We Got The PM We Voted For, Says Brown

New Matilda, 13 Dec 2013

Why are Australians so unhappy with their lot? Why do we vote for politicians who want to trash our common heritage? Karl Mathiesen spoke to former Greens leader Bob Brown about the 2013 election.


The results of September’s election lifted the veil on Australian culture to reveal a mean, embittered face, says former Greens leader Bob Brown. Speaking to New Matilda, he said Tony Abbott’s popularity is the articulation of Australia’s conversion from a generous, happy country to one characterised by how much it withholds.

“In the Howard years Australia became a much meaner and more self-interested country … We are the richest people per capita in the world, if you just look in material terms, and we are the richest people ever to live on the Earth,” Brown said

“Yet there’s this air of dissatisfaction and a feeling that we are being cheated, and that is a cultural shift that came out of the Howard years and has been promoted mightily by the Murdoch media — and that flows on through the ABC and all the other radio shock jocks and so on.”

He believes the Labor years did little to challenge the assumption of Howard-Abbott populism that Australians are fundamentally self-serving. This failure meant Labor fought an election on the terms of the Coalition, battling to appeal to voters’ self-interest.

During their period in opposition the Liberals depicted the environmental movement as an enemy of the economy and individual well-being. The antagonistic positioning was overt, deliberate and Australians responded with their votes.

The Liberals went to the election on a platform that included removing layers of environmental regulation, redacting world heritage status from Tasmania’s forests, expanding coal mining in the Galilee basin, opening coal ports that could affect the Great Barrier Reef and removing the $10 billion Clean Energy Fund. But these were mere pallbearers at the funeral of the carbon tax.

“People voted for that with their eyes wide open,” Brown said. “And I might add to that, that they voted for $4 billion dollars in foreign aid to be not spent.”

Australia was dishonoured with the Colossal Fossil award from the Climate Action Network, for their disruptive attitude to the Warsaw climate talks in November. The UN’s former climate chief, Yvo de Boer, said in November that Australia’s attitude had shown it to be “a country that would rather stick to a business-as-usual approach rather than building a low-carbon growth model”.

“Australia has generally been seen as a champion of environmental innovation, particularly in climate change,” Brown said. “It is now a pariah in the international arena. But people voted for that, Australians knew what they were getting and they voted for it.”

His bleak realism should not be mistaken for pessimism. He views self-interest as a hallmark of the times rather than a natural law. Indeed, he says, it bears the seeds of its own destruction.

“I think now it’s starting to tell and I think that [in] this period of government there is a fairly rude awakening occurring in Australia, about whether this is really the country we want to have?” Brown said. “I think that we’re going to see a great strengthening in the direct action from people who do have the intellect who know we do have to protect the biosphere.”

This vision of a future shaped by collective power mounts a challenge against the politics of the self that has so dominated the Australian conversation. Brown remains a staunch democrat. Progressive democracy demands faith in people to make collective decisions based on justice and equality.

There is little doubt who Australia’s ear is bent towards. In September, an electoral tide threatened to sweep the Greens away. Their primary vote dropped by 3.3 per cent across the country. The party clung tenaciously to its numbers in the Senate and their lower house seat in Melbourne.

Brown says the Greens, with their platform of altruism and environmentalism, has suffered from the new, more selfish Australian narrative.

“We’re in a democracy and I’m a very strong democrat and I think it’s a very worrying sign that the self-interest factor is so great that we’re not going to be able to protect the environment in a meaningful fashion in the future.”

“There’s an ennui or a feeling of ‘Why bother?’ or even fatalism — that action doesn’t make any difference — which has to be gotten over. Because if people in wealthy countries like Australia can’t be motivated to get out and defend the future of the planet, and people on the planet, and life on the planet, you can’t ask others to do it.”

The September election was the first federal poll in 23 years where the Greens did not run the iconoclastic Tasmanian doctor on their ticket. Brown vowed to step back from the functioning of the party after this year’s election.

He has used the opportunity to immerse himself in direct action. He has joined Sea Shepherd Australia as its director and is closely overseeing the national expansion of the Save the Tarkine campaign.

“I said on the day I retired that I’d be a Green while ever I draw breath,” he said. “I’m not involved in the politics of the Greens in Canberra, I don’t get involved in their day-to-day politics and I haven’t been to a Greens conference since I retired. Nor do I intend to intervene in politics at that level, I think that would be very remiss. But when it comes to promoting Green philosophy, I’m doing it all over the place.”

Brown says the internet has the power to both galvanise and dilute community activism.

“You can hardly go to your computer without being asked to click on this petition or that petition and I think that’s really beguiling. The view that if you sign this petition against Japanese whaling, that somehow you’ve done something to prevent the Japanese from going south — is beguiling and very false.”

I think there is no substitute for community action in which people band together through a common intelligence for the benefit of the wider community and the future,” Brown adds. “To take direct civil action is going to be hugely important this century. And what I do think is that GetUp! and international organisations like that are a terrific mode for informing people for rapid action.”

Bob Brown rode into politics on a wave of political action in the 1980s. His return to full-time activism coincides with Australians once again taking to the streets. Marches against climate change in November may be the latest sign that we are remembering who we are.

Should rich countries pay for damage caused by global warming?

Guardian Eco Audit

21 November, 2013

Developing nations have said the issue of loss and damage is a ‘red line’ which must be addressed for talks in Warsaw to progress. With your help, Karl Mathiesen investigates the basis for the demands and how it could impact progress at the climate conference. 

See how the debate unfolded here.

Is biodiversity offsetting a ‘license to trash nature’?

Guardian Eco Audit

12 November, 2013

Plans to replace habitat destroyed by development has been described as too simplistic by the Environmental Audit Committee. With your help, Karl Mathiesen investigates if biodiversity offsetting can deliver on its promise to benefit the environment and the economy.

Click here to see how the debate unfolded.

The World Is With Howard On Climate Change

Published in New Matilda

7th November, 2013

Listening to him speak was comforting. Like hearing your father’s voice after a long time apart. John Howard’s idiosyncrasies have grown more pronounced as his seventies have progressed, the pauses and dysfluencies longer, the rhetoric less incisive. It all serves to enhance the vaguely adorable Elmer Fuddiness. In aesthetic terms, it was oddly pleasurable.

The auditorium at London’s Institution of Mechanical Engineers was packed to the oak-lined gunnels to receive the annual lecture of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).  As a retired warhorse Howard has rarely weighed into public discourse. But preaching to a choir of “climate realists”, Howard seemed at ease.

He made several arguments about climate change, most of which were so tired they were hardly worth waking up and wiping the dribble from their lip. There was the old line about science, by nature, never being resolved. He claimed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been infiltrated by a fifth column of climate ideologues, while saying his own position on climate change is informed by instinct. He dipped into GWPF founder Nigel Lawson’s book, An Appeal to Reason, and pulled out the notion that our grandchildren are waging intergenerational tyranny upon us from the future.

“The present generation should not carry too heavy a burden so that future generations are only 8.4 times better off rather than 9.4 times wealthier,” he said.

As Lenore Taylor pointed out on Wednesday, Howard completely missed the point about the causal link between climate change and bushfires. His speech, called “One religion is Enough”, berated the intolerance of climate “zealots”. Although which single religion he thinks is enough he declined to say.

The audience looked like it had been pressganged from the gentlemen’s clubs of Pall Mall. They all had a chuckle when Howard said there had been a “magnificent change of government” in Australia and how wonderful it was to have centre-right chums ruling Commons at the same time. He really played to the 11 women in the 200-strong crowd when he said: “The history of mankind has told me of his infinite capacity to adapt to the changing circumstances of the environment in which he lives.”

It all seemed rather innocuous; an anachronism, harmless old blokes wagging their chins to the tune of dead ideas. It might have even been a bit embarrassing for Tony Abbott to have his mentor making statements like:

“The high tide of public support for over-zealous action on global warming has passed. My suspicion is that most people in countries like ours have settled into a state of sustained agnosticism on the issue. Of course the climate is changing. It always has. There are mixed views not only about how sustained that warming is, seemingly it has not warmed for the last 15 years, and also the relative contributions of mankind and natural causes.”

But against the temptation to write him off (and gleefully bash Abbott by association) rubs a hard truth: John Howard represents the way the world acts on climate change.

Serious politicians now recognise that climate change rhetoric is in vogue – it won’t do to meet IPCC findings with anything but solemnity and hand wringing. But there exists a vast gap between how the world speaks and how it behaves.

Howard said his long-standing opposition to the Kyoto Protocol had been vindicated by its manifest failure to deliver a global framework to tackle carbon emissions.

He said: “It is highly unlikely that a compact of that kind will ever be achieved. Notwithstanding President Obama’s strong commitment to cap and trade in his state-of-the-union address in February of this year, there remains a bipartisan reluctance in the United States to embrace agreements of this kind.”

Vox Europa says cap-and-trade has become the whipping boy of a poisonous debate in the US Congress, tarnishing it beyond any hope of implementation.

In Australia, Abbott says he is concerned about climate change and that he has the most powerful plan to approach its mitigation. The Direct Action Plan has the added benefit of avoiding confrontation with Australia’s powerful mining sector. But scientists and economists say it won’t work. Just yesterday, Howard’s own Treasury secretary Ken Henry called the policy “bizarre”.

China, India, Brazil and the rest of the world shrug their shoulders and keep on building their middle class any way they can. Europe forges on bloody-mindedly with carbon reduction, but can’t bring the rest of the world with it. And Russia? Let’s not even go there.

Even if every country meets it current carbon reduction pledges, the UN Environment Program predicts the world will still warm beyond the 2C safe target.

Howard also made recommendations on how to mitigate the effects of the warming he is so “agnostic” about. Invest in renewables (if you can afford it) and go nuclear. Which is essentially what the world is doing.

He wrapped up by giving a rousing testimonial to “the shale revolution” which he said was “a real game changer”. He listed as its major benefits its ability to wean the west off middle-eastern oil and reduce the carbon emissions he had just spent an hour saying might not be so bad.

Again, it sounded a little bit like an old fossil going into bat for his namesake fuels. But of course, Howard is right on the money again. It is estimated that thanks to fracking, US natural gas production will increase by 3.4 billion cubic feet per day during 2014 to reach 69.1 Bcf/d by years end.

As Howard ended his speech, the GWPF’s Benny Peiser rose to warn guests that there was a large protest outside. Howard looked bemused. Not for years had one of his speaking appearances been met by a rowdy mob. But of course, it was a coincidence. Masked austerity protesters were remembering the fifth by marching on Guy Fawkes’ old target at nearby Westminster. The announcement plunged the hall into disorder. Most of the blue bloods rushed towards the front exit, keen to rubberneck the protest. Some insisted on using the back in case the riff-raff were dangerous.

Howard stood momentarily still as bodies rushed one way or the other. For a brief second he struck the figure of a confused, elderly man, wondering what all the fuss was about. Then the moment passed, the old shark smile was back. He disappeared through the back door, vigorously pressing flesh with the men who have long stood with him on the brake.

Harlequin toad rediscovery raises hope for deadly fungus survivors

Published in the Guardian 6th November, 2013 Sightings of a toad thought to be extinct in Costa Rica have lead researchers to believe other isolated fragments of Central America’s disappearing amphibians may survive in regions scourged by a deadly fungus. The Costa Rican … Continue reading

Should Tasmania stay GM-free?

Published in Guardian Australia – Comment is free 31 October 2013 At Thorpe Farm, in the midlands near Bothwell, Tasmania’s agricultural past and future coexist. Convict labourers cut the channels that feed Australia’s oldest working water mill. The thrumming millstone still produces … Continue reading

Antarctic sanctuaries threaten to stuff treaty

In memory of Elyssa Rosen


28 October, 2013

An international commission is set to decide on increased protections for the marine environment around Antarctica later this week. But realpolitik could undermine the commission itself. Read more here (apologies for those without Crikey – you’ll have to grab a temp sign up to read).

Eco Audit: How many species are there on earth?

Guardian Eco Audit

30 October, 2013

The discovery of new species in relatively well-explored Australia leads Karl Mathiesen to investigate how many other natural wonders may exist unknown to science. Read more here.

Are new nuclear reactors an ‘excellent’ deal for consumers?

The Guardian Eco Audit

21 October, 2013

The UK government has hailed its nuclear power agreement with French and Chinese companies as a big win for Britain. But with a strike price at almost twice the current energy costs, is it really a good deal for consumers? With your help, Karl Mathiesen investigates. Read more here.