[fiedag]

My response to (Austr.Greens Deputy Leader) CHRISTINE MILNE

Christine Milne, federal member of parliament and Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens recently (28Feb11) issued a press release on PEAK OIL,
http://christine-milne.greensmps.org.au ... t-time-act

I responded to her by email as below:


Thank you Christine, well done for raising the issue again. I consider it public policy issue #1 , and I respectfully tender my considered input for you here. Much of it may be obvious, but I have no way of knowing that so here goes. No response is necessary, but I will be following your policies on the subject with interest.

What I expect federal legislators to do is this:

FIRST CHANGE THE CURRENT LAWS
1. Committee to define exactly what a post-peak future means for civil society in Australia.
2. Review ALL currently enacted federal legislation with one purpose in mind: to identify existing laws which hinders us from adapting to a post-peak future.
3. Fund a similar exercise in all other branches of government.
4. Take the results to COAG with a view to defining legislative outcomes.

THEN AND ONLY THEN, CHANGE THE PROGRAMS
We must assess the current legislation first. It is tempting to push for new government programs or cutbacks, however doing this without assessing the existing legislation is putting the cart before the horse. A thorough overhaul of current legislation will do half the job, and bring the know-how to do the other half.

WHAT DOES POST-PEAK MEAN FOR AUSTRALIA?
We need to understand that the term “post-peak” is not just about oil but is actually a proxy term for a whole complex of problems related to resource depletion. Whether we like it or not post-peak Australia is materially poorer than the peak-resource Australia we have now. This Australia of the future will be characterised by rising commodity prices, rising unemployment and increasing political unrest. Australians will experience supply disruptions at the pump, for which Big Oil and geopolitics will become the convenient scapegoat. It is likely civil society will be eroded, and there may be political violence. Much is at stake, and leadership will be required.

AN EXAMPLE OF A LAW WHICH WOULD CHANGE
Let’s consider just one law among many: vehicle safety standards. It is clear that the stringent vehicle safety standards we have here in Australia currently benefit the existing combustion vehicle manufacturers and provide a barrier to market entrants. They hinder the adoption of competing means of post-peak transport, and so are candidates for review. Under the proposed review, certain pro-combustion biases would be removed. I would go further. In my view vehicle safety standards could be relaxed in the years ahead as a means to accelerate a transition of our vehicle fleet away from combustion. I deliberately chose this example because it highlights exactly the kind of legislative minefields which will need to be cleared by our legislators. There are many others I could think of, but this one most clearly throws the problem into sharp relief.

ANOTHER SUCH EXAMPLE
Urban land use. Let’s suppose that in the contracting economy of 2015, the K-Mart Plaza down the road becomes progressively untenanted and finally succumbs to the protracted retail slump. Currently the landholder has every right to leave the site abandoned and wait for the good times to return. They won’t. Speculative land use like that is unhelpful, it is maladaptive. Government must have a mechanism to allow the land to return to a more productive use without delay.

Many other acts of parliament need to be reviewed. Clearly the assumptions are critical, and the intent needs to be carefully defined. But then once done, full steam ahead.

Thank you for your time. I welcome your future pronouncements on this matter.

[papa moose]

Bravo.

Sadly that press release was over a week ago and without your post I would never of heard about it.
If the Greens really do see the threat of PO why doesn't Bob Brown (Party Leader) mention it every other time he opens his mouth?

I read the SMH every day and try to watch SBS news each night so i consider myself reasonably in touch with Oz MSM.
Last i saw Bob was him and the young guy from Melbourne, don't get me wrong i support the concept of gay marriage (if hetro couple can ruin their lives getting married why not everyone else? ), but compared to PO it's a laughable priority.
Coupling the sorts of demands from the senate outlined in CM's release to the Carbon Tax would have been so obviously logical.
The govt's of the world need to be on a "war footing" to deal with PO but instead it just gets ignored, i guess Christine is Australia's version of the US Congressman Roscoe Bartlett.

[fiedag]

Cheers Moose,

I am also pretty bemused by the Greens' insistence on pursuing such a wide range of social justice and social inclusion agendas, when there is SO MUCH to do in habitat protection, species conservation, energy policy, resource use etc, population etc. etc.

I appreciate that their political base is drawn from the same progressive pool of people who have a great interest in social justice. It's just that much of what the greens are doing year in year out, does not scratch the surface. They think they can pressure Gillard into giving us a carbon tax, and their job is done? I don't think so. There is so much adaptive legislation required it's not funny.

[Crazy_Dad]

Cheers Moose,

I am also pretty bemused by the Greens' insistence on pursuing such a wide range of social justice and social inclusion agendas, when there is SO MUCH to do in habitat protection, species conservation, energy policy, resource use etc, population etc. etc.

I appreciate that their political base is drawn from the same progressive pool of people who have a great interest in social justice. It's just that much of what the greens are doing year in year out, does not scratch the surface. They think they can pressure Gillard into giving us a carbon tax, and their job is done? I don't think so. There is so much adaptive legislation required it's not funny.

I would even challenge their "Green" credentials. They refuse to acknowledge that population is the main issue to deal with.
They prefer the periphery social justice vote grabbing bullshit over doing the right thing by our environment.
I will not vote for them whilst this continues. The only party that does hold promise for the environment is the Stable Population Party.
Greener than the Greens.

[papa moose]

What's there web page like? i haven't had a look but if their only platform is stable population that doesn't neccessarily make them green.

[sparky]

.
-@ crazy-dad
The "greens" are a mutation of the crypto Trotskists looking for a hook to become relevant
all the politically correct issues are grain to the mill even if they are contradictory
environment protection is simply not that interesting for them ,
unless it's an agitprop exercise

[Shaved Monkey]

I dont think they have a problem with relevance they are heading towards mainstream.
Everyone else is on the looney right.

[kiwichick]

+1 crazy dad

if i was allowed to vote here then the sustainable pop party would get my vote

http://populationmatters.org/?gclid=COL ... pAod_Xlzbg

[fiedag]

What the heck has happened to all the timestamps on these posts? I posted this years ago.

[Sixstrings]

What the heck has happened to all the timestamps on these posts? I posted this years ago.

Yeah that's weird.. maybe post this in techinal support.

[SeaGypsy]

Oh well, while we are at it...
There is no real green party in Oz or anywhere else (feel free to correct me if you have any solid evidence).

I was heavily involved in the grass roots end of the green movement back in the 80's & 90's.

What happened was this:

The corporations act/s were forced onto community groups, mandating reqirements for these bodies to exist.
These requirements allowed branch stacking to occur all over the shop.

Greenpeace was the tip of the iceberg; taken over by psuedo leftist stooges worldwide in the period between 1989/91.
The whole gig is now a subversive excersize with zero chance of meaningfully positive environmental outcomes. The plants have been in charge close to 20 years now. If you want proof, try to start a genuine seriously green community group, as soon as you start getting somewhere look for the letter demanding you come under the corporations act. Then get ready for the spies/ subversives and branch stackers, in that order.

The horrible truth.
The right is owned by the banksters.
The left is owned by the industrialists.
The greens pretend to try to play each off against the other, but fundamentally are simply selling votes to one of the above.
Fractional, miniscule positive outcomes at best, nothing which has the slightest chance of upsetting the status quo.