Ethical elitism
My article "Ethical elitism on climate change?" (GLW #814) and Simon Butler's response, "Ethical elitism?", (GLW #815) are both unnecessarily caustic. This culture that sees it as acceptable to humiliate political opponents (or even allies) in the course of a debate needs to stop. I apologise for my part.
I was arguing that ethical consumerism has similar characteristics to conservative ideologies in that it blamed ordinary people for the state of the world and dismisses the bulk of their dissent as illegitimate. This, in turn, can lead to its subscribers acting in ways that hinder mass movements.
Citing ethical consumerism's popularity, Butler sarcastically asked "is the whole working class some kind of 'ethical elite' now?" This appears to imply that the working class is not capable of subscribing to a non-egalitarian ideology. GLW wouldn't exist if that were the case.
Engaging in debate about tactics and politics is not "writing people off". Many people who subscribe to ethical consumerism did participate in our action. However, if we had caved to the "no cars" rule, we would have been putting up actual physical and ideological barriers to the people who couldn't participate on bikes.
Benjamen Standing
By email
Rethinking the Greens
I would like to start by agreeing with Ilan Salbe's point ("Greens should re-think climate policy" GLW #815), that, despite the mainstream media's biased coverage, a majority of Australians want real action on climate change. In fact, it is one of the reasons given for Labor's victory in the 2007 federal elections — and look where that has left us.
The problem is the difference between parliamentary politics and mass movements. What the Greens have proposed is already a serious compromise short of the demands of the green movement. It goes nowhere near meeting the science.
Of course, the Greens should negotiate for a politically palatable step now — somebody has to. But parliamentary negotiation cannot move the goalposts of the playing field, and you cannot negotiate with the science.
Mass action is the only way to achieve the kind of sweeping change that the science is demanding of our species. The only way that radical campaigns to change society have won in the past is through mass action, and that is what is needed now.
The only way we are going to achieve a safe climate is through changing the political climate of this country and giving politicians no alternative but to meet our demands.
Patrick Harrison
Fairy Meadow, NSW
Environmental sabotage
On August 21, an oil/gas well being drilled from the West Atlas oil rig off Australia's north-west Kimberley coast blew out, uncontrollably spewing oil into the ocean.
Since then the oil has spread through an area known as a marine wildlife super-highway, now covering thousands of square kilometres of turtle, whale, dolphin and fish habitat.
This is an environmental disaster in a pristine area, and the oil and gas industry must be held to account. Inside industry sources claim that safety regulations were not followed and the necessary valves, which could have been shut down following a blow-out, were not installed as a cost-saving measure.
Surely such a disaster should be the subject of a Royal Commission.
Dr Colin Hughes,
Midland, WA
Time to stand up for asylum seekers<.strong>
Congratulations on (among much else) Jay Fletcher's "Theatrical mockery of refugees" report (GLW 14/10/09). It looks like Labor's victimisation of refugees has not stopped.
I heard that PM Kevin Rudd referred to the people who bring refugees here as "slime buckets". That term would be better applied to Labor leaders who will not stand up for human rights, having declared themselves admirers of Dietrich Bonhoeffer.
How about changing the balance of skilled migrants to refugees, and airlifting the asylum seekers from Indonesia to here, saving them the journey in "leaky boats", and possible sabotage by the Australian Federal Police?
These people who are a lot like us deserve a safe home, and not to be used as political footballs in a game on incipient racism. I remember all the times that Aboriginal people, now facing the racism of the Northern Territory Emergency Response, have publicly welcomed refugees.
It is time, again, to stand up for asylum seekers. This time, with a robust response. We can offer a real and humane solution for many of the asylum seekers in our region, by changing the balance of this country's intake, in favour of refugees. We will have to fight for it.
Stephen Langford
Paddington, NSW
A nuclear necessity?
Barry Brook ("For climate, nuclear a necessity", GLW #815) is no doubt aware of the use of depleted uranium (DU) weapons in Iraq and elsewhere.
He may or may not be aware of research conducted by German scientists showing that nuclear waste had been disposed of in these weapons.
Rates of cancer, leukaemia and birth defects in Iraq have soared since the first Gulf War, and have subsequently jumped again, with a new wave of DU weapons being used in the post 2003 occupation.
Is it therefore not slightly insensitive to say "there's no silver bullet for solving the climate and energy crises. The bullets are made of depleted uranium and thorium"? What next? Agent Orange jokes?
For someone from part of the world slated for a global nuclear waste dump, Brook seems to have a fairly blase attitude towards nuclear waste.
Here's some discussion: let's not get nuclear reactors (and thus waste and quite probably weapons) in Australia, and let's end all uranium exports from Australia.
Since no new uranium is needed for the mythical "Integral Fast Reactors", (of which not one yet exists) Brook would no doubt support an end to uranium exports.
Or is Brook in fact going from being explicitly an IFR advocate to promoting "regular" reactors?
Zane Alcorn
Waratah, NSW [Abridged.]
Nuclear necessity II
Barry Brook may be well justified in his belief that nuclear power will be an important part of the world's energy solutions over the next 50 years. However, many of his arguments do not seem to apply well to the current Australian situation.
It is true that the newest reactors which can be built (Gen IV+) will solve almost all of the common problems. As Brook stated, "they need not apply in the future". They do, however, apply to any power stations we would be building now.
The newer reactors (safer, cleaner, etc) are much more expensive. That means even larger start-up costs and higher electricity prices than for Gen III reactors. Switkowski's "fast paced schedule" Brook refers to would mean building flawed, uranium-fuelled Gen III reactors in Australia.
Thorium reactors are a whole other species — but they're simply not an option yet. Plutonium reactors feed off and produce fuel for Gen III reactors.
As Brook states there are already 45 Gen III reactors under construction as well as those currently in operation – but none in Australia. It makes sense to locate uranium-fed and plutonium-fed reactors together so they can feed each other – they are a part of the global solution, but simply not suitable for Australia.
Chris Wallis, Mayfield, NSW [Abridged.]
Carrying capacity
While I agree with many of the contentions about the causes of climate change raised in the open letter, "Population is not to blame for climate change" (GLW #814), I take issue with the basic contention that population isn't a contributing factor to climate change and environmental deterioration in general, and that anyone who dares to suggest it is is "racist" and anti-immigration.
These contentions are clearly nonsense. In the first place, the more people we have in any area, the more resources must be consumed to support them, and correspondingly, the more waste is produced.
All habitats have a carrying capacity, which species, including our own, exceed at their dire peril. Some fantasists live in a world of infinite resources, but they would do well to examine the history of failed civilisations around the world that grew too big for their resource base.
"Racist" is a meaningless term of abuse and it's time that some realism entered into the argument.
Immigration is not about "race", it's about bloated corporate profits for a tiny few beneficiaries in the real estate and construction industries, leaving the rest of us with overcrowding, unaffordable housing, monotony, ugliness and squalor, when the overloaded facilities breakdown.
Surprisingly, GLW has allied itself with these elitists.
Jan McNicol
By email [Abridged.]