Thursday, December 09, 2004
Credit where credit's (not) due

The current Howard government is not normally attributed by conservation groups as being an ecologically enlightened trailblazer, but there seems to be some cause to celebrate.

Throughout climate change negotiations (including "COP3" at Kyoto), Australia has been pilloried as being a rogue nation, doing its best to spoil recommendations and digging-in on loopholes that appeared to water down the agreement, such as the inclusion of spurious "flexible" mechanisms for meeting emissions reductions. And when developed nations negotiated a commitment to bring CO2 emissions down 5.1% on 1990 levels by 2008-12, Australia, as part of its selfless commitment to global solidarity, agreed only to an 8% increase as its national target.

Australia hence signed the Kyoto Protocol, but since then the Howard government has refused to bring it into law – backing the US position in stating that reductions in CO2 emissions would not be pursued if it impacted at all on GDP growth; this would not be in the national interest.

To be fair, despite not ratifying Kyoto, the Howard government has made a commitment to achieve its target, outside the framework of the Protocol, and Australia is currently experiencing high population growth (12% since 1990) making reductions difficult. Furthermore, an additional reason for not ratifying was Howard’s belief that the minnows of global emissions (the developing world) should be similarly bound. That said, many other Annex 1 nations (the commitment states) are experiencing similar rates of population growth but have committed themselves to achieving real reductions and China - a non-signatory – looks set to meet its non-binding commitments

For Australia, since Kyoto, it has been full-steam ahead for emissions generating activities with only voluntary restrictions placed on business through the "Greenhouse Challenge Program". The Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO) projects that by 2008-2012 (the target period), emissions from all sectors excluding land use change will have increased to 135% over and above 1990 levels. In all but one trade and industry-based sectors, Australia’s projected emissions are on the way up and off the chart. Stationary emissions (from electricity generation for example) will be at 146% of 1990 levels; transport emissions will be at 146% of 1990 levels. There is even evidence to suggest that emissions increases from stationary energy and transport will actually accelerate through the commitment period.

Sector		Projected 2008 – 2012 average as a % of 1990 levels
Energy	Total	143%
	Stationary	146%
	Transport	142%
	Fugitive	123%
Agriculture		112%
WasteManagement		99%
Industrial Processes		153%
Total - excluding land use change		135%

Table 1: Greenhouse gas emissions by sector in 2008-2012 as a percentage of 1990 levels.

So what are the causes for the celebration? The annual report "Tracking to the Kyoto Target" has revealed that – unlike last year – Australia is now on target to meet its commitments of limiting CO2 emissions to 108%, as agreed at Kyoto. What the Commonwealth report fails to highlight is that it has all been achieved by the actions of two just State governments, with no help from the Commonwealth.

Like other land-rich, developed nations, Australia fought tooth and nail for the addition of ‘flexible mechanisms’ in the Kyoto Protocol – particularly for the inclusion of land-use change emissions accounting in each nation’s CO2 auditing. With the backing of the US, these mechanisms were agreed in the final Protocol. Of course since then, both these nations have reneged and failed to bring the Protocol into law, but the auditing standards remain in tact. This has allowed Australia to make use of its shocking record in deforestation and vegetation clearance in its CO2 accounting. In slowing clearance, Australia can reduce its emissions.

The first piece of legislation to be passed by the Queensland Government on re-election was the Vegetation Management Act 2004. This Act has paved the way for the complete phase out of broadhectare clearing in Queensland by December 2006. It has come at a cost to the Queensland taxpayer of some $150m in compensation and adjustment packages, but it will preserve precious natural habitat. This State Act alone has saved Howard’s bacon, yet his government has not submitted a single cent. Reduced emissions from ‘avoided deforestation’ in Queensland and New South Wales will entirely account for Australia meeting its commitment. NSW laws are also restricting land clearing.

Of course, if it is within the carbon accounting rules, why the sniping from the sidelines? Australia should be able to meet its commitments in the most appropriate and cost effective manner. But Australia is exploiting loopholes in the Kyoto Protocol that may fulfil the Protocol’s obligations (or in Australia’s case its ‘promise’) but do not achieve outcomes that are of long term benefit to both the environment and Australia.

Firstly, prior to 1990 (the baseline year), rates of remnant vegetation clearance in Australia were already on the way down (apart from in Queensland). Fundamental to the spirit of the Kyoto Protocol, was that off-setting emissions in developed nations through changes in land use should be secondary to curbing emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Clearly, for Australia, this has never been the case, with land use change accounting for all emissions reductions. How far emissions would have fallen notwithstanding Kyoto commitments (the "business as usual" scenario) has not been published by the Australian Greenhouse Office, but suffice to say that by 1997 emissions had already fallen to 50% of the 1990 level and are not projected to fall much further before 2020.

Secondly, forestry sinks, which in the target period are estimated to contribute –4% to Australia’s emissions, are notoriously controversial to audit. Forestry schemes tend to be large-scale plantations, from where it is difficult to track what becomes of the wood whence harvested. Of course, if it is burnt as charcoal or is used in co-firing coal fired power stations (whether it is replanted or not), it has no net long term sink benefit, yet the accounting credits remain booked in. As yet, the science is still developing as to how long growing forests absorb CO2 and local changes to climatic conditions may lead to forests drying and even become net carbon emitters. An additional criticism is that monoculture plantations are ecologically damaging by other means – destroying biodiversity, altering watercourse and marine chemistry, not promoting any technology exchange and not generating sustainable gainful local employment.

But perhaps most importantly, relying on domestic land use change to fulfil commitments leaves Australia ill-prepared for the post-Kyoto world. By the time the commitment period has passed, the AGO projects that land use change CO2 emissions will be stabilised at some 40Mt per annum and it will be difficult for Australia to achieve further reductions in emissions from this sector. Furthermore, it will be become increasingly to difficult to accurately model afforestation as a carbon sink, as the effects of climate change will add further complexity to the carbon modelling of land use change.

In this post-Kyoto world, the AGO predicts that by 2020, total emissions including land use change and including mitigation measures will have continued to rise to 123% of 1990 levels, with stationary energy increasing to 166% and transport to 159%. By 2020, land use change and afforestation may account for just 3% of Australia’s emissions. Without being able to bank easy credits on reducing deforestation levels, any post-Kyoto emissions agreements will be almost impossible for Australia to meet with any confidence.

The Howard government has only one strategy for tackling climate change. In its recent white paper "Securing Australia’s Energy Future", the government committed itself to full exploitation of the nation’s coal reserves – potentially stretching out fossil fuel use 300 years into the future. The paper earmarked continued public subsidy for private exploration of new fossil fuel sources, including shale-oil – a even worse pollution source than brown coal. The Prime Minister and his chief scientific adviser (a mining executive with Rio Tinto, funnily enough) believe the answer lies in geo-sequestration – burying CO2 in the ground. This is unproven, potentially catastrophic technology and will be slow and expensive to bring on-stream (see previous refutation), but Howard must be praying it works, as he has gambled all his chips on this scheme. With Australian investment in clean energy technologies falling (thanks to the paltry 2% Mandatory Renewable Energy Target) and opportunities for terrestrial forest sequestration drying up, Australia’s net CO2 emissions look set to run away.

It is widely accepted that the emissions reductions agreed at Kyoto are just the beginning. Far larger reductions – and an eventual net balance - will be needed to stabilise anthropogenic CO2 levels in the atmosphere. The UK government recently committed itself to achieving a 60% reduction by 2050 and while Australia is projecting a 23% increase by 2020, the German government is gunning for a 40% cut by that year. Australia’s attitude towards climate change is both selfish and dangerous. The risks inherent in continuing this growth at all costs strategy are far too great for the highest per capita emitter of CO2 to pretend it is in anyway a special case.

The 10^th session of the Conference of Parties ("COP-10") of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are currently meeting in Buenos Aires.

---

Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Press Release: LOTR is 'real' Bible, says Pastor

The discovery of Hobbit like hominoids living in Indonesia as recently as 15,000 years ago is the latest piece of evidence that undermines the voracity of the Bible, claims a team of research theologians.

The group, who call themselves the 'Truth Squad', claim that this find is just part of a growing body of data which suggests the true Holy Scripture of the Christian faith is, in fact, J R R Tolkien’s 'The Lord of the Rings'.

"It is well known that Tolkien cribbed much of the narrative from earlier stories and ancient texts," said Steve Jackson, the Pastor leading the team.

"For a long time we have been documenting inaccuracies in the Bible, particularly in the Old Testament," continued Jackson. "It is now broadly accepted – outside America anyway – that the Earth was not actually created in seven days, just 6,000 years ago."

"I mean, it’s just ridiculous – look at the size on the planet – one Supreme Being couldn’t do all that in a week. I can’t even get a builder to finish my extension, this month!" said Jackson.

"We have been looking closely at the discrepancies between geological explanations and creationist theory and I am beginning to think that Christianity, as a faith, has been getting it wrong.... for quite a while."

"And trumpets bringing down the Walls of Jericho? I don’t think so. We recently completed several experiments trying to bring down the walls of the Acropolis in Athens with some heavy duty Drum N’ Bass. But we had to give up after three days as the authorities chased away with guard dogs," said Jackson.

However, it was not until last week’s discovery of a waist-high hominoid (LB1) on the island of Flores, who may have controlled fire and developed stone and bone tools, did the real truth begin to dawn on Truth Squad.

"Most of us had read Tolkien’s classic novel," said Jackson, "and had been impressed by its apparent overlaps with the archaeological and anthropological record. LB1 just nailed it for us."

"And ‘The Lord of the Rings’ is no metaphor either; something that the revisionist Christians - when faced with the glaringly obvious errors in the Bible - have been hiding behind," said Jackson.

"We have now found actual evidence of the existence of Hobbits. Orcs and Goblins have long been know to have lived in Europe, to approximately 150,000 years ago, when the stories of the Tolkien classics are now said to have taken place."

The team has also put a fine tooth coomb through the LOTR and scientific research has uncovered some startling evidence to back up their claim’s voracity.

• Some Hobbit-like homes have been discovered in New Zealand, with round, green doors and a gold knocker in the centre which look remarkably similar to those described by Tolkien.


• Although the maps presented in LOTR are not recognisable as anywhere on today’s earth, the team believe this is a result of continental drift, erosion and a rise in sea levels.


• Evidence of walking trees – Ents – has been uncovered in Amazonia. The team claim that on returning to a patch of the fabled rainforest three years after initial studies, giant trees had simply vanished. "The only explanation we have, is that they have simply walked off," said Jackson.


• Trolls, turned into stone, have been found on Easter Island.

But perhaps most astonishingly, the team has traced mitochondrial DNA markers from well known contemporary magicians like Paul Daniels and David Copperfield back to evidence uncovered at archaeological digs. Hair strands from bodies found in early tribal settlements in Southern Spain indicate familial relationships.

"We believe that we may have even found the body of either Gandalf or Radagast," said Jackson.

Ironically, Jackson does not believe that undermining the Bible - and its replacement by the LOTR as the seminal Holy Scripture, will sound the death knell for the traditional Christian Faith. It may even boost church attendence.

"We are hoping that the commercial success of my trilogy of films will give a fillip to bums on pews at Sunday service,” said Jackson. "And already we have LOTR action figures, just waiting to be rolled out for sale in churches and at Sunday Schools."

"Essentially, many of the principles of Christianity sit well with the original central messages in Tolkien’s text. Loyality, love, selflessness and the triumph of good over evil are all principles which Christianity took from the original Bible."

"All these themes are strongly represented in The LOTR. It will just mean that the Sunday sermons from the pulpit will feature Frodo and Sam battling through Mordor, rather than Jesus feeding bread to a load of hungry people by a lake, thankfully."

"'The Lord of the Rings' is just like the Bible, only true," concluded Jackson.

---

Thursday, December 02, 2004
Last bugle call of hereditary privilege

The machinery of the British political system has heaved and groaned but finally it has come to a decision on the future of hunting wild mammals with dogs. Unsurprisingly, it went to the wire with the chasm between the elected House of Commons and the unelected House of Lords, as wide as ever.

Late Commons amendments to the Bill included a proposal to delay the ban for more than a year. But vindictively, the self-righteous attitude of the Lords voted instead to enforce the hunting ban almost immediately, in February 2005, rather than giving hunting a stay of execution and allowing people to be re-employed and pack hounds to be dispersed.

Even Thatcher granted the miners more time than this before turfing them out onto the streets.

Despite pleas from Lord Whitty - that the ban was coming regardless, in selfish pride they rejected the Bill and the amendment. The original bill stood and the Parliament Act was invoked.

Such is the Upper House’s disdain for democracy, it was prepared to sacrifice jobs (other people’s jobs, obviously) for its own selfish pride. And as a last stand against democracy, the amendment was defeated in the knowledge that a legal challenge to Act was more likely to succeed if the ban was imposed through the Parliament Act than with their blessing. If the Commoners can’t be put in their place in a battle of legitimacy, the House of Lords, as the highest court in the land, could have the final say after all. Allegedly, even the hunting fraternity wanted the ban to take immediate effect to allow legal action to commence as soon as possible and to capitalise on the disaffection of those who enjoy killing wild mammals.

Doubtless, the Labour Party would have preferred a delay, but the amendment was a proposal from the majority in the Commons, not from the Government of the day. Such is the Upper House’s disdain for the current Labour Government, the Lords were explicitly prepared to punish Labour at the polls. Knowing an election is likely just weeks after the ban comes into force, the toffs have shown astounding arrogance in attempting such sabotage. With its in-built conservative majority, bolstered by the continuation of the hereditary principle, an unelected Chamber is explicitly setting out to undermine a democratic election.

During the debate, Peers sanctimoniously congratulated themselves on standing by their principles, ‘doing the countryside proud’ and voting ‘as [it] would have wished them to’.

This goes right to the heart of the matter. Analysis of the voting in the Lords reveal that the majority of those who dismissed the amendment were hereditary Peers, the largest group of landholders in the UK.

These hereditary Peers represent no one but themselves. And while I do not doubt their noble devotion to the protection of the interests of the common person against the tyranny of the state, they remain unelected, unappointed, anachronistic, self-preserving toffs. When their hobbies became threatened, they closed ranks.

As yet, few commentators (bar Peter Bradley MP) have made the connection between the dispute over hunting with dogs and the wider constitutional issues which this wretched affair has highlighted.

The House of Lords Act 1999 was a dog’s breakfast, always intended to be interim measure designed to even things up for the new Labour Government in the Upper House. This unfinished business left 92 crusty 8th Earls and 4th Barons in place, nominated by ballot.

Since then, reform of the Upper House has stalled. Blair has been frying bigger fish in Iraq and Afghanistan and has since discovered that his conservative instincts are at odds with the rest of his party, particularly over the relative proportions of elected and appointed members. Blair is either unwilling or unable to fight both the Labour Party and Parliament on this issue.

Although he has agreed that the hereditary element must go, his prevarication over further reform of the Upper House has allowed the hereditary element to remain for too long already.

With the benefit of the objectivity that living somewhere else provides, debate over the relative balance of appointed and elected members seems farcical – a ‘no-brainer’, as it were. Understandably, the overwhelmingly powerful executive arm of the UK government would be reluctant to loosen the reins of power but such should be the force of argument and tone of the debate that anything other than a fully elected Upper House should not even be on the radar. Only the mechanics of the election and the form of the constituencies should be up for discussion.

Australia has long lived in the shadow of the Olde Country; this is why sporting success over colonial HQ remains so important. Reflecting this link, the adoption of the Westminster system of Government remains a potent reminder of the common history of the two nations. But from afar, the reporting of the twee traditions of hereditary privilege is done with the attitude of a youngster considering a batty old grandma.

Surely, now is the time to complete the transformation of the House of Lords to a full elected, proportionally representative Chamber, which has the legitimacy to hold the executive to account, without it being compromised by the presence of political appointees, bishops and accidents of birth.

Whatever views you may have on the fairness or the effectiveness of the Hunting Act, it was legally enacted as that was the will of the elected Chamber. The Parliament Act is an institutional safeguard against the thwarting of the democratic will but it is an unsatisfactory mechanism in deficient legislature. The answer is to have an Upper House that commands respect from the legitimacy afforded by democratic election. Only then it may it rightfully attempt to thwart the will of the Lower House.

• Honesty at last - Simon Hart, Countryside Alliance


• Yes - This is about class war - Peter Bradley MP
  

---