FEAR AND LOATHING IN TOOWOOMBA

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/7319313/fear-and-loathing-in-toowoomba.thtml

The best way to read Rolling Stone magazine is with a joint in one hand, a goon of cheap red in the other, and Joe Strummer on the turntable, loud enough to wake the neighbours.

Today’s readers probably prefer Eskimo Joe on their iPods, but otherwise not much will have changed.

Or has it? In the past, RS founder Jann Wenner prided himself on the quality of his political musings, having introduced the world to awesome talents ranging from Hunter S. Thompson to P.J O’Rourke.

Rarely has the international edition (often labeled as the cultural arm of the Democrat party) bothered itself with Australia, other than to trot out the odd Nick Cave review. In the latest issue all that has changed.

Australia, startled readers from the USA to Europe now learn, is Global Warming Central. In his near-hysterical diatribe, climate change advocate Jeff Goodell manages to turn his recent (all expenses paid?) trip down under into a terrifying journey through a land where “the wrath of the climate gods is everywhere.”

Under the eye-catching headline “Climate Change and the End of Australia”, Jeff vividly describes a nightmarish Oz where “homes along the Gold Coast are being swept away, koala bears face extinction in the wild, and farmers, their crops shriveled by drought, are shooting themselves in despair.”

Yikes! What’s more, “dead kangaroos sprawl by the side of the road… Palm trees are bent horizontal in the wind… It's as if civilization is being dismantled…”

All because Australia “happens to be right in the cross hairs of global warming.” As this spellbinding yarn unfolds, and a bleak future indeed looms across Dorothy Mackellar’s sunburnt horizons, an apt metaphor springs to my mind. But the author beats me to it:

“Australia will look like a disaster movie. Habitats for most vertebrates will vanish. Water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin will fall by half, severely curtailing food production. Rising sea levels will wipe out large parts of major cities… The Great Barrier Reef will be reduced to a pile of purple bacterial slime. Thousands of people will die from heat waves and other extreme weather events… Depression and suicide will become even more common among displaced farmers and Aborigines.”

Pass the popcorn! Or even, better, pass the spliff.

I take a deep breath, and plunge on. As Jeff knows, no thriller is complete without a sinister villain or two: “Australia is home to Rupert Murdoch's media empire… Murdoch's papers fail to point out that the more coal the country burns and exports, the fiercer its hurricanes are likely to become.”

And not only your run-of-the-mill hurricanes, but “hurricanes of fire,” too. Jeff neatly weaves the Victorian bushfires into his tale of climate change woe. “Under a high global-warming scenario – essentially the track the world is on today – catastrophic fires will occur every year.”

And then comes a moment for profound moralising: “You might think that surviving such a harrowing encounter would make (Jane) O'Connor more attuned to the risks of living on a superheated planet, but it hasn't. "I think the jury is still out on the science of climate change," O'Connor says from the safety of her air-conditioned office.” Air-conditioning! We Australians really are the limit!

Nowhere, of course, do America’s equally wild weather patterns get a mention. Is it because Democrat Obama has basically given up on climate change? Suddenly, it’s all down to us Aussies.

“The reef is one of the wonders of the natural world – and (you’re) going to trash it just because (you) don't want to drive smaller cars or pay a little extra to put solar panels on the roof?" he ponders.

But it’s the climactic third act of his disaster script where Jeff really goes to town. Toowomba, as it happens.

“The fact that the sky can hold more water is precisely what happens in a warming world. Four inches of rain fell (and) what had been a manageable soaking turned into a catastrophe… The floodwaters continued down into the Lockyer Valley, bursting through smaller towns and sweeping buildings, cars and people away… Eventually, the floodwaters… all poured into the Brisbane River, which flows through Australia's third-largest city. The river rose 15 feet above normal, breaking its banks and forcing the evacuation of tens of thousands of residents.”

Gasp! Terrifying stuff. But I barely have time to pour myself another glass of red before Narrabeen, too, gets swept away in a raging torrent of melodrama and hyperbole.

"The beach, the hotels, the houses – the sea will cut right through to Sydney Harbor (sic). Manly beach will vanish. We walk for a while, watching all the happy people strolling along the boardwalk and drinking wine in cafes and surfing the waves. The sun is shining, and everything is lovely. Too bad that it all has to go.”

Defending the article against an online backlash, Australian RS editor Toby Creswell struggles to hide his embarrassment. “The tone of this is probably a bit too alarmist and some of the minor details stick out to us Australians but the gist of it is pretty spot on.” Sorry, Toby, not good enough. Omitted from this racy account is the fact that the ferocity of the Victorian fires was largely due to a build-up of fuels thanks to a lack of burning off by Greens-dominated councils. ‘Yasi ‘was a classic strong “La Nina” cyclone of the sort that regularly pound the Queensland coast; it just happened to hit a town. The Brisbane deluge was caused by the ineptitude of the Labor party’s decision – driven by belief in climate change - to use the Wivenhoe Dam for storage rather than for flood mitigation as it was designed. Narrabeen and other such beaches were swept away in the 70’s and many times before that.

In the tradition of Al Gore, exaggeration and lies are being foisted by Rolling Stone upon an impressionable audience in order to create fear about climate change - and loathing for those who question it.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE LONDON RIOTS

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2843812.html

“I suppose you’ll try and blame the London riots on climate change believers,” said a friend of mine to me, scathingly, the other day. It’s true. It does seem like anyone who’s got a drum to bang has clutched at the riots like a looter grabbing a pair of trainers. Everyone wants to jump on the who’s-to-blame bandwagon, with theories ranging from the nanny state to an outbreak of “let’s-get-even-with-the- hedge-fund-managers.”

The London riots have come along just at the right time for all sorts of people. For News Ltd, a welcome opportunity to get back to writing about the news rather than making it. For David Cameron, the chance to fight his own Falklands – at home. For Labour politicians, the moment to moan loudly about “the horrific cuts”, forgetting of course that the worst ones were self-inflicted as people gleefully punched their way through plate glass windows.

Personally, I think someone should study the psychological similarity between the January sales and most computer games. Wandering innocently down Wandsworth Road after a relaxed afternoon spent snorting crack cocaine and playing “Mayhem and Carnage 3”, and then suddenly being confronted by excited crowds pouring out of every High Street store with their arms laden with freebies, it would be easy to get confused. “The chance of a lifetime!” as they say in the ads. “Everything must go!”

But back to climate change. Maybe it’s true! Maybe climate change really is to blame.

Got kids? Watched as they've been indoctrinated - sorry, I mean educated - about global warming over the last decade? Then you'll know what I mean. They come home from school moodily depressed about the future of our planet and, of course, what that means for their own lives. What's the point? We're all doomed! Why study? Why bother getting an education? It's futile. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are soaring. Soon we'll all be living in a polluted hell-hole constantly battling the equivalent of the Queensland floods or the Victorian bush fires year upon year. And you want me to waste what precious time I have left studying accountancy?

It's called nihilism, and it's even more terrifying to witness in your teenage children than hickeys, drunkenness, truancy, insolence, idleness, bad marks or bullying. Nihilism, or the conviction that life on earth is totally pointless, saps the young of their energy, their ambition, and their will to strive, struggle and triumph.

Any amateur psychologist (or even better, parent) will tell you how easy it is to demotivate a child. So as parents we go out of our way to imbue our children with a sense of self-worth and optimism. We try and tell them what a great life lies ahead of them.

Yet at the same time, our teachers and our politicians are determined to do the complete opposite. To convince an entire generation that life on earth as we know it is, well... stuffed. There is no worthwhile future.

The Sex Pistols are famous for coining two phrases., other than “God Save The Queen, which wasn’t strictly theirs. “Anarchy in the UK” and “No Future.” Unsurprisingly, the two go hand in hand. As in Australia, the UK education authorities have spent the last dozen years or so doing their utmost to persuade our kids that they have no future. No future for the planet, which equates to a very bleak future for themselves. Combined with an unrelenting culture of consumption and acquisition, the average child grows up believing a) life is shit and b) grab whatever you can whenever you get the chance. Combine that philosophy with a stimulative diet of violent computer games and a "bling" culture that prides overt materialism above all else and you get, um .... Give me a moment while I figure it out.

Oh yeah! Got it! Anarchy. No respect for authority, an instant "thrill" addiction, no interest in long-term consequences, and a very real understanding that "the system" will never dare blame you for anything that you have done. Awesome, dude!

"We're just getting our taxes back!" yelled one over-excited young woman as she happily looted a corner store the other night in full view of the TV cameras. “This was the best day ever!” yelled talented athlete and (now disqualified) Olympic ambassador Chelsea Ives after allegedly rampaging through Enfield smashing and stealing.

“Children now have the power over their parents, not the other way around,“

said the father of another middle-class teenage looter. Every time he tries to criticize or correct his daughters behavior, she has been taught to loudly accuse him or either verbal or physical abuse.

     

Clearly, today's "rioters" aren't actually interested in changing the world with catchy slogans and idealistic sentiments. They're far too busy helping themselves to shoes, clothes, electronic goods, alcohol, chips and cash.

Only a few weeks ago, Pink Floyd offspring Charlie Gilmour was sentenced to 16 months for his role in the “student riots” of last year. “We’re very, very angry!” he proclaimed, smashing his way into Oxford Street’s Top Shop, presumably grabbing the opportunity to get some new clothes. “You broke the moral law, we are going to break all the laws,” he carried on, as he then set about attacking Prince Charles’ convoy and desecrating the Cenotaph.

All because of cuts to student fees? Um, his step-dad made one of the biggest selling albums of all time. I don’t think so. Nihilism is a pernicious, debilitating and self-fulfilling doctrine. In the UK, as here, the "authorities" have been preaching it relentlessly for the last decade. It comes at a price. Al Gore, I hope you watched the riots in a London as avidly as our kids were all forced to watch your breathless prophesies of global gloom, doom and destruction.

It's not rising sea levels we have to worry about. It's a rising tide of nihilism, thrill seeking and moral ambiguity.

And the January sales.

COUNTERPOINT INTERVIEW

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2011/3285667.htm

JUMPING SHIPS

In the marketing world, people jump ship all the time. The CEO of a company, having for years demanded unconditional loyalty from his team, will suddenly join his firm’s most hated rival. Struggling brands will poach their competitor’s Creative Director in order to re-build themselves. Betrayal? Of course not. It’s called "doing business." And nobody bats an eyelid.

Is Malcolm Turnbull about to jump ship? Could he do business with Labor?

Last week’s Virginia Chadwick Memorial speech, where Malcolm passionately embraced Kevin Rudd's sentiments about climate change being "the greatest moral challenge of our time" is revealing. Taken by most as a piece of mischief designed to keep Tony Abbott on his toes, the timing and oddness of the speech suggest an ulterior motive.

Malcolm is coyly fluttering his eyelashes across the chamber at an increasingly jumpy Labor Party and saying "I'm over here if you want me, boys! Shall we dance?”

Minority governments play strange tricks on the mind. In Europe, individuals whom the public had always assumed loathe each other frequently hop into bed together. Nick Clegg enjoyed a naughty weekend’s flirtation with Gordon Brown before abruptly deciding to offer his virtue to David Cameron. From a business angle, it made more sense. Nick, a classic latte-sipping lefty, is now deputy PM of Thatcher's old party. Are Dave and Nick happy together? Apart from a few petty domestic squabbles, the romance is going gangbusters.

The climate change issue and its troublesome offspring the carbon tax are strangling the life out of Labor. Gillard's "damned if I do and damned if I don't" quandary was only ever going to be resolved if she could persuade people that the tax would genuinely tackle climate change. She failed. By panicking and throwing other issues into the mix (wealth redistribution, who-gets-what-compensation, renewables) the "sell" became confused; with voters being offered a mish-mash of reasons why they should buy her product. Like a show-bag thrust in your face crammed with junk you don't really want, the majority of punters are responding "not today, thanks."     

But "not today" doesn't mean "not ever." With the same polls that tell us Gillard and her tax are floundering also telling us that climate change remains an issue of popular concern, the opportunity is ripe for a credible and inspiring Labor leader to re-shape the issue. Someone not beholden to the Greens, someone with solid business acumen untarnished by the BER and pink batts fiascos, and someone who can attract votes from the “wet” Liberals who by nature are uncomfortable with Tony Abbott’s brutal skepticism.

Someone, for example, who could convincingly tie opposition to the carbon tax into Labor’s beloved class struggle. Like this: “There has been a very effective campaign against the science of climate change by those opposed to taking action to cut emissions – many because it is not in their own financial interests – and that this has played into the carbon tax debate.” Beautifully put, Malcolm. Labor hardheads would sell their grandmas to have such an efficient and eloquent communicator on their team.

Malcolm remains high in the opinion polls as preferred leader of the opposition. Polls are the gold-standard by which Labor judges success. Julia is bankrupt. Malcolm is loaded. Moreover, Malcolm's Labor credentials, as pointed out recently by the ever-perceptive Bob Ellis, are impeccable. Malcolm fought valiantly for the Republic, is as passionate a climate change believer as you will find this side of Newtown, and despite his staggering wealth boasts a strong working class pedigree. Labor, as Ellis makes clear, would have no problem taking him on board.

But would Malcolm want to? Funnily enough, it would probably be easier for him to hop into bed with Labor than to try and claw back the Liberal leadership. The more Malcolm shows of his own true colours, the more the right of the Liberal party rail against him; with the Menzies House website labeling his speech ''The return of treacherous Turnbull.” Not a lot of love there.

“Let me say straight up that the question of whether or to what extent human activity is causing global warming is not a matter of ideology… or of belief.  The matter is simply one of risk management,” he continued, cunningly conflating his own renowned business skills with advocacy for the carbon tax. This wasn’t a speech aimed at confused Liberals. This was a message to the soul and brain of Labor. A message that says loud and clear: “Got a carbon tax to sell, guys? I’m your man.”

If Malcolm were to jump ship, many problems would simultaneously be solved. First and foremost, the prime-ministership would be back within his grasp, which is, after all, his sole ambition. Deliciously, it would also put him in a position to savagely attack Tony Abbott, an opportunity he is clearly salivating for. And above all, it would allow Malcolm to sleep at night over the one issue that genuinely seems to trouble his conscience.

And for Labor? The opportunity to re-take the moral high ground on climate change, re-jig its emissions scheme, shrug the Green monkey off its back, consolidate the Independents (Rob Oakeshott was gushing over Malcolm's speech), give Kevin Rudd the finger, and put Julia back where she is best suited (running kindergartens). Oh, and it would also give them a pretty good crack at winning the next election.

Sounds like a sound business decision to me.

 http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/to-change-this-climate-labor-needs-a-bold-new-leader-its-turnbull-20110726-1hyhe.html

POLISHING THE CARBON TAX

http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/7114733/polishing-the-carbon-tax.thtml


So that's what it all boils down to, then. Jobs for people building wind farms and installing solar panels. Phew. For a moment there I thought we were going to start saving polar bears again.

The government's ad agency, apart from happily trousering $12 million, have been quick to recognize that hyperbole, pontificating celebrities and overblown promises do not cut it with the average battler. What turns Aussies on is jobs - and lots of them. Preferably for themselves.

So this week, with the help of the un-scripted testimonials and musings of "real" working Australians, we finally get an advertising campaign that does what advertising does best - cunningly matches a potential benefit of the product to the consumer's self-interest. A unique selling proposition designed to have broad appeal. 

This is the third and final proposition with which the government or its proxies have tried to persuade a bored and cynical audience, who long ago made up their minds on the issue and have now switched off, to buy their whiffy Carbon Tax plan. First we were told that "millions would be better off", but nobody really bought that line, so Greg Combet dropped it faster than a hot chunk of coal. Next thing you know, up popped Cate Blanchett and Michael Caton hectoring us to "do something positive" about climate change, but the premises they relied upon were as flimsy and wonky as the cardboard cut-out sets they'd built. Viewers looked away in embarrassment.

So now we get the truth - or rather, a highly varnished version of it. 

The real winners from this whole kerfuffle are those who work in renewable energies. Bingo! If you happen to have a job building wind farms or installing solar panels, the future looks pretty rosy. Because we are certainly going to need an awful lot of them if we're to have any hope of turning off the coal powered generators that our jobs, lives and economy all rely upon.

If you happen to work in practically any other industry, particularly ones that rely upon cheap energy, you're pretty much buggered, however. Needless to say, the ads conveniently skip over this tiny detail. We can presume it wasn't part of "the brief."

Forget about receding shorelines, melting glaciers, dead starfish, flatulent wildlife and all the rest of it. The public fully understand that moving longterm to sustainable energy is "a good thing." That's a no-brainer. What makes them suspicious or distrustful of the Carbon Tax is the quasi-religious, holier-than-thou preachings of the climate change "believers" and their guilt-laden doomsday prophesies. Oh, and they're also not crazy about pollies who say one thing before an election and the opposite afterwards.  

The advertising agency who won this account knew that they'd been handed a stinker. The opinion polls already told them that. But their planners and creatives have done a great job of, as they say in the industry, "polishing a turd." Soft, reassuring music. Beautiful lighting and photography. Gorgeous landscapes and visuals. Clouds racing by over a beautiful sunrise. Reasonable, down-to-earth characters. Everyday Aussies, in fact, talking about their everyday jobs, in typical everyday Aussie cities and towns. What's to argue with?

Well, quite a bit actually.    

“For a long time coal will remain a significant proportion of our (energy) generation," proclaims Miles George, the everyday Managing Director of Infigen Energy, in his everyday leather jacket. Hang on. "For a long time"? How long? Years? Decades? And what is "a significant proportion"? 50%? 70%? I thought the whole point of the Carbon Tax was to get rid of the bloody stuff altogether.  

“Putting a turbine up in the air and letting wind give us power has to be a better option," says Wendy Moloney, another everyday Aussie woman who also happens to work for, er, Infigen Energy. Are you sure, Wendy? Go to Europe and you'll find wind farms are hugely controversial, with farmers, nature lovers and whole communities actively protesting against their noise, visual pollution, exorbitant running costs and inefficiencies in supplying energy when and where it is actually needed. 

“Other countries around the world are... building huge industries, and those jobs could just as well be here," opines Lyndon Frearson, the everyday General Manager of CAT Projects, a firm who, incidentally, are currently hiring more staff. All very well, but as Lyndon (whose firm fit solar panels to beach resorts and the like) makes this laudable claim the ad shows a gigantic hydro-electric dam under construction. Are we suddenly about to start building more dams? Has anyone told Bob Brown?

“We see the amount of money that Germany’s thrown towards research and development of solar power… and they’ve got stuff all sun!” exclaims uber-ocker Rede Ogden, who looks and talks like he's in a meat pie ad but in fact, along with his wife Renee (the ad agency must have cracked open the bubbly when they found these two) owns a solar panel installation company. He's right, though. Countries all over the world have thrown an awful lot of money at renewables, but they still only account for a fraction of energy output. 

So they're going to need to throw a lot more. Their ludicrous, legislated emissions reduction targets demand it, much to the chagrin of those long-suffering households who have to pick up the ever-increasing bill each month.   

“Internationally the investment in clean energy is rivalling fossil energy today.” boasts everyday Aussie Seb Henbest, who happens to work for, um, Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Yep. Again, he's right. There's big bucks to be made out of renewables. For Seb in particular.

Which is why, uncannily, the Carbon Tax ads look more like corporate recruitment ads for the renewable energy industries than a plausible justification for this hefty new tax. 

Might be time to think about switching jobs.