The federal and state budgets already provide a huge redistribution from the rich to the poor. Expenditure from both governments works out at about $15000 per person or $60000 for a typical family of two adults and two children. That same family has a median income of less than $60000. In other words government spending per median income person is more than that person’s income. Where is the money coming from, Tristan?

Before you pillory and condemn corporate Australia, remember that they are paying the bills.

Rob88
taxpayers money regularly goes into propping up increasingly unprofitable (and poor quality) industries like local car manufacturing, or subsidising the fossil fuel/coal mining industry (as just two examples) often to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

where do your figures come from? to suggest that 'corporate australia' pays everyone's bills in some altruistic sense is utterly absurd.

Great article Tristen. Let's the cat out of the bag and outlines a clear argument for turning the Australian economy on its head with a huge increase in unemployment and poverty.

Sniggid: if you'd care to outline your specific objections I might be able to response to your criticisms. Instead you've just taken a cheap shot with no substance.

How would expanded Medicare into dental programs results in 'unemployment and poverty'?

And if the Americans can have 35% company tax at a federal level, and 5% at a state level, why does an infrastructure levy of up to 4%result in 'unemployment and poverty' - especially when it's complemented by extra industry assistance and incentives for high wage export and import replacement industry? The BCA recognises that underinvestment in roads, rail, ports, communications, education etc is at crisis point. Would you rather we sat on our hands and did nothing, or do you want ordinary tax payers to entirely pay the price for infrastructure from which business benefits?

And what does an industry policy which prioritises high wage industries have to do with 'a massive increase in unemployment and poverty'? Pro-active industry policies have been very successful in areas like Scandanavia and Japan.

Or is it the IR component you object to? Do you really think it is cheap labour that is soaking up uemployment in Australia, and do you think 'letting the labour market clear' is the only way of tackling unemployment: or do you recognise (sensibly) that reduced unemployment now is a consequence of the resources boom?

Finally, a carbon tax would be an impost on polluting business yes - but an emissions trading system would be similarly costly, but would not be as dependable as a revenue source for government.

Tristan

Tristan’s treatise in which he pushes the line of ‘take this ALP pill and all problems will disappear’ fails the credibility test. Let’s start with health. It was Richo who as federal ALP health minister admitted that we were spending in the area of 10 cents per day on each Australian female afflicted with breast cancer. How caring is that Tristan? The only time federal Labor has had success with our health system is when Keating underwent that famous personality bypass operation.

Tristan mentions that hoary issue of investment in infrastructure. Hawke had the chance to do just that when he came to power promising to build the Alice Springs – Darwin rail line. That was quickly dropped once he became PM. Hawke did manage to build The Mekong River Friendship Bridge, which connected Thailand and Laos across the Mekong River and soaked up many millions of Australian dollars. Is that how we improve our infrastructure under Labor Tristan? And why would we need to spend money on our infrastructure anyway Tristan. Wasn’t it the “world’s greatest treasurer” and ALP deity who wanted our economy based on tourism and services?

Every party has a water policy by now Tristan. Rudd’s way of dealing with water shortages was to campaign for the cancellation of the Wolfdene Dam. He was successful in having this vital piece of infrastructure (there’s that nasty word again Tristan) dropped from the visionary party; the ALP. Here in NSW we pipe our sewage out to sea abeam North Head and when the currents sweep it to an area abeam Cronulla the ALP's plan is to suck it up into a desalination plant, clean it up and then feed it into our drinking water. Pretty clever, eh what.

Re-establish a public bank. How brilliant Tristan. But wasn’t it federal Labor who sold off the Commonwealth Bank?

Sorry Tristan, the ALP have about as much credibility as the Liberal – NP coalition.

We should load our politicians onto a barge, tow it out to sea and sink it.

Sniggid,
We have poverty, homelessness now under this system, you probably don't see it in the circles you move in but believe me for supposedly the wealthiest nation on Earth, we have a great deal of poverty, perhaps too much money concentrated among too few?

May I suggest a radical answer to your question: 'Health and education are always strong areas for Labor but if Labor combines fiscal conservatism with an agenda of personal and corporate tax cuts, what room is there for Labor to live up to this reputation? Ideally, Labor ought to aim to provide additional grants to the states ...'

Rudd's Federal Labor team in the first term could solve the funding conundrum by vigorously expanding 'new federalism' to transfer local government, education, health, police and water under Australian Government laws using their constitutional powers. In the second term, transfer the rest of the states functions over and the annual savings will be massive. The $50 Billion annual savings estimated by economist Mark Drummond, will enable better funded, better quality services, new public infrastructure investment while also delivering tax cuts.

A very good survey. What sort of agenda should the ALP have so far as international relations is concerned? For instance the rise of China, the US "alliance", ballistic missile defence and so on. Personally, I would like to see some embrace of alternative security concepts such as common or co-operative security.

Of course we have got people who are having difficulty with homes and lack of income under the current government. The problem is that with a return to the country being run by the unions and a Labor government with the agenda Tristan favours, we will see many more businesses unprofitable, leading to increased unemployment and a general run down of the economy.

Tristan favours the abolition or halving of dividend imputation, for example, which will put a significant dent in my income that relies on such credits to pay my tax.

In very short time I can see the $96b of government debt returning.

As for the IR reforms, we had such a system in WA. It was great.

Of course the taxpayer pays for infrastucture to set up the opportunity for business to establish and invest. That's where the employment comes from. One of the current problems with land development, for example, is that state governments force developers to pick up the infrastucture costs which are passed on to land purchasers, adding to the overall cost of housing.

But I encourage Tristan (or is it Tristen?) to keep up his writing. That will allow the public to get a feeling of what the country might look like under a Labor Government.

Sniggid: I understand that one must be careful when adjusting Company Tax. Too low and you don't have the revenue to sustain infrastructure to maintain quality of life and economic competitiveness. Too high and you risk driving firms offshore. But compared with the US, our rates are low. The benefit of an infrastructure levy is that you can use some of the revenue to suppport high wage industry (which is good for all of us), while using the rest to provide infrastructure.

In the field of infrastructure I refer you to a previous article of mine: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5252

"in the areas of electricity, gas, rail, road and water, there is underinvestment to the tune of almost $25 billion. This is without even considering the backlog of investment in schools, universities, hospitals, public housing and aged care facilities."

Even with an increase in revenue, it is impossible to provide the infrastructure we all need without incurring some government debt. The key is that investment in infrastructure adds to economic growth and the increase in revenue means that the debt can be serviced. If you eliminate debt by refusing to invest in infrastructure it may look good on the surface, but the result is reduced quality of life and competitiveness.

While eliminating/halving dividend imputation may impact on the income of someone such as yourself, 90% of shares are held by only 20% of Australians - 99% are held by the top 1%. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/nov2002/gap-n21.shtml

The increase in the social wage, therefore, would prove beneficial to the vast majority of Australians.

Sage: I appreciate your sentiments - I feel the same way about many of the policies embraced by Hawke and Keating - but unless a credible alternative party with a broad enough social base arises to challenge Labor it is still important for progressives to work within the ALP to have leverage on policy. Also: even if a new party of the Left did arise, progressive would still need to work within the ALP to encourage partnership between the two parties.

Tristan

Tristan, your ideas on changing the revenue base is a just bad policy. You attack the company tax and imputation reforms introduced by the Hawke Labor government even though company tax has become the largest growing segment of federal revenues.

The forward estimates of company tax show an increase of 12.6 % or $6.4 billion whereas income tax only increased by $810 million. The forward estimates put company tax at 25 % of total revenue as opposed to 23 % for the previous year.

There is enormous pressure on companies to pay their tax so shareholders can receive their imputations. Removing imputations will result in huge drops in dividends, more tax avoidance and many companies adopting the high debt model used by toll roads and the Qantas buyout. If the company tax collapses, so too does the federal budget, and Tristan’s wish list is off to the shredder.
See page 5-8 on the link.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2006-07/bp1/download/bp1_bst5.pdf

It seems entirely appropriate for business to be prevailed upon to improve infrastructure. If a business needs a factory it pays for the land and equipment, pays council rates, etc. should businesses be exempt from all of this because they create jobs? The workers create wealth with their labour - should they be exempt from taxation? Furthermore, more employment means more taxpayers and more tax. If the taxpayers are paying more, why should they be the ones paying for infrastructure upgrades?

Labor needs to scrap or at least heavily modify the Work **oices legislation. David Uren revealed, in the Weekend 'strayan of Feb 17-18, that the government has directed the Office of Workplace Services not to perform statistical analysis on the AWAs lodged with it, making it impossible to demonstrate how it has adversely affected conditions, though he points out that all AWAs lodged had removed at least on award condition before analysis stopped last year. Clearly this situation needs reversing.

We thus have Business – 1; Workers – 0 and an unfulfilled need for improved infrastructure. We also have the potential for business being hit twice, which will make them very unhappy. Perhaps to the point of campaigning against Labor.

Now, if we weren’t paying for two wars in the middle east, there may be more money around for infrastructure. Refugee paranoia doesn’t come cheap either. Closing down the offshore prisons and dealing with the innocent inmates humanely might free up some money for infrastructure, too.

Don’t know about Medicare expansion, tho. Medicare Gold bombed spectacularly last election and people with healthcare cards can get very cheap (not dodgy-cheap) dental treatment anyway.

Tristan, you make a lot of good points – too many to cover in one 350 word reply. I will say tho, that workers need their right to strike restored. Such rights are fundamental to democracy and their erosion, coupled with the Work **oices legislation is downright sinister.

Rob - If the US can have an effective company tax rate of around 40% when you add the state rates, why is it beyond the pale for Australia to have an effective rate of 34% incorporating a 4% infrastructure levy? And why, especially, is this so bad when it will help pay for an infrastructure backlog that goes into the tens of billions, and support the development of high wage industry? And why do you automatically assume that this will lead to a plague of avoidance or - worse still - the 'collapse' of the system?

Under Hawke, if I remember correctly, the rate was around 39%. Then it went down to 36%, an eventually (I think) 30% today. Now the BCA wants this brought down to 25%. Unlike the labour movement, the business community is ALWAYS on the offensive - and yet, wanting more expenditure on infrastructure - it wants to have its cake and eat it too. This is just to show things have not always been as they are today. Yes, we need to remain competitive - but providing infrastructure is part of this equation, and it is only reasonable that business pay its share. Given that you also oppose halving or abolishing dividend imputation, I assume you prefer to 'turn a blind eye' to the infrastructure backlog, or otherwise raise income tax and cut programs. And who - I wonder - would you choose to pay in such a scenario?

And Mat - whatever caused Latham's defeat, I don't think it was Medicare Gold. Medicare Gold was a modest program that appealed to pensioners. What I'm proposing is a more robust injection of funds (at least $5 billion) - to meaningfully slash waiting lists for all of us. As for dental care - as far as I'm aware the public program has been drastically cut under Howard with waiting lists that are beyond the pale. I'm on a pension and I pay the full commercial rate for my dental care. Given waiting lists, there's little choice.

Perhaps I had lumped it in with the general Latham malaise that descended in the dying days of the election campaign, but I don't remember anyone really loving the idea, and I do remember it being considered irresponsible and unnecessary. Which returns us to the dental program. I, too, am on a pension and was a dole-bludger when I had my last bout of dentistry. It cost me my wisdom teeth and $25, as did the previous episode of tooth removal.

Specifics aside, there are a wealth of real issues out there and there's no call for publicly funded dental care. Waiting lists, hospital beds, more hospitals, more equipment and another $5 billion for medicare are needed and repeatedly called for. Publicly funded dental care totally seems the sort of thing people will lampoon Labor for, especially considering there a plenty of big issues to spend money on. The Libs are going to be hammering fiscal responsibility (one of the two categories of the recent newspoll Labor isn't leading), so spending money on stuff people aren't clamouring for is likely to cost more votes than it wins. Pour it into renewable energy, into infrastructure, the Murray river (yep, my mind's eye is giggling at that picture), schools, universities, but don't go spending people's tax money on stuff they're not excited about.

Have you any data to show that people would like their money spent on it?

Don't pay the Ferryman - Dr Death

Reports from the Liberal Government's Education portfolio, are attempting to comment through controlled media, that there is no one book that is the same, between any of the States of Australia, once again leading up to a Federal election.

There is no system of teaching syllabus that is the same, leaving Australian students credentials and academic ability at risk and under educated.

Political agenda and bias has been reported, in each of the State run Labour party governments.

Between the State Labour governments and its individual State institutes of academics, political bias has been placed in the middle of the Education debate leading up to another Federal Election.

Continuing, scathing reports and investigations into the State Education Institutes who have set the standards of education for Australian children and young adults.

The problems are decades old.

The Federal Labour opposition leader is inspiring Australians through media ads, a vision to put Education as a future Labour export and commodity of leaders in export technology.

Didn't Beazley run on Education in the last election, upon reflection of the dominance of Labour State run education systems, the deck full of Labour State governments?

Perhaps Kim or Mark should have had the last of dying outback's gloss and rural glamour, with a million dollar ad campaign, funded by their Labour party caucus, to sell a better way to right their State Governments mishandling and manipulative intentions to our Australia's most vulnerable, youth.

Taking stock of the past history of election campaigns of the two headed monster, wheeling out a solution and packing it back into the too hard basket when they have been re-elected. It's party time.

Perhaps we should pay peanuts to our politicians and diplomats for the monkeys that are landing on the Australian citizens back.

Australian citizens, should be a leader in Education and technology.

There has been plenty of time for any of our long term politicians and diplomats to have stood up for this national interest, instead now of the re-direction of policy and tax payer funding to import the educated.

Suebdootwo,

I do not clearly understand what you are saying, so you may like to clarify.

The Liberals are attempting to use state Labor's control of education to win votes, using the usual tactics of attacks on standards, attacks on teachers and attacks on collective industrial agreements. But it is a poor strategy because the people of Australia have in twenty consecutive state and territory elections rejected the Liberals' education policies and chosen Labor's. The people of Victoria remember that the last time they had a Liberal government, it caused massive damage to the education system. It dumped 9,000 much-needed teachers, brought in unprofessional and corrupt bonuses (as Julie Bishop is proposing to do again), used retrospective legislation to increase class sizes and teaching loads (as Julie Bishop is effectively proposing to do again through AWAs), increased the power of bullying principals (as Julie Bishop is proposing to do again), removed traditional academic subjects such as history and geography, reduced the number of marks required to gain an A in VCE English tasks between 1994 and 1995, brought in jargonistic “beginning”/”consolidating”/”established” reports, etc, etc, etc. In the most recent state election, Ted Ballieu promised to bring in a bonus system for teachers. He lost.

When John Howard attacks so-called trendy eduction, he is in fact attacking his own party, not the Labor Party, which is committed to high standards for all children.

The state Labor government has commenced the rebuilding of the education system. It has invested $1.4 billion in capital spending on schools, employed an extra 5,193 teachers, funded schools to cap prep to grade 2 classes at 21 pupils each, introduced the Victorian Institute of Teaching to uphold professional standards and ethics, restored the traditional academic disciplines of history and geography, ensured there are standards in schools through the Victorian Essential learning Standards, brought in a reporting system that allows parents to know the level their children are actually achieving and which explicitly shows whether or not they have made improvement over the school year.

Federal Labor has an asset in the Victorian Labor's education record.

I think, also, that we need to look beyond the spin in assessing state curriculums. Critics such as Kevin Donnelly have been wont to attack critical literacy programs in English as well as the inclusion of popular culture in said curricula because of what they perceive as the malign influence of postmodernism.

While Donnelly has posed as the champion of Western tradition and Reason, however, as opposed to the relativism of postmodernism, it is hard to see how the exclusion of class-based, gender-based and other perspectives in History fits in with this angle. In order for Reason to prevail, after all, we must be free to choose from and criticise all manner of narratives and voices. This, after all, is part of the rationale in the campaign for free speech: that Reason might prevail in free and open exchange.

And while I do not believe that all narratives are equal, and I am myself skeptical about postmodernism, I do think that in developing life skills of critical literacy it is important to exercise criticism in all manner of contexts.

Critics, however, have developed an insidious scare campaign in their attempts to drive English and History curricula back 50 years. This is the ideology that animates the drive for a national curriculum. Labor should be more forthright in defending inclusive narratives and English and History. Otherwise the only voice in this debate will be that of the Conservatives: and their voice will ultimately prevail.

Chris C

They are both to blame.

They are not to blame we are to blame, we are the ones who keep putting them there.

you say we have no choice you do

but the choice for change takes guts to stand and become a member or become a candidate for your community.

Wingeing about it is just that nothing more so stand and for a change do the right thing.

www.tapp.org.au

Re-socialising Telstra is a great idea. They should at the outset commit to maintaining the Government shareholding in Telstra and unapologetically use it to leverage Telstra to serve the public.

Perhaps, also Australia Post could be expanded to become, once again, "Post Master General". It could have a charter to provide every Australian with the best possible telecommunications service within our means to pay (and to hell with what the other communications carriers say - if they can't find space to survive, tough). In time, with the economy of scale and patronage that the Australian people would give to such an enterprise, it would be easy for it to be able to buy out Telstra and other private telcos and to integrate them into a single publicly owned communications service.

---

Labor needs to have much more serious policies to deal with the looming ecological crisis.

Our global civilisation is very close on a world scale to a point equivalent to those where many past civilisations, which had overstepped the limits of their natural environments, collapsed. (Read about the Chaco Anasazi, the Mayans, Angkor Watt, the Sumerians, the Easter Islanders etc in Jared Diamond's "Collapse". Also, read about how the Ancient Greeks and ancient Romans destroyed the natural environments which sustained them in Franz Broswimmer's "Ecocide".) When the extraction of oil, upon which 20th century civilisation was built, begins soon to decline irreversibly, whilst the demand for oil, for a growing world population, with growing material demands, contines to grow, our whole globalised civilisation is very likely to also collapse with horrific consequences.

Labor needs policies to try to prevent this. A vital component of this would be the active Government encouragement and facilitation of relocalistation. This is described in an article by Russ Grayson, also on OLO, at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5538

Another would be to adopt Bob Brown's suggestion to scale back coal exports so at least the scale of that the looming global warming ecological disaster can be reduced.

... and they should definitely tell Julia Gillard where to take her suggestion to allow the expansion of the Uranium industry.

Firstly, apologies that this response is so late in the piece.

There are good economic arguments in favour of minimum wages. The typical argument against it is that it causes unemployment; however the demand for low-wage work is inelastic (this is in addition to the fact that the labour market is monoposonistic). Recent research by Card and Kruger (Myth and Measurement: The New Economics of the Minimum Wage, 1997) noted that the negative employment effects of minimum-wage laws to be minimal if not non-existent.

With regards to taxation policy, the clearest and obvious improvement that is needed it to encourage productivity and punish both speculation and environmental degradation. The most obvious reform in this regard is greater reliance on public finances from resource rents (land tax and the like) rather than lumping all "income" into one category as if the way it is gained is economically the same.

In the realm of tertiary education it is clear that Labor must return to the early-eighties policy of a free and public system as a matter of strategic investment in our future. Certainly the same applies for other matters of physical and social infrastructure.

While I agree with Labor that Nuclear Power Stations should be the last option in meeting our power needs, But why is Labor against setting Australian Standards to govern Nuclear Power Stations and Nuclear Waste Repositories? Should we just allow Industry to govern it self.

Lev, I agree that it would be great to return to a free tertiary education system. Unfortunately, though, Labor has many priorities, and limited scope to increase taxation. I'd like to see what additional tax is gained channelled into education infrastructure, provision of more university places, extra hospital beds and more doctors and nurses, inclusion of dental, podiatry etc in Medicare, support for low income earners through tax credits etc. That said, I think you can get a reasonably equitable result without eliminating tertiary fees. What I envisage is a scaled HECS system. Under such a system, students would pay back a proportion of their fees dependent upon income. The repayment threshold itself would be raised, and additional thresholds would government the total proportion of debt repaid. Also, I'd like to see the flexibility of universities to charge additional HECS removed, and the need for it countered by extra public funding. These moves would make the system much more equitable, while not being as costly as a full move back to free education: freeing up funds for other programs.

I'm also at a loss why Labor has no plans to regulate any nuclear industry. Perhaps it's just that they're adamant that we'll never have one? I'd like to hear more about this anyway.

Tristan

Tristan, go to this site http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06550t.pdf and tell me we don't need standards governibg the nuclear industry.

I believe that Kevin Rudd is not only adopting Tony Blair style by pushing the Left out of the process, he is telling the National Conference what it should adopt as the Policy Platform for the next Federal Election. Well let see if he escape the National Conference without spilling a little bit of blood on the floor.

I agree that Rudd should not have pre-empted the Conference by leaking a 'draft platform' to 'The Australian' ahead of April. The point of doing so well in the polls ought to be that we DON'T have to adopt all manner of convoluted stance to please conservatives and reactionaries. PPPs for national infrastructure ought be ruled out, there should be an appropriate critique of the casualisation of the workforce - and the undermining of these people's wages and conditions under enterprise bargaining. There should be a commitment to tax reform: but not of the 'flat tax' manner. Tax reform ought make the system more progressive, and bring in additional revenue for desperately-needed social programs. Uranium, also, ought not be exported to countries who refuse to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Finally, there should be a move back to a more comprehensive Award system, rather than an overly simplified system that fails to protect the most vulnerable. All this ought be discussed at Conference, and the hard Right should not attempt to stifle debate to present Conference as a 'media stunt'.

The Left, here, ought be willing to compromise insofar as it can bring a portion of the Right across to meet it 'half way' on policy. It will need to forment a split in the Right in order to get the numbers. The Left, though, ought draw the line on policy that provides true progress - rather than the 'one step forward, two steps back' scenario that would arise as a consequence of support for regressive 'tax reform', minimal change on the IR front or support for regressive finance initiatives that fleece tax-payers for billions.

Tristan

To anyone sensible
left out there

Some Measure of Care

Part 1: The Uranium Story

I address my remarks to the Labor left and other god-like creatures.
If the truth can be told, so as to be understood, it will be believed.

Ideology like climate is dynamic.
Do you have the balls for it?

There’s blood in the water and you can taste it …
The delicious prospect of being in power and morally right.
Something the Liberals have only ever wondered on!

With all this global warming debacle,
the elephant in the room is uranium.

The masters of minerals have always been the masters of their age.
Today’s master mineral is uranium.
These masters will not sit on their hands much longer…
To deny them, runs the risk of forcing them to come and get it.

The developed world is not going to cripple itself to iron-out injustice.
The edifice of global warming science is an exercise in retreating from reason (see Part 2).
It’s being used as a vehicle to convey the left to the middle of the future – uranium... And (due mainly to your high moral passion) it’s working a charm.

As a stable (politically and geologically) first world country –
we are the prime suspect to supply, enrich and dispose of the nuclear fuel cycle - by leasing our products.

We are in the box seat to take a leading role
in achieving this important transition
between the energy sources of today and the new technologies of the future.

Accept the well endowed wealth of this lucky country.
But do it with secure safeguards based on real science –
not the superstition connived to corner you into this direction.
Be part of the march forward – with “some measure of care”.

Some Measure of Care

Part 1: Uranium

Part 2 : Retreat from Reason

“Sleepers wake” – we are on the cusp of a tipping year.
This is a clarion call, global warming – the Trojan horse

We live on a majestically dynamic planet with intertwining complexes.
Presently we are in an inter-glacial period with relatively minor warming cooling.
The variability in the Sun’s intensity is the controlling factor in Earth’s climate.
Cosmic rays can facilitate the production of clouds -
coupled with sunspot peak frequency,
cycles of global warming and cooling pulse like ocean waves.
Periods of Earth warming and cooling occur within small-scale cycles of about 40 years
existing within larger-scale cycles of 400 years,
which in turn exist within ice age cycles of 20,000 years.

Scenarios for future climate involve natural equations of infinite variables.
To assume human induced carbon emissions alone will significantly alter predictions is pretentious pseudo-science.
Advocating carbon change will change the way you live, but will not change future climate.

Climate environmentalism is a political mission,
offering disciples the delicious prospect of being in the right
and running things under the motherhood banner of saving the planet.
Superior morality supersedes factual argument and confers instant authority on disciples.

To accept the mantra of evil carbon is to invite the death of nationalism to dinner.

Belief in man-made global warming is also a religious phenomena.
In the battle between nature and humankind,
scientists and media have connived to make a good story,
and politicians of all colours have not been slow to see the advantages.

Future climate is not about your “belief”.
Science does not work by consensus (IPCC).
The process trickles incrementally, independently verifying facts.
The Greenhoax science will unravel by Xmas.

Human impact on future climate is a matter of degree
and needs to be assessed with “Some Measure of Care”.
Scaremongering sensationalism will result in the wrong measure.
Good environmental decision making means maximising future choice.
The decarbonisation road will end in a dead end, limiting individual and social choice for well into the future.
Wake-up and be counted this year.