Jump to preface

Ten axioms for saving Earth

New Blog – the post Howard years

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman (1903)
"Maxims for Revolutionists"

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi

Victory was achieved on November 24, 2007 with the election of a Kyoto Protocol supportive government. Maxine McKew, pictured, ousted Prime Minister John Howard from his seat of Bennelong. Kevin Rudd ousted the recalcitrant coal wedded Government. To discover how victory was achieved, keep reading. Fight hard, US citizens; may you have mirroring success in 2008.

Dear Editor,

Take a bow Al Gore. Though it was Kevin's day, the times are clearly yours. As the green revolution gathers pace it will emerge that election '07 marks a turning point. We will look back upon the Howard era, not with fondness, but with the sentiment reserved for the slave trade, the white Australia policy and the denial of voting rights to women. Howard gone; coal going; long live the Kyoto Protocol (KP). One down, one to go (not counting Kazakhstan).

The lesson to be learned globally is that climate change true believers are now an unstoppable force. Henceforth, no politician who fails to support the KP and back it with action is electable. It is fate that Malcolm Turnbull survived the bloodbath and is the only known KP supporting Liberal. Go for the leadership Malcolm, you are a decent human being.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

And for the record (why a climate change activist should never be underestimated):

Letters team,

This is roughly my one thousandth letter on the topic of global warming (a search on "Dear Editor" on my computer reveals 972 hits, and more than a few letters were sent from work - the last 500 letters are blogged at http://www.blognow.com.au/600letters). I don't know how many were published, more than 100 is my gut feel, though the goal was not to see my name in print, it was to influence the discussion. I could claim it was a ten year campaign, though that would be like saying the population explosion began thirteen thousand years ago in the fertile crescent – true but misleading. Although my first published letter was in the early 90s, I began writing regularly in 2004, then in earnest following the catalyst that was Hurricane Katrina.

Did my letters make a difference? This is a difficult but important concept: the answer is that it doesn't matter because the question is wrong! A theme running through the letter series is that what matters is one's philosophy. What I can know is that it was the cumulative effort of all who shared the right philosophy that produced the necessary result – Australia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. Note the metaphor: ratification requires nations to adopt this philosophy – we ratify so that others ratify – we restrain carbon so that others restrain – I campaigned so that others would campaign. They did, and together we were victorious. Will the pattern continue with respect to the protocol? It will, because the human race survived the litmus test of November 24, 2007.

Perhaps staunch Liberals will question my sincerity. Could it be that the science argument is influenced by existing political beliefs? I can only assure that I backed Maxine McKew and Kevin Rudd despite my politics rather than because of them. Yes, I believe in a fair go (who doesn't?) but I also believe in reward for effort and I am not blind: we can all see that free markets deliver results.

Had John Howard acted to fix the market failure that delivers the enhanced greenhouse effect, my driving incentive to depose the government would not have existed. But the Prime Minister damn near destroyed my faith in people. To this day I am perplexed that a mind as sharp as his cannot see. Greed is one thing; driving a planet, our only home, to the brink is quite another.

Science is, was, and shall remain my guiding light. Science and philosophy bring out our best. Religion and blind faith hold us back.

Many thanks,
Carl

Dear Editor,

"If... the Coalition loses the election, no single issue will have caused its downfall" (Editorial, November 23). Sorry, wrong again.

To see the root cause, think more like Julius Sumner Miller; the dominant issue is/was the humble joule – cost, portability and means of generation. On climate change, it's all about coal. On the cost of living, it all comes back to petrol prices. Iraq? Even Brendan Nelson admits it's about oil. The "economic tsunami" is Costello's euphemism for peak oil. The only major issue not directly traceable to energy is WorkChoices, and even there it's doubtful that "Australian working families" would be quite so concerned if the cost of living and interest rates weren't creeping upwards.

Which is why renewable energy is the universal cure, and a government that refused to touch renewable energy was inherently evil, and had to go.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

p.s. Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted with the Labor endorsement, but as any decent scrabble player knows, the secret to winning is to find a good word, then look for a better one. One letter to go (in the global warming series). The tally is over one thousand.
Thanks,
Carl

Dear Editor,

Has Ms Kelly ever watched Chaser's War on Everything? When the humour is about race, the joke is always on the racist.

("Liberal shame over fake pamphlet", smh.com.au, November 22)

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

An excellent editorial ("When king coal has no clothes", November 22) that unfortunately leaps to the wrong conclusion. After an accurate assessment of the coal conundrum and the urgency of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the writer seemingly selects at random the pea-less wallnut – "Coal must be made cleaner, very soon, to slow the damage".

Your writer might offer better advice after talking to the following people: Jeremy Leggett, Dr David Mills, Vinod Khosla, Travis Bradford, Dr Mark Diesendorf, Karl Kruszelnicki (who now has his numbers down pat) and perhaps your own regularly impressive environment editor Marion Wilkinson (although her position on coal is unknown to me, her reporting has been infallible – if Ms Wilkinson doesn't appreciate the danger of coal it would be surprising).

I have heard it said that Al Gore endorses CCS (Carbon Capture and Storage) in "An Inconvenient Truth". He doesn't. What Gore says is "Carbon capture and storage; you're going to hear a lot more about that one". He throws it out there knowing it will be controversial. Like Peter Garrett and Malcolm Turnbull, Gore knows it is suicidal to face the mighty coal industry head on, too soon.

If renewable energy is unproven, then CCS is more so. There are problems with long development cycle, site availability (both immediate and long term), acidification and seismic activity. There is the retro-fit problem and the cost/efficiency trade-off. And all of these are insignificant alongside the biggest problem: a hand full of clean coal seemingly legitimises mountains of dirty coal.

By comparison, the suite of exciting renewable energy projects taking place around the world hold unbounded promise. Visit the site www.renewableenergyaccess.com regularly for a shot of inspiration. Clean coal? Sure, until you burn the bloody stuff.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Ross Gittins is an economist, not a scientist, environmentalist or activist. Perhaps that explains his assertion that John Howard has neutralised the climate change issue with the promise of carbon trading in 5 years time. ("Income to dwarf energy price rises", November 21). The policy gap remains huge and it is wrong to offer Liberal voters a "get out of Saturday, guilt free" card by pretending otherwise.

First, there is the matter of immediate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. As recently as the APEC conference, John Howard sought to undermine the treaty and its binding targets. Fortunately, Chinese president Hu Jintao stood firm in support of the protocol and the competing Sydney declaration was reduced to hot air. Immediate ratification directs worldwide pressure onto the United States, the only significant remaining hold-out. Four years of sustained pressure will produce a stronger Kyoto II agreement for 2012.

Second, is the enormous difference between the coalition's 15% clean energy target that includes "clean" coal, and Labor's 20% target for renewables only. The MRET (Mandatory Renewable Energy Target) under the Howard Government has been frozen at 2% since I can remember. They have demonstrated an aversion to renewable energy and by lumping coal into their new target, it's clear which way the bulk of funding would go.

But the paragraph in Gittins' article that made me laugh was the "fear" of a 56% petrol price rise by 2050. We wish. Economists are apparently so out of touch they probably think Hubbert's Peak is a mountain they might enjoy climbing. When Mr Gittins and co are ready to step out of the text books and into the real world, the physical sciences are waiting.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Another tidbit of information to support my theory that the green revolution in the United States is running parallel to, but one year behind, Australia. Today, where traditionally there is silence, a US government spokesman criticised the Japanese whale hunt.

Think back to when Ian Campbell was Australian Environment Minister...

"Minister, what is your government doing about climate change?"

"We are totally committed to saving the whales."

Campbell was perhaps a little more subtle about turning the conversation, but you get the gist. The man had to say something. These days, the government has progressed, they throw in a couple of orangutans for good measure.

On Saturday, the greenest of the two major parties will emerge triumphant (hint: the one that will ratify Kyoto). If US candidates need a smart campaign manager, I reckon Kevin would be only too happy to provide references.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

"Even people who hate us don't think we're incompetent" says John Howard.

I think you're incompetent, Mr Howard. The price of petrol is heading for $1.40 per litre this week and it will get worse, much worse. Marion King Hubbert (1903-89) forecast this day in 1956 and again in 1974 and those predictions are proving accurate beyond his grave.

Eleven and a half years of inaction on climate change may be excusable on the basis of scientific uncertainty. Failing to grasp the concept that a finite resource will one day run short – for that you flunk primary school. I hope your bike is ready; it's time to get on.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Peter Hartcher is on the right track, however he blunts the critical message with inferences to luck ("The luck stops here: PM's time almost up", November 19). As important as the outcome on Saturday is, more important is to understand the reason and to shout it to the world. Identification of that reason is easy – simply imagine the past year without the constant backdrop of climate change. Sure, there may be concern over WorkChoices, but you wouldn't have everyday people wobble-boarding on the streets, or candidates the calibre of Maxine McKew haranguing the PM, or groups like GetUp raising public money for prime-time anti-government advertising, or a massive 17% Green vote in Wentworth.

It's safer not to believe in luck. Look at key announcements that have recently hurt the Government, not just on climate change, but on interest rates, pork-barrelling in 2004 and that Sydney University report on WorkChoices. Behind the scenes, real people consciously or unconsciously control the release dates for maximum effect. Look at the expressions of ridicule on the faces of the three Korean women as they listen to John Howard ("Howard losing the Koreans and Chinese", facing page), a real photographer worked for that shot and a real editor selected it for publication. It's because the smart money "gets" the danger of climate change that Kevin Rudd is a safe bet. Luck? If candidates in the Unites States next year are foolish enough to think so, they will go down in flames. Indeed, judging by the latest IPCC report, we all might.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood


The Prime Minister at the Sae Soon Presbyterian Church yesterday.

Photo: Glen Mccurtayne

Dear Editor,

And on November 24, 2007, the legend was born: No government is electable that fails to support and adhere to the Kyoto Protocol. From that day forward, the people knew there was too much at stake for it to be otherwise.

Shortly thereafter, Kazakhstan and the United States fell under the spell of the protocol and, within a decade the treaty was extended to include nuclear disarmament and bullet serialisation provisions, and there was peace on Earth.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

A party calling themselves Conservatives for Climate and Environment advertise their support for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. So obviously they are directing preferences to the only major party backing the treaty, right? Wrong.

I just got off the phone with Senate candidate Richard McNeall who told me his party would direct preferences first to minor parties, but would put Liberal before Greens before Labor. There's only one word for that: fraud.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Two little blunders. One, forgetting to give the Prime Minister a safe seat. Two, putting the environment minister in a seat where the voters can afford to care about the environment. United States hopefuls note well, neither would be a problem had the Government supported the Kyoto Protocol.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Note to blog: The title refers to a quote by Malcolm Turnbull: "A vision without resources is an illusion".

Dear Editor,

Screw Kyoto; screw binding targets; screw carbon taxes; screw Earth. If Graeme Pearman's forecasts are accurate ("Climate change to take just years", November 15), then clearly the tipping point is already in the past. Hell, I may as well vote Liberal and watch Howard and his coal digging mates choke on their own emissions.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Dear John, would you happen to know the statistic for the number of lazy ass voters who'd change their vote to avoid a by-election? Thanks mate, George Newhouse.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Anybody who thinks John Howard will be Prime Minister in a fortnight isn't thinking like a relaxed and comfortable Bennelong resident. Quite apart from noble reasons to support Maxine McKew – who votes for a by-election?

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Delighted to see that Gerard Henderson feels the need to go looking for dirt on Maxine McKew, and finds nothing more outrageous than her support for Mark Latham in 2004. ("Truck of truth hits a few potholes", November 13). I preferenced Latham – his instability emerged later.

On a drive from West Ryde to Epping you will pass half a dozen Maxine McKew posters displayed proudly in front yards but not one for John Howard. There is no doubt in my mind which way Bennelong will fall.

All this talk of Howard's polling is academic. The choice is between Kevin Rudd and Peter Costello for Prime Minster and between Wayne Swan and Alexander Downer for treasurer. And I reckon you could drive a truck between each pair.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor Sydney Morning Herald, (cc: Jeremy Clarkson)

Just when you think it's safe to laugh again, that the world is facing up to its fossil fuel addiction, that renewable energy is on the ascendancy and that everything might just turn out all right, along comes Jeremy Clarkson, host of "Top Gear".

Here's his latest contribution to the retardation and jeopardisation of the human race:



It's a four minute skit involving an all electric Reva, a vehicle that allows thousands of Brits to make their daily commute without need to wash their hands of Iraqi blood. The drivers of these cars, who tolerate the limited space, the manual window winders and the slow acceleration, are nothing less than heroes.

I'm no automotive expert, yet I picked up the following errors in Clarkson's video:

The car runs out of juice - so why didn't they charge the car, which has an 80km range?

Clarkson asserts "you can't stop because that would wear the battery down". Actually it's the opposite. The new Reva-NXG has regenerative braking, meaning when you brake or go down hill, you put energy back into the battery. It's the very reason I love my Prius, and why every other car I've driven since seems so recklessly wasteful with fuel.

The table does not move even an inch when hit by the Reva – impossible unless the table is bolted down. That's plain fraud, and I hope the manufacturers have the resources to drag Clarkson (and the sponsors who put him up to it) through the courts.

Clarkson says immediately after impact "that is acid, that is acid you can hear there". Unless the lines are rehearsed, or the sound added later, that's impossible to assert without inspection. (And if it is acid, I'd rather be involved with acid leaking under the hood than leaking petroleum, ethanol or hydrogen.)

Top Gear? Dipsticks would be a better name.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Fantastic, we have one party committed to saving Earth ("Dirty coal makes for a green fight", Nov 12), while the other side focuses on saving the orang-utan ("Howard swings in from the trees", facing page). How should a smart orang-utan vote?

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

In response to a Citroen and a Ford driver collision leaving two cars in a swimming pool in Cabramatta overnight.

Dear Editor,

Caption writer bliss. My suggestions: "Slam dunk!"; "West crazy about car-pooling"; "Effective engine cooling reduces maintenance: says expert"; "Study proves: car pooling saves petrol"; "New pool toys a passing fad?"; "Car park extension urgent, says pool attendant" and "French Connection".

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

("I got it wrong, Dr Karl admits", November 9)

Dear Editor,

What a con-test, hero Dr Karl Kruszelnicki up against Dr Nikki Williams (was the term "spin doctor" invented with Nikki in mind?). Dr Karl is off to a dud start, with a factor of 10 error – a mistake anybody who works with physical quantities will sympathise with. But if Dr Nikki is wrong, her error is an absolute of one – one inhabitable planet.

To get to the truth, take a sheet of graph paper (in your head). Plot cumulative emissions on one line under the "clean" coal scenario - 20 more years of increasing "dirty" coal usage, followed, perhaps, by a barely perceptible inflection point as some new plants in 2027 (say) deploy carbon sequestration.

Then plot a second curve assuming we aggressively replace coal with renewables from the present time. The technology develops exponentially. The carbon cost of deployment in 20 years time is reduced by the percentage of the energy market that is already renewable. Success breeds success, rather than a slightly delayed day of doom. It's not a myth, coal is the enemy of the human race. Branding it "clean" invites the public to relax, and that's the most dangerous effect of all.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Australia has a new source of inspiration, her name is Anna Keenan, age 21. My challenge to John Howard is this: Arrange a meeting with Anna, look her in the eye and say "It's not in your interest for Australia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol". If he can do that without choking, he's the world's best liar.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Well I'm quite enjoying the campaign, and not just for the schadenfreude. We've seen more progress on climate change policy in the past month than in the preceding 10 years. A bidding war on renewable energy? Pure heaven.

Let's not forget that the world's political analysts are taking notes. WorkChoices and climate change might each arouse similar numbers, but look at the traditional leaning of the most anxious. There is little doubt that support for the Kyoto Protocol and a serious MRET (Mandatory Renewable Energy Target) would have saved John Howard. Hillary, Barack, pay attention.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

p.s. For overseas readers, Wentworth is the seat of environment minister Malcolm Turnbull, traditionally a blue ribbon Liberal (Howard Government) seat that is under threat thanks to the flow of Green preferences.

Dear Editor,

Further to David Hulme's letter (November 7), readers still tempted to believe the oft repeated furphy that "solar can't do baseload" are urged to visit www.ausra.com and to listen to expatriate Australian Dr David Mills on Youtube.

Ausra's designs are so beautifully simple – little more than mirrors, pipes, hot water and steam, one wonders how we arrived at 2007 so hopelessly reliant on coal with its associated greenhouse gas byproduct. Ausra's first 177 megawatt production scale plant was announced on November 5. It's in central California. It could so easily have been in central NSW.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Rising prices warn the Reserve Bank that the economy is over-heating and in need of an interest rate rise. Peak oil, when it bites, will cause the price of everything to rise in proportion to its transport and petrochemical components.

Presumably, we are to trust that a bunch of economists will be smart enough to recognise the difference; the same economists who waited for the Stern report before grudgingly conceding that global warming warranted action. Comfortable? Yes. Relaxed? Get real.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Re: "Generation Why Bother", November 5.

Dear Editor,

We all shop, but needn't be proud of it. The expression "shop till we drop" doesn't refer to tired feet – it refers to the plight of the human race.

Perhaps products should be labeled: "If everybody had one of these, x Earths would be required". Or simply use sad-Earth symbols. Where x is less than one, add a big green "guilt free" tick. The line presumably exists somewhere between potatoes and steak.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

A community announcement:

We regret to inform that future supplies of Havidol cannot be guaranteed. Extensive clinical trials conducted in Australia and the United States from 1997 to 2007 have revealed side effects, including but not limited to: higher than normal temperature; dehydration; extreme wind; loss of energy; rising fluid levels; fever and aggressive behavior.

On November 24, a referendum will be conducted to allow citizens to determine the future of Havidol. We warn that even if Havidol remains legal, supplies of active ingredient "avafynetyme" are increasingly scarce. Chronic sufferers of consumption deficit disorder are advised to conduct a thorough self examination with the aid of a mirror.

("Art of irony sometimes a bitter pill to swallow", November 3)

Regards,
Carl Sparre (Member, Aust. Leg-pulling Party)
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Fair call, Mr Moir (Cartoon, November 3), Iraq is conspicuously absent from the campaign. Australian troops should, however, take some consolation from Rudd's ambitious 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020 target.

As reported in the Herald last week ("Fears oil decline could spark social unrest", October 24), the oil is running out. As admitted by Brendan Nelson in July, oil is a reason for our involvement in Iraq. We know that the automotive industry is ready to make the transition to electric drive; even Holden of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" infamy is moving in that direction ("Electric ideas empty the tank", October 25). And we all know that coal can't be the source of electricity to fuel these cars, it's incompatible with emissions trading, Kyoto and any semblance of morality.

This isn't drawing a long bow, it's simply fitting the puzzle pieces together: to get the troops home, we must build solar thermal power stations. Or less arguable: if we had solar thermal power stations and electric cars, we wouldn't be in Iraq.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

In relation to "Learning how to squeeze smart-alec reporters", November 2.

Dear Editor, (cc: Holden Australia, via their web site)

Here's a novel idea for corporations: rather than claw back a lost reputation via spin and the law, why not grip it with both hands in the first place? Take Holden, for example, putting their badge on the Hummer. Blind Freddy can see that the green juggernaut, having saved the power industry (pending the big punch on November 24), will quickly train its sights on the similarly recalcitrant automotive industry. Each Hummer is a roving advertisement that shouts "Care factor?" – hardly worth the few thousand in profit margin. Come on suits, get with the program!

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

p.s. (Letters editor only)

Following Rudd's 20-20 announcement and with the polls looking good, the angst I've carried since December 1997 is melting away. This morning feels strange. Healthy, is the only word I can think to describe it.

Cheers,
Carl

Dear Editor,

In reply to Andrew Charleston (Letters, October 31). The green movement is driven by scientific understanding of the world. Indeed, Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" is a well prepared science lesson. The greenest of the green are conversant in, and have respect for, science.

When religion attempts to undermine science, for example by preaching "intelligent design", literal miracles, or climate change denial, animosity can arise.

A solution is to find spiritual wonderment within science. The universe is amazing enough, really.

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

Dear Editor,

Now you're talking Kevin, 20% renewable energy by 2020 (with no coal snuck into the mix). How exciting; this means no coal fired power station for Morris.

We know that the hard yards come first; if we make 20% within 13 years, we will reach 100% in 30 years. Technology grows exponentially.

Coal is officially on the way out. Earth officially has a chance... pending the results of November 24.

Tomorrow morning, this 44 year old will be wobble boarding – dancing in front of traffic holding up Maxine McKew posters... the things we do for our kids!

Regards,
Carl Sparre
Eastwood

*over time and geography