It wasn't Brown who lost the plot on climate change

Today's Brisbane Courier Mail page one headline:

LOST THE PLOT (mean photo of Bob Brown)

This man wants to kill off 20,000 Queensland jobs, exports worth $24 billion and the lifeblood of countless towns and ports

Editorial: "Voters are entitled to a serious, rational debate free of alarmist propositions."

This, from the media empire which until a few months ago denied there was any problem at all and demonised those who said there was. And from the editor who crafted that alarmist headline. Who's irrational, Rupert?

Bob Brown's proposal to phase out coal exports in three years sure sent the hares running. IRRESPONSIBLE, they all screamed. Sorry, who's irresponsible?15 years ago the world's scientists warned of the problem and urged immediate action at the Rio Earth Summit. Who is irresponsible here? Could it be John Howard, perhaps? And many, many of the world's most powerful people who were too busy lining their pockets to give a damn?

I reckon what Brown's tried to do is put a cat among the pigeons. He's trying to put a bomb under the unspoken underlying issues here, the collective delusion that's seeing us destroy the planet's capacity to sustain us as a species. No one mainstream is game. Brown has thrown up a real radical one, in the hope that we might finally get to some of those issues. We may have to redefine what quality of life means, for example. We may have to change our values, and the way we live. Yes folks, there are, as the Club of Rome argued way back in 1972, limits to growth. Really. (See Fair Warning?)

So why not ask the 'what if' question, and why not try to work through if or how it might be possible? How would that be for a serious, rational debate. The paradigm is shifting here, though Howard and Turnbull won't admit it. The limitless growth assumption behind 'the economy' is wrong. Wrong. It seemed to work, for a while, because the economic rationalists don't value what can't be priced in their cost-benefit equations. Like clean air. Like water. And when the evidence said it couldn't keep working, and The Greens suggested, heaven forbid, a carbon tax, the powerful just bought off or sacked scientists and sometimes bought media people to spread the lie. (Question: Which party has said for yonks that water would be the oil of the 21st century?)

There's a lot of no go zones in maintream politics about this stuff. Since living in Queensland I've watched in amazement as water runs out in Australia's highest growth region, South East Queensland. Peter Beattie is running around like a chook with his head chopped off putting new dams on maps seemingly at random, planning pipelines, floating recycled water, you name it, to stop our water running out. At the same time development is proceeding apace, bush clearing everywhere, to cater for more and more people. Huh?

There's not a word in the mainstream debate about how this paradox can exist, let alone the issue of whether Australia can support more people or not. So there's no discussion about the cost benefit of more and more people coming here as against the billions in roads and dams and god knows what else will be needed to keep it up.

This climate crisis bizo is a very big deal. It's an existential crisis for humanity. Systemic change is vital, but so too is reflection and action by everyone of us. The way we live must change. There's things we can do in our lives to make a difference. Like turning off the lights more often.

As I disclosed in comments to my last piece, I joined the ACT Greens last February with a view to seeing how political activism worked at the grass roots. As it happened I moved to Queensland soon after to be with my Mum for a while when her partner died, so I haven't been to a meeting or been active. But I do get Greens Bulletins, and here's the one that lobbed in today:

Yesterday Bob Brown spelled out, again, a major difference between the climate change policies of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party and The Greens.

Coal.

On ABC Radio National’s breakfast program, Bob told Fran Kelly:

We are exporting to the world what is effectively a deadly threat to the whole planet and to our children…I am talking about having a plan, within one term of government, for the phasing-out of coal."

As our spokesperson on climate change Senator Christine Milne has shown, The Greens are the only party bold enough to tackle the causes of climate change at a time when tackling the causes, and not just the symptoms, is desperately needed.

The Prime Minister and Labor are too scared to tackle the coal industry, but they cannot address climate change by protecting the interests of the chief cause of the problem. Coal mining employs 28,300 workers. Over the last 12 months, more than ten times that number of jobs were created: more than 299,000. The Europeans are already talking about sanctions and restrictions on coal imports. Business in Europe will not tolerate Australia free loading with coal. Rather than waiting for the inevitable dislocation of coal workers, the Greens want to drive a just transition to job rich renewable industries. It is not beyond Australia’s wit to create jobs in industries which contribute to a safer future for all Australians.

Left to Howard or Rudd, the chief priority of Australia’s climate change response will be to protect the coal industry. The chief priority for the Greens is to dramatically cut emissions. We also want to bring in job rich options like renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies which offer Australia huge export income potential.

As Bob said on ABC radio yesterday morning:

"This government has let the country down. This government has become a menace to the future of our children."

That is why it is so important for the Greens to win the balance of power in the Senate back from John Howard. Labor cannot win in the Senate. They can’t go from 27 seats to 38 or 39 seats.

It’s up to the Greens to take back the balance of power and to take the Senate back from being a rubber stamp for the Howard government.

So, Bob is calling on all Greens to write letters to the editors of local and metropolitan newspapers and ask why Peter Garrett won’t talk about coal; to ring the talkback hotline of the local radio station and ask why the Howard government hasn’t set a target to reduce emissions; to tell friends how voting for the Greens in the Senate is the best thing to do to rescue the planetary climate.

You've got to admire Brown. He's probably stuffed any chance of The Greens increasing their vote at the federal election by doing this, so you can't accuse him of self interest, unlike most of the other players. But what are The Greens for? They're there to broaden the debate. they're there to try to focus attention of the big picture, and the long term and to float new solutions. They're there to actively promote their ideas for a better world. They're there to try to keep the bastards who rule us a little bit focused on the common good. So I say goodonya, Bob. Go for it.

PS: I'm not saying I agree with Brown's idea. I'm saying let's clear the mind to use the brains to test it out. Rationally.

ALP Policy (Beazley, March 2006, being updated)

Liberal policy - no plan, this press release

The Greens - withdrawn for updating

The Democrats