NBN upgrade is both good and a devil in disguise

A Shorten government would upgrade the National Broadband Network (NBN), rolling out fibre to the premises (FTTP) to up to two million extra homes and businesses.

Prof David Karoly - wonders about the
pollution costs associated with
 servers supporting NBN-like networks.

But the better NBN would not cost the taxpayers more, the ALP promises in a policy released on Monday.

The opposition pledges Labor would cap total funding to the NBN at A$57 billion, compared with the latest government estimate of the NBN’s rollout costing up to $56 billion.

It says the public equity contribution – $29.5 billion – would be the same regardless of who wins the election, and that “there will be no impact on the budget” from the policy changes proposed.

Read the view of a Professorial Fellow from the University of Canberra,  Michelle Grattan, on The Conversation -  "Labor would upgrade NBN to fibre to the premises.”

(On the surface, the idea that Australians should happily embrace a serious upgrade to the National Broadband Network (NBN) as it makes total sense with fibre to the home/business ending the need for energy-intense travel as relationships – business or personal could be enhanced/maintained via such things as Skype or video conferencing – and much of the infrastructure presently in demand could be replaced by a rich, fast and sophisticated internet service.

The broadband promise is not however, as green and clean as many imagine as only recently University of Melbourne’s earth scientist, Professor David Karoly, pointed out that server farms supporting much of the activity permitted by such things as the NBN use so much energy that they are quickly becoming among the largest of world’s carbon dioxide polluters.

It’s a dilemma, one hand the NBN can play a significant role in reducing emissions and yet on the other, it is a devil in disguise as it can also worsen emissions – Robert McLean.)

Rudd launches a sweeping attack in Cardinal Pell over climate views

F

ormer Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has launched a sweeping attack on Cardinal George Pell for his sceptical stance on climate change.

Cardinal George Pell - 'high time' his
 views were fronted head on.

Rudd – who took a high profile role at the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009 – has also said the coming Paris climate conference should consider reconvening in the near future to revisit the inadequacies of the international commitments made so far.

Speaking at the University of Melbourne on “Faith, Ethics and Climate Change” on Tuesday night, he declared it was “high time” Pell’s views – which are at odds with Pope Francis' strong stand on climate change in an encyclical this year – were confronted head on.

Rudd said that after years of silence in response to Pell’s critique of his government’s climate policy, he had chosen to enter the debate on the eve of the Paris conference because “we once again enter into a critical time both for Australia and the world”.

Read Michelle Grattan’s piece on The Conversation - “Kevin Rudd takes on George Pell over climate change.”

Climate change warrants top billing at G20 Forum

-      Robert McLean

A few weeks ago I wrote a potential newspaper column about the importance of climate change being on the G20 agenda, but sensing a decided reluctance from my editor about further columns mentioning the climate dilemma, it has simply languished among unused and unpublished items.

Labor Leader, Bill Shorten - he
believes climate change
should be discussed at the G20.

 

Seeing this piece (link follows) from Michelle Grattan discussing the similar idea being suggested by Labor Leader, Bill Shorten encourages me to submit it.

This is what I wrote recently:

 

Climate change should be the first order of business at the November G20 forum in Brisbane.

Consideration of climate change would allow those at the forum to make informed and reasoned judgements about economic cooperation and decision making.

Any decisions made without first recognising and allowing for the differences climate change will bring to our market-driven society are irresponsible.

Economic growth, as understood by most, is entirely dependent upon a benign climate and the uninhibited access to the earth’s finite resources; resources that have taken billions of years to accumulate.

That ageless resource is now so depleted and subsequently becoming so scarce and expensive that to enhance a process depending on unlimited “everything” is not only reckless, but maybe even a crime against humanity.

Strong words: words that elicit thoughts of the Yeats poem, “The Second Coming” in which he writes: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”.

The equations that will drive our ultimate demise are not complicated and to understand and accept them requires little more than primary school mathematics and nothing of the arcane, convoluted and bizarre intellectual trickery the will prevail at Brisbane in November.

Our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, one who stands among those who deny global warming, has already declared that climate change will not be allowed to interfere with the “important” talks at the Brisbane forum.

Taken from its own website, the G20 says:

“Strengthening growth and creating jobs is our top priority and we are fully committed to taking decisive actions to return to a job-rich, strong, sustainable and balanced growth path. … We will identify the remaining key obstacles to be addressed and reforms needed to achieve stronger, more sustainable and balanced growth in our economies”.

These obviously highly-intelligent people appear to be locked into fantasy-fuelled beliefs that technology will rescue humanity from this collision of economic chaos, resource depletion, over-population, governance disorder and seemingly endless military confrontation.

Meeting last year in St Petersburg, the G20 leaders said their immediate task was to break the cycle of low growth and diminished business and consumer confidence.

The G20 argues it is well placed to do this in Brisbane this year.

Should they be serious about global economic security then they must first consider the impact of climate change; restructure the global economy to ensure financial equality for all, end the hugely disparate earnings around the world; truly understand what “sustainable” means; ensure gender equality; invest heavily in building resilience in communities; and educate and help people understand how they can grow and provide much of their own food.

Organic growth, and resilience, will sprout from communities of a type sadly unlikely to be considered at Brisbane in November.

Quoting Yeats again: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold”.

And now Michelle Grattan has written on The Conversation about Labor leader, Bill Shorten arguing for the same thing,

Her story is headed: “Shorten urges climate issues be a priority at G20”.

Inoffensive and yet risky because of a changing climate

Bushwalking is mostly environmentally inoffensive.

Michelle Grattan.

It is, however, in a strange bind for while the activity itself is mostly environmentally neutral, the modern equipment it consumes is far from it as is getting to and from the choice bushwalking places.

Beyond that some bushwalkers are now rather cautious about venturing too far into the bush because of the increased risks brought upon their favoured wild places by climate change.

Melbourne Age political editor, Michelle Grattan, wrote today (January 22, 2013) about the risks bushwalkers face in an article headed: “Walkers list risks of global warming”.

She wrote, “Victorian bushwalkers have warned that climate change will discourage walkers from venturing out and make things more difficult and hazardous for those who do.”