Sustainability Party of Australia

Expressions of interest are sought for a new political party. For the moment it will be called the sustainability party.

The party will focus on two general areas which tend to get ignored in mainstream politics:
long term sustainability of our society
using revenue raising tools (taxes) to correct market failures

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/sustainability-party.html

What can I say but yes yes YES !!

Not a bad idea - though they'll have a tough time reaching consensus on what level of action is taken against industries... I'd be worried if they agreed too quickly.

Ludwig, if you are interested please send me your email addy, and what state you are from, via PM on OzPolitic or email

I have added a policy on the dodgy first home owner scheme

Well it has beaten me freediver. How to contact you via Oz politic, that is.

Can you provide more info. Thanks.

I had a look at the proposed policies.
Some good but you lost me on the immeadiate adoption of the Kyoto
protocol. If Howard got one thing right, it was to not get sucked into
a failed traety.
There is no point in joining it until countries like China agree to it
and implement it.

All it would do is criple the Australian economy and rob us of the
funds needed to rebuild a sustainable transport system.

Geez Bazz,
A bit negative there.

Why do we have to be last on the bus ?

I think with Howard, we will always be behind the game .

You seem to be saying a bit of responsibility and some discipline ,[never mind if it's for a good cause]is just too hard for big business and Australians in general .I don't think you are correct .

Hey Kartiya Jim; I never said anything like that.
We have to spend a lot of money to get the rail and city transport onto
local rail systems.
I agree on using the tax system to get people out of the car and onto
public transport, especially for the trip to work.
However the amount of money required to fund just the national rail system
up to a point where all interstate trucks are off the roads can only be
found by increasing the petrol & diesal tax.

The sustainability party should also adopt a policy of having
the Transition Protocol presented to the United Nations.
Btw the Greens are claiming ownership of the Transition Protocol but
it in fact is the proposal of Colin Campbell an oil geologist with the
Association for the Study of Oil & Gas (ASPO).

Everyone seem to be in an utter flap about greenhose gasses and not
noticing the elephant trying to get in through the door.

I have added a policy on the dodgy 1st home owners grant. Also, please forward this on to interested people.

Ludwig, sorry about that: http://www.ozpolitic.com/members/freediver/

"If Howard got one thing right, it was to not get sucked into a failed traety."

In what sense has it failed?

Bazz, efficient public transport will only be part of the solution. A major part will be reducing consumption via more fuel efficient cars and use of electricity. Given our low population, we will quickly run into a situation where more public transport actually increases our greenhouse emissions.

"The sustainability party should also adopt a policy of having the Transition Protocol presented to the United Nations."

You mean the green tax shift?

"Everyone seem to be in an utter flap about greenhose gasses and not noticing the elephant trying to get in through the door."

What elephant?

What is your stance on refugees?

Noted an article on your website about -evolution being false -is that part of your platform?

"If Howard got one thing right, it was to not get sucked into a failed treaty."

>In what sense has it failed?

In what sense has it succeeded ?
How many will make their quota ?
Even the carbon trading price has dived.

>Bazz, efficient public transport will only be part of the solution.
>A major part will be reducing consumption via more fuel efficient cars >and use of electricity.

Of course, but electric cars should only be used as shopping trolleys,
not for long interstate trips. Electric trains will be much more
efficient.

> Given our low population, we will quickly run into a situation where >more public transport actually increases our greenhouse emissions.

Please explain.

"The sustainability party should also adopt a policy of having the Transition Protocol presented to the United Nations."

>You mean the green tax shift?

No, I am refering to Colin Campbell's proposed international treaty
for importing countries to reduce imports of oil by the world
depletion percentage. The Greens are claiming it as their own but
it is not their scheme and has been around for a few years.
NB Colin Campbell is a founder of the Association for the Study of
Peak Oil and Gas (ASPO).

"Everyone seem to be in an utter flap about greenhose gasses and not
noticing the elephant trying to get in through the door."

What elephant?

EXACTLY !

Sustainable Population Australia Inc (http://population.org.au/) has been plugging away at the population stabilisation and overall sustainability message for 19 years with very little success. But at last they are being listened to, with their pleas for a halt to population growth in SEQ receiving high-profile media attention.

Noosa Shire mayor Bob Abbott supports this. He said;

“all land in south-east Queensland will be covered in houses and dams if the State Government does not introduce a population cap.”

Wonderful! Someone in an influential political position is at last saying the right sort of thing and being heeded (Bob has been saying it for a while, and being ignored of course).

So maybe, just maybe we are actually stepping onto the first rung of the long long ladder to sustainabiity.

With this sort of thing now reaching mainstream media and hence public attention, the time is right for the launch of a new party based on an urgent need to achieve sustainability.

"What is your stance on refugees?

We don't have one. I think that the major parties and the media give more than enough attention to that issue.

"Noted an article on your website about -evolution being false -is that part of your platform?

No. Maybe you are referring to an ad, but there is no article on the website claiming that evolution is false.

"How many will make their quota ? Even the carbon trading price has dived.

Russia will exceed it's quota by a long shot (ie, emit far less CO2). The reason the price has dived is because Russia has cut it's emissions so much. A green tax shift will avoid that situation from arising. Failure to adequately enforce legislation or the fact that it was too easy to comply with is not an inherent flaw in the idea. They just got the details wrong. Those details are easily fixed.

"Of course, but electric cars should only be used as shopping trolleys

Sorry, I was a bit vague. I did not mean electric cars. I meant more efficient use of electricity - in those areas where it is already used.

"Given our low population, we will quickly run into a situation where >more public transport actually increases our greenhouse emissions.

"Please explain

The size of a public transport network needs to match the size of the population. Public transport only becomes more efficient when you have a high population density. Otherwise you end up with almost empty busses and trains cruising around, which wastes a lot of energy and greenhouse emissions.

"No, I am refering to Colin Campbell's proposed international treaty for importing countries to reduce imports of oil by the world depletion percentage.

I see. That sounds like an interesting idea. However, a less rigid approach would work better. It's the total amount consumed that needs to be controlled. Within that limit, if one country wishes to sell their allotment and another wishes to buy, they should be able to.

Are you going to tell me what you personal elephant is? If you don't explain yourself to other people, it is your fault that they have no idea what you are talking about, not theirs.

Thanks for the link Ludwig.

freediver: "'Noted an article on your website about -evolution being false -is that part of your platform?'

No. Maybe you are referring to an ad, but there is no article on the website claiming that evolution is false."

Unless freediver is playing semantic games, then this seems patently false. See "Evolution is not a scientific theory" at http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html - linked from freediver's page.

Not a very promising intro to your politial party, I'm afraid.

Hello Freediver,
>>"No, I am refering to Colin Campbell's proposed international treaty
>>for importing countries to reduce imports of oil by the world
>>depletion percentage.

>I see. That sounds like an interesting idea. However, a less rigid
>approach would work better.

The protocol is designed to powerdown gradually as oil production
declines. When it is decided that depletion has begun at say 1% in
the first year, every importing country reduces its import by 1%.
It is hoped that this will avoid oil wars and the bidding up to
ridiculous prices of the available oil.
Go to www.aspo.net and do a search for Transition Protocol.
It has nothing to do with global warming.

Re the elephant; it was a way of saying that while everyone was busy
getting all excited about global warming there was a much more
imminent problem about to run all over them, ie the elephant coming
into the room and they did not even notice it !

"Unless freediver is playing semantic games, then this seems patently false."

It is not a semantic 'game.' Saying a theory is not scientific and saying it is false are completely different. This is not a game but is simply trying to get people to understand what is written in plain english in front of their face. It is necessary to correct people's misunderstandings about what you say in order to have a rational debate with them.

"When it is decided that depletion has begun at say 1% in
the first year, every importing country reduces its import by 1%.
It is hoped that this will avoid oil wars and the bidding up to
ridiculous prices of the available oil."

Won't the looming scarcity of oil push up prices and keep the quantity consumed below the protocl requirements anyway? Isn't the protocol a bit arbitray? I am not concerned about the end of peak oil. What concerns me is that the scarcity of oil will be the only driving factor in reducing consumption and people then then just move on to other equally bad options, like oil from coal. It misses the whole point of trying to limit greenhouse emissions. It is a bad economic policy in the sense that it takes a scarce resource and tries to distribute it arbitrarily rather than giving it to the highest bidder.

Yes I understood the elephant analogy, I just had no idea what Bazz thinks everyone else should be more worried about. Ask ten different people and they will give ten different answers. Perhaps he is just trying to appear clever.

Sure, CJ it's totally semantics. I have had this argument with freediver before about his (it's?) ideas about evolution etc. It all hinges on his definition of science, if that is not semantics, then I need a new dictionary.

And if that part is included in your 'sustainability party' platforms freediver, you can seriously count me out on that one.

Oh I get it now. It's the *Creationist* Sustainability Party of Australia.

So that means God help us, I guess :)

I think I'll stick with the Greens, thanks all the same.

"It all hinges on his definition of science, if that is not semantics, then I need a new dictionary."

It's philosophy, not semantics. It comes down to the value of the different definitions. But thanks for moving the discussion away from the religious strawman.

"And if that part is included in your 'sustainability party' platforms freediver, you can seriously count me out on that one."

It isn't.

"I think I'll stick with the Greens, thanks all the same."

Are you concerned about whether the actions taken by the government to reduce greenhouse emissions and other problems are chosen based on popular appeal or economic rationalism?

This little exchange on "evolution is not scientific theory" has piqued my interest freediver.

Let's forget for a moment whether it means what Bugsy and CJ think it means.

What is the point of including it in your party's manifesto in the first place if it isn't a component of your platform?

After all, you have a series of pages on the site devoted to - presumably - statements that in some way represent what you want people to vote for.

Is "evolution is not scientific theory" a part of this package or not?

If not, why is it there?

Vague waffle about the need to "get people to understand what is written in plain english in front of their face" and to "correct people's misunderstandings about what you say in order to have a rational debate with them" simply does not wash.

We get enough dissembling with the current lot. To be different from them, you need to be straightforward and crystal clear about what you do and don't stand for.

So far you are failing that simple test.

Freediver;
This was not from my post.

"Unless freediver is playing semantic games, then this seems patently false."

The purpose of an international Transitional Protocol is to avoid the
scramble for oil and the subsequent price surge that will destroy
the economies before mitigation steps can take place.
If everyone reduces their demand by the depletion rate then upward price
pressure would be limited.
That would be the alternative to chaos in the market and possibly war.

This protcol should be a policy for a sustainable political party.

It could be enforced by the UN and oil transport to countries that did
not comply could be intercepted by those countries that do comply.
After all it would save them heaps of money.

"What is the point of including it in your party's manifesto in the first place if it isn't a component of your platform?"

It isn't included. I only have one page dedicated to the party at the moment. If there is enough interest I will set it up on a different website so there is no confusion. The rest of the site is stuff I am generally interested in. Most of it is political and fits in with the party policies, but I deliberately left some out.

"The purpose of an international Transitional Protocol is to avoid the
scramble for oil and the subsequent price surge that will destroy
the economies before mitigation steps can take place."

It will not avoid the price surge. It will just make it higher in some countries and lower in others.

"If everyone reduces their demand by the depletion rate then upward price
pressure would be limited."

It depends on how demand is limited. If it is taxed or the rights are capped and traded, the cost will go up even more in the affected countries. If there is some artifical limit that will keep prices low, but I am not familiar with a sensible way of doing this.

"That would be the alternative to chaos in the market and possibly war."

Scarce resources and a free market do not lead to 'chaos.' They lead to a very orderly tapering out of consumption, provided private ownership is protected. There is little risk of war. Renewables are a lot cheaper than war.

"This protocol should be a policy for a sustainable political party."

We have much better policies. The protocol you described is clumsy, worse for the economy than our policies and it's goal is not sustainability (reducing emissions) but rationing (shifting emissions from rich to poor countries).

Freediver,
"The purpose of an international Transitional Protocol is to avoid the
scramble for oil and the subsequent price surge that will destroy
the economies before mitigation steps can take place."

>It will not avoid the price surge. It will just make it higher in >some countries and lower in others.

It will because the demand will reduce each year and match supply.

"If everyone reduces their demand by the depletion rate then upward price
pressure would be limited."

>It depends on how demand is limited.
It has nothing to do with tax or capping. It is done by the importing
countries reducing their orders for oil by the depletion percentage.

> If it is taxed or the rights are capped and traded, the cost will go
>up even more in the affected countries. If there is some artifical
>limit that will keep prices low, but I am not familiar with a >
>sensible way of doing this.

Go to the aspo site www.aspo.net and read about it.

"That would be the alternative to chaos in the market and possibly war."

>Scarce resources and a free market do not lead to 'chaos.' They lead
>to a very orderly tapering out of consumption, provided private
>ownership is protected. There is little risk of war. Renewables are a >lot cheaper than war.

The market is a feedback loop and if any one component in a feedback
loop limits the feedback loop stops responding then the control stops
functioning. The limit in this case is supply.

"This protocol should be a policy for a sustainable political party."

>We have much better policies. The protocol you described is clumsy,
>worse for the economy than our policies and it's goal is not
>sustainability (reducing emissions) but rationing (shifting emissions
>from rich to poor countries).

I don't know how I can make it simpler to understand just go and read
what the experts propose.

Bazz , I would be interested to know your policy stance on ETHANOL Production both at home and in the Brazilian rainforests ?

Ethanol Production is getting up a head of steam here as farmers and companies consider if they can legally plough up their undeveloped "back Paddock" ie.code for remnant,increasingly scarce and rare native vegetation,or stop producing food crops , to get into the market to fuel gas guzzlers both here and overseas.

I can only hope that not one square metre of "new ground" [ With all it's ancient biodiversity ] as the old fellows call it, is allowed to be bulldozed, sprayed and ploughed for crop ethanol production .

Ethanol production must not lead to more environmental degradation- it must be confined to existing cultivation areas .

Bazz , Apologies ! The above post is directed to Freediver .

OK Katiya Jim,
Agree with your concerns re ethanol.
I am by no means a greeny but ethanol is a loser in a big way.
The Mexicans are rioting over the cost of maize based food increasing
in price because of ethanol production. We don't need that problem
here either. It has a poor EROEI (Output for input).

"It will because the demand will reduce each year and match supply."

No. The demand will not go down. Limiting consumption in one country does not limit demand, it limits the supply. The more you limit supply, the higher the price. This scheme has nothing to do with sustainability. It is all about some arbitrary 'social justice' goal involving giving away scarce resources to poor countries.

"It has nothing to do with tax or capping. It is done by the importing
countries reducing their orders for oil by the depletion percentage."

That is a cap. It requires the government to place a limit on the amount of fuel available in the country.

"The market is a feedback loop and if any one component in a feedback
loop limits the feedback loop stops responding then the control stops
functioning. The limit in this case is supply."

Wrong. On all counts. You do not understand feedback loops or the economic situation.

"I don't know how I can make it simpler to understand just go and read
what the experts propose."

They are either not experts or they have different goals.

On the topic of ethanol:

The problem with biofuels:

http://ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1169519086

Freediver,
Sorry but you do not seem to have any understanding of what
a feedback loop is. It cannot function if one parameter cannot respond.

>That is a cap. It requires the government to place a limit on the >amount of fuel available in the country.

EXACTLY !

"The market is a feedback loop and if any one component in a feedback
loop limits the feedback loop stops responding then the control stops
functioning. The limit in this case is supply."
Do you understand what limiting means in this context ?

>Wrong. On all counts. You do not understand feedback loops or the >economic situation.

That statement proves you don't understand feedback loops.
I hope you were never involved with process control.

There is no point in continuing this discussion if you are not
prepared to learn.

"That statement proves you don't understand feedback loops.
I hope you were never involved with process control."

I have worked in R&D and consulting with feedback control loops. I know what I am talking about.