Archive | Environment RSS feed for this section

Greenpeace ad

20 Apr

Greenpeace does some really powerful ads, the best example I can think of from the top of my head being the Kit Kat palm oil ad.

Here is one that I’ve just seen that is pretty stunning and would have taken a lot of work and, unless it was done pro-bono, would have been pretty costly.


Rally for Climate Action

3 Apr

Yesterday, a number of my friends and I went to the Rally for Climate Action at Belmore Park. It was a great event with some good speakers, in-particular Simon Sheikh from Get-Up.

I was however very disappointed there were no ALP representatives there. This is, after all, their policy that they are trying to sell and they should have representatives ready to speak to a crowd of supporters. It may be because they are scared of being labelled hypocrites by the Coalition if there are extreme leftists holding up anti-Abbott placards. Or it could be because the ALP are the party of Government, and in the eyes of some who would have been in attendance, they have made some questionable decisions regarding asylum seekers, banking, etc. etc. so there is always the prospect of anti-Government feeling, which would then become the story.

But within that audience, there was a good deal of respect for the Government for launching a pragmatic environmental policy that has led to negativity and even attacks from some on the right-wing. Essentially, the left is displaying our martyr worship again.

Anyway, below is an incredibly short video, just to show the size of the crowd.

Greenpeace takes on Nestle

20 Mar

Greenpeace has taken on Nestle’s KitKat to highlight the use of palm oil in the Nestle product. The harvesting of palm oil has devastated the rainforests in Borneo, which also happens to be the only natural home of the Orangutan.

It’s a heavy ad, very visually intense. What are your thoughts? It is certainly going to be interesting to see how Nestle reacts.

Climate change debate is more akin to abortion debate, not the holocaust

29 Nov

Many journalists, generally the ones who fit into this category, complain about being called climate change denialists. It doesn’t help when denialists like Clive James tries to make the link as well. They complain that the choice of words links to offensive individuals that deny the Holocaust.  Whether or not the first person who used the term had this in mind is beside the point. I do think denialists are causing harm, but I don’t think they are necessarily going to cause a new holocaust. If anything does happen, we are all to blame because even if we did believe in man-made climate change, we haven’t swift and significant enough demanded action from our elected leaders.

But, after watching Melanie Phillips on Question Time and her horrendously arrogant display, I think the debate is more akin the pro-choice and pro-life abortion debate in the US.  Phillips complains that the climate change believers (which makes us sound like some kind of sect, such as the scientologists), are running some kind of totalitarian scam and swindle. But the fact is, she was quite happy to laugh, patronise and rudely dismiss the public and other panelists who believe in man-made climate change. Practice what you preach Ms Phillips.

To be fair though, climate change believers do dismiss the denialists just as badly. This is why I think the issue is similar to the abortion debate. No one will talk or listen to the other side and will never take each other seriously. In this particular debate,  I don’t think the eveidence will ever convince a sceptic or believer to cross sides.

However, what is definetly true is that while the denialists want to debate the issue, journalists like Philips give the denialists a bad name.

I think we are all guilty of refusing to listen to the other side. While I don’t agree with David Davis’s point of view, I was impressed with his point of view on Question Time; that while he is sure climate change is happening and is 80% that it is caused by human intervention, he still feels there is room for debate and it is important not to vilify each other.

Climate change believes say there is no time for debate. I disagree. There is enough action currently going on, to increase renewables, to decrease fossil fuel use, to create carbon sinks, that there is still room for debate but at the same time we can begin the process of saving the earth. Debates like COP15 aren’t going to stop and we will still make a huge effort to cut emmissions. Even in the worse case scenario, that we are wrong on climate change, it is never going to harm to lower energy costs, make the air less polluted and generally improve the health of the planet.

But refusing to listen to each other and complaining about it isn’t going to help.

Will Copenhagen be a failure?

15 Nov

Thoroughly depressing news to wake up to this morning. It looks like our feared about the Copenhagen climate change talks have come true. World leaders have admitted that there is likely to be no final resolution and that the Copenhagen talks are most likely to be a starting point to talks rather than an end point.

At the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum leaders including Barack Obama, Hu Jintao and Kevin Rudd, who have all drawn up significant plans for ETS deals and other environmental strategies in their own nations, appear to have given up on uniting world nations’ to come up with a meaningful deal.

This is disappointing, but not unexpected. There has been some intense expectation management over the last few weeks and it seemed almost inevitable that there was to be no lasting strategy to come out of this meeting. The EU has set out strategies to help nations meet their climate change targets,  but nothing has been set in stone, especially in regards to money being set-aside. Developing world nations have been consistently threatening to walk out of talks due to the lack of agreed funding from the developed world to help developing nations fund anti-climate change projects.

Personally, I never really had much faith in the COP15 meeting to come up with any large-scale meaningful treaty. The fact is though, Kyoto formally ends at the end of 2011, begining of 2012. This obviously leaves a couple of years to create a meaningful and effective post-Kyoto deal.

The significance of a no-deal result in Copenhagen, is the number of nations that have created emission reduction schemes that will only be meaningful if there is a result in Copenhagen, the EU is one of these nations. Currently the EU has committed to a 20% reduction in carbon emissions, but it would be 30% if a deal was met in COP15.

Therefore, not reaching a result in Copenhagen will obviously be a failure. Hopefully, world leaders have something up their sleeves and will be able to swoop in at the last-minute to come up with something. In my wildest dreams I can imagine Obama, Rudd or Brown flying in at the last moment and saving the day, but realistically, I think we will still be looking forward into 2010 before a post-Kyoto deal is reached.


Australian PM kicks out at climate change skeptics

6 Nov

By Nick Osborne

Hats off to Kevin Rudd, the Australian PM who has recently had a go at organisations and individuals trying to derail COP15_LOGO_B_Mtalks in the run up to the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. I applaud him for standing up and speaking out against these naysayers, he is taking a viewpoint that is steadily increasing. I have heard David Miliband and Gordon Brown make similar statements.

Australian PM warns of fossil conspiracy

The upcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen are threatened by a conglomerate of opponents “driven by vested interests” aiming “to erode just enough political will that action becomes impossible”, says Kevin Rudd.

Morten Andersen 06/11/2009 13:10

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd sees the current UN negotiations on climate hampered by a mixture of “do-nothing skeptics, deniers and a gaggle of conspiracy theorists”, according to Bloomberg.

Australia itself is at a crossroads as the approval of a cap-and-trade scheme suggested by the government has been delayed. According to Kevin Rudd’s analysis, it is a global strategy by forces trying to obstruct climate policy to have action in individual countries delayed.

“Their aim is to erode just enough political will that action becomes impossible. By hampering decisive action at a national level, they aim to make it impossible at an international level (…) it is an endless cycle of delay, and I am sure that with December almost upon us, the eighth excuse cannot be far away, which will be to wait until the next year or the year after until all the rest of the world has acted,” Kevin Rudd says according to Reuters, while adding:

“They are a minority. They are powerful, and invariably they are driven by vested interests. They are powerful enough to threaten a deal on global climate change both in Copenhagen and beyond.”

With a parliament vote due by late November, Australia may still make an approval of the cap-and-trade scheme before the UN conference in Copenhagen this December. Should this not happen, however, “then it will be a failure that will echo through future generations,” Rudd says according to Bloomberg.

What are the Climate Camp protestors hoping to achieve?

28 Aug

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in man-made climate change and I think governments across the world need to make some hard decisions very, very quickly if we are to stave off a disaster with worldwide implications. And I can understand why some people think Government’s are working too slowly to prevent climate change related chaos because, in my opinion, they are.

But, what are the Climate Camp and other organisations like Plane Stupid protestors trying to achieve? Sure, throwing green custard on Peter Mandelson was a little bit funny, managing to scale the House of Commons to unfurl their banner was a reasonably impressive publicity stunt and their earlier protests against the third runway at Heathrow and the Drax coal-fired power station had some merit.

But the fact is stunts like these are only going to start to really doing some damage to their campaigns. Blocking streets, stopping people from working aren’t going to make people sympathetic for their cause. In fact, it is probably going to start to really piss people off (pardon my French).

And unfortunately, we all remember the scenes of the G20 protests in April that saw police use excessive force, but let’s face it, not all of the protesters were totally innocent.

I also get the impression that even some of the more reasonable protests always seem to deteriorate into a festival atmosphere. That isn’t going to impress average working people who are the ones that need to be convinced increasing their taxes and cost of fuel bills will be worth it in the end.

Even Greenpeace, which has in the past been known to pull some pretty impressive stunts themselves (one of my favourites is below after the Pasha Bulker tanker ran aground on the beach of Newcastle Australia), haven’t really been publicly involved with the latest Climate Camp protests.

I’d be really interested in your thoughts as to whether the Climate Camp protestors are helping raise awareness surrounding climate change, or if they are just kids who are doing more damage than good.

Cross posted with Ruder Finn Dot Comms

Greenpeace Australia shine the words "this is what climate change looks like" onto the hull of the Pasha Bulker tanker which beached in Newcastle, Australia

Greenpeace Australia shine the words "this is what climate change looks like" onto the hull of the Pasha Bulker tanker which beached in Newcastle, Australia