blogs anymore...

Eye of the storm

It is the beginning of the wet season in Darwin and another big storm has just come crashing down around the house.

I know that a lot of people love storms. They love to listen to the rain tumbling down on the roof, the trees shaking with the wind, and to simply experience the sheer power of the weather. However, I am not one of those people.

I feel deeply unsettled by storms. They remind me of my complete and utter lack of power over my surroundings and I don't find that remotely comforting. The sound of debris smashing into the house and the crash of the thunder scares me in a completely irrational way.

What struck me today, as the storm descended, is how much better off I am under this torrent of rain, than so many people across Australia right now who are facing the onslaught of the bushfires that are raging out of control. I cannot imagine the terror that I would feel, and or having the courage that our fire-fighters display under these circumstances.

I guess I just wanted to acknowledge my admiration for all of them, and to wish them good luck. It is going to be a long summer.

top 100 greenies

The British Environmental Agency has released a list of the top 100 green campaigners of all time. The people considered (by the agency) to have made the most positive environmental impact on the planet.

Topping the list was Rachel Carson, author of Silent Spring, the book that most people agree kicked off the modern environmental movement.

The rest of the list includes the usual suspects:

David Attenborough (4), William Morris (8), Al Gore (9), Vandana Shiva (13), Ansel Adams (14), Fritjof Capra (15), George Monbiot (23), David Bower (31), David Suzuki (35), and Stephen Jay Gould (78).

History gets it's fair share with Mahatma Gandhi coming in at 81, Charles Darwin at 87, and Samuel Taylor Coleridge at 95.

Religion makes an appearance too. St Francis of Assisi ranked a respectable 47, the Dalai Lama at 89, and his inspiration, Siddartha Gautama Buddha came in at 47.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was a surprise inclusion at 29, but his recent green turn might have had something to do with it (apparently he has even sold his humvee).

Two of my favourite entries were number 100: Father Christmas, for carbon-free delivery; and at number 55: the people of Bougainville, eco-revolutionaries.

While the list might seem a little naff, I think we could do with more of these positive associations. It's good for people to see that you can be recognised for doing something good for the environment.

I would have put David Suzuki above the Governator though.