Is Penny W(r)ong right?

• Wong says beaches could erode away | Herald Sun

  • AUSTRALIA'S most iconic beaches, including Sydney's Bondi and surfing mecca Bells beach, could erode away or recede by hundreds of meters over the coming century, the nation's Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said yesterday.

    But locals aren't so sure, The Australian reports.

  • In her opening address to the National Climate Change Forum in Adelaide yesterday, Wong made some alarming predictions for Australia's coast.
  • She urged people not to listen to critics using isolated errors in the UN climate change panel's report to undermine action, claiming the report had been subject to "breathless, scandalised claims" implying the world had been hoodwinked by scientists.

Greg's Comment::

Penny Wong is using the arrogant Kevin Rudd concept of, "If I say it, it must be right". It shows a return of the Howard politics of fear where there is no justification for such statements. Beach sand is a fluid medium that gets moved by the tides and storms and is redeposited in another place. Our coastline is constantly changing and will continue to do so.

She may be smart but she shows a complete and utter disregard for the intellectual competency of the Australian people in telling them not to listen to critics of what she has determined to be right.

We must take into account the critics of the ICCC and the ICCC itself which is about to undergo a restructuring because they have accepted the flaws in their own processes. When the world's leaders could not agree on ways to handle climate change in Copenhagen, it seems horribly unlikely that Australia's Penny Wong is the only person on earth to get it right. She has no right to be imposing her will on her fellow Australians

Howard is fiddling as our great rivers start trickling

Border Mail Editorial published 29 Dec 06

IN the midst of prosperity, Australians are becoming fearful people, made so by gloomy happenings around about.

The war on terror and the blunder in Iraq have been causes of this.

But we are becoming more fearful about threats to our way of life posed by climate change, drought and water shortage, than we are about terrorism.

To most of us terrorism is something over the horizon, something to be a bit alert about but not too alarmed— whereas the environmental problems have lately alarmed us greatly.

They rouse an issue, dozing in the background of Australian consciousness — whether European civilisation, with increasing consumption of natural resources by increasing numbers of people, can survive in greedy me-first prosperity in this idiosyncratic continent.

Our concerns about climate, drought and water (plus the linked issue of energy consumption) are exacerbated because our governments, particularly our reactive Federal Government, do not have a grip on the problem and are playing catch-up, using the habitual tactic of throwing money at drought relief and environmental palliatives and calling it a policy.

Two things particularly have propelled the environment into the front-rank of problems — the UK’s Stern report on climate change and the drought.

Stern argues that strong action now can limit the worst of climate change to 1 per cent of annual world GDP, but if we continue to procrastinate, the costs will equal the loss of 5 per cent of GDP each year, with great suffering for hundreds of millions of people as the world warms.

The drought and its attendant scarcity of water have been creeping up for years, but the spectacle of failed crops, forced stock sales, emptying reservoirs, tightening water restrictions and consequent rural poverty have dramatised the problem lately.

Thus a recent poll showed that nine in 10 Australians think warming is serious, and almost two-thirds are unhappy with the Government’s response and would pay more in taxes and charges to fix it.

Our Prime Minister is not constitutionally and philosophically well equipped to take charge of this rapidly-moving situation.

He is an incantation man — he develops little homilies to deal with major issues, and he uses these to take the edge off probing questions and pressing problems.

On climate change he rejects international action through the Kyoto protocol because China, India and the US are not involved, he thinks of himself as a practical man preferring practical measures and he seeks to set aside action that might harm coal exports (and jobs).

He dislikes compulsion, and distrusts international action; he has his head somewhere in the sand, because these problems cannot be solved solely by action within national boundaries.

It has been evident for many years that the Murray-Darling rivers are under stress and that the main culprits are two — the increasing demands upon a finite amount of water, and the inability of our rickety federal system to deal fairly and objectively with the matter.

Now, apparently, we have reached a stage where if next year is as bad as this one, Hume and Dartmouth could be puddles and the Murray a trickle — how unthinkable!

Australians have reason to be fearful — they realise instinctively that these issues require decisive action, a clear vision, and reasonable compromises that will hold firm.

And they see few signs that such an outcome may be anywhere at hand.