Australia is a leading country for annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution, coal exports and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Thus “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year” (2005-2008 data) is 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge exported CO2 pollution is included). Indeed the data for 2010 indicate that Australia’s annual domestic plus exported GHG pollution is 64 tonnes per person per year, 71 times greater than the per capita GHG pollution of Pakistan.

In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and essentially zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately Australia (through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports) has already used up its share of this terminal GHG pollution budget and is now stealing the entitlement of other countries including acutely global warming-threatened countries such as Somalia and Bangladesh.

Australia’s disproportionately huge annual per capita GHG pollution weans that Australia is disproportionately contributing to a avoidable deraths in the Developing World due to a worsening climate genocide. Thus both Dr James Lovelock FRS (Gaia hypothesis) and Professor Kevin Anderson ( Director, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Manchester, UK) have recently estimated that only about 0.5 billion people will survive this century due to unaddressed, man-made global warming. Noting that the world population is expected to reach 9.5 billion by 2050 (UN Population Division) , these estimates translate to a climate genocide involving deaths of 10 billion people this century, this including roughly twice the present population of particular mainly non-European groups, specifically 6 billion under-5 year old infants, 3 billion Muslims in a terminal Muslim Holocaust, 2 billion Indians, 1.3 billion non-Arab Africans, 0.5 billion Bengalis, 0.3 billion Pakistanis and 0.3 billion Bangladeshis (see “Climate Genocide”).

However in look-the-other-way Australia it is business as usual (BAU). The 2 major political groupings, Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition (the Libs) and the Labor Government (the Labs) have essentially the same climate change inaction policies of “5% off 2000 greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 2020″ coupled with unlimited expansion of coal and gas exports that will mean that Australia’s domestic plus exported GHG pollution will, relative to 2000, roughly double by 2020 and quadruple by 2050 (see this). The Greens are pro-environment but only have about 14% of the vote and are detested by the major parties and the mainstream media, particularly the climate change denialist Murdoch newspapers that have 70% of newspaper readership in Australia.

On 4 October 2011 The Age On-line National Times (owned by the Fairfax media organization) published a critique of the Greens by John Matthews (strategist at “Loop Branding” and writer for “ArtKritique”) entitled “”Greens should come out of the forest” (see: Greens should come out of the forest ; see also this).

Key quotes from this nonsensical article: “You know there’s a problem with a brand when your competitors use it as shorthand for all that’s bad. So when Liberal frontbenchers spit out the phrase “Green-Labor government” as an expletive you can bet they’re pretty sure the “G” word carries negative connotations that will have their supporters grinding their teeth in rage. Right now the Green brand is a problem… If we look across the spectrum of politics and consider what makes the Greens different today we see it’s not their environmental politics. Belief in climate change is mainstream to all bar a few shock jocks, the odd snarling, cynical, right-wing bully and Tony Abbott. You can believe in the need to take action on global warming and not vote Green. Which sparks the question — so why would we?”

The Age kindly published my rebuttal of this absurd article:

“Green” is universally identified with a pro-environment stance, and the defence of our common, vital, natural environment and its irreplaceable ecosystems against destructive greed and private profit. However a related generality is Green defence of human social environments (human ecosystems) against amoral greed.

Accordingly, apart from the marginalized but ethically very sound Socialists, the Greens are the only significant political group realistically and honestly defending the sustainability and richness of both non-human ecosystems (the environment) and human ecosystems (human societies).

John Matthews’ assertion that “You can believe in the need to take action on global warming and not vote Green” is manifestly incorrect. Both the Liberal-National Party Coalition Opposition (the Libs) and the Labor Government (the Labs) have essentially the same climate change inaction policies of “5% off 2000 greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution by 2020″ coupled with unlimited expansion of coal and gas exports that will mean that Australia’s domestic plus exported GHG pollution will, relative to 2000, roughly double by 2020 and quadruple by 2050.

The Greens pragmatically support, as a carbon-pricing “first step”, Labor’s dishonest and counterproductive Carbon Tax (Treasury modelling says it will actually INCREASE Australia’s domestic GHG pollution) – ergo vote 1 Green and put Labor last.”

I could have added that before the 2010 elections the middle-of-the-road National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) conducted a survey of the policies of the major political parties on 40 issues in 7 major areas. Overall the Greens scored 100%, the ALP 53% and the LNP 23% in the NTEU survey. All anti-war, pro-environment, anti-racism, pro-Planet and pro-Humanity folk will vote 1 Green (indeed if you Google the phrase “vote 1 Green” you will get 543,000 results with articles containing this opinion of Dr Gideon Polya ranking items 1-5 on page 1).

The environmental policies of the Greens are a quantum jump above those of the do-nothing, BAU Lib-Labs and the social policies of the Greens are in agreement with the views of about half the Australian population. The Socialists have similar pro-environment and pro-Humanity polices but are more rigorous and less pragmatic than the typically middle class Greens. Sensible, pro-environment, pro-Humanity Australians – and indeed like people worldwide – have little choice but to vote 1 Green or to vote 1 Socialist.

This means that the climate was the big loser in this election as the current governments climate policy have been called a failure by heavy environmental organisations and even won greenwash awards.

But nonetheless the Greens in Sweden managed to get 7,2% of the votes, or 25 of the 349 seats in the parliament. The best election result ever for the Greens in Sweden. This is an 2% increase since the last election and it results in the Greens becoming the third major political force in Sweden.

Monica Frassoni and Philippe Lamberts, Co-Spokespersons for the European Greens, said in a statement that:

"This is an excellent result for the Swedish Greens and we would like to congratulate the Greens’ leaders, Maria Wetterstrand and Peter Eriksson, and all the party’s activists and staff, for waging a strong and positive campaign which appealed to a large part of the Swedish electorate."

"We know that the Swedish Greens will continue to focus on real solutions to the problems currently facing Sweden and will fight hard for environmental sustainability including increased investment in renewables rather than dangerous and inefficient nuclear power, the Green New Deal and an economy that serves citizens’ interests."

If you want you can learn more about the Swedish Greens over at the European Greens website.

But another very tragic and sad effect of the election yesterday night is that Sweden now has joined the many other European countries with far-right extremist parties in their parliaments. The Swedish Democrats, which is a political party based on racist and nazi values, gained a shocking 5.7% of the votes, or 20 of the 349 seats in the Swedish parliament. So it’s a very sad day for democracy in Sweden as well as around Europe that these dark forces gains more and more power.

The election result is still very uncertain as none of the two main political blocks gained majority. So we will have to wait and see until at the end of this week how the new political landscape in Sweden will look like.

Key to Swedish Political Parties:

Government (right/centre-right):
Moderates (M)
Centre Party (C)
Liberal Party (FP)
Christian Democrats (KD)

Opposition (left/centre-left):
Social Democrats (S)
Green Party (MP)
Left Party (V)

Opposition (extreme far-right):
Swedish Democrats (SD)

“In Berlin an estimated 50,000 people have joined a demonstration against nuclear power in the run-up to the German general elections.

The rally was headed by a convoy of 350 tractors, which drove past the office of Chancellor Angela Merkel,” Radio Netherlands Worldwide reports.

Back in 2001 the former Social Democratic chancellor, backed up by the Greens, pushed through a new legislation in 2001 that would phase out nuclear energy from Germany within two decades. But the Social Democratic and Green government lost the election in 2005 to a right-wing coalition consisting of the current Chancellor Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats and the liberal Free Democrats.

Angela Merkel, who successfully blocked a strong climate deal for the European Union last year, now wants to scrap the nuclear phase-out legislation that the SPD pushed through in 2001. This is similar to what is happening in Sweden after a coalition of right-wing parties won the recent election there. According to Merkel, Germany “cannot phase out nuclear energy as quickly as some imagine.”

“But in the long term, that’s to say in the second half of the century, we will experience a large amount of renewable energy sources. We are convinced that we will be able to stop using nuclear energy at some point”, Merkel said.

The Social Democratic chancellor candidate, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is accusing Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democrats and the liberal Free Democrats “of leading the country into an energy policy dead-end and endangering domestic security.”

On the same day as the anti-nuclear protest in Germany were taking place Greenpeace released a survey which found that 59% of Germans are against Merkel’s proposal to extend the deadline for the country’s already aging nuclear reactors.

“Our responsibility is to phase out power plants that endanger the health and livelihoods of future generations, said Greenpeace Finland’s nuclear campaigner, Lauri Myllyvirta at a speech the Brandenburg Gate.

“Each year nuclear power plants are kept running means more nuclear waste, more uranium mining, higher risk of accidents. There is no excuse: Climate change can be best tackled without nuclear plants. The nuclear phase-out in Germany is one of the reasons for the success of wind and solar energy all over the world. A relapse into nuclear power in Germany would send a very bad signal to other countries.”

Nils Diedrich, a political scientist at Berlin’s Free University, says that if Merkel and her right wing coalition manage to push through this pro-nuclear legislation “we’ll see a real battle”. He warns that “then there will be massive demonstrations.”

Although Germany is one of the leading countries in renewable wind energy it still has a dirty and toxic energy portfolio. 42% of the country’s energy comes from coal and 23% from nuclear energy. Only about 15% of the energy comes from clean renewable energy sources such as wind and solar.

Images from the Gruene.de

Key quote from the speech:

“The truth is the climate nightmare is real and happening now. We are destroying the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the snow caps. We are eroding our beaches, and our coastal cities will face managed retreat due to sea level rise. We are drying our food bowl, the Murray Darling, beyond repair, jeopardising rural communities and our food security.

Many of our Asia Pacific neighbours are struggling with rising seas and extreme weather which threatens a refugee crisis beyond anything we’ve ever seen.

The Himalayan glaciers, which feed all the major rivers of Asia  — the Ganges and Brahmaputra, the Mekong, the Yellow and Yangtze  — are melting away. Once they are gone, a third of the world’s people face a parched, hungry and, most likely, violent future.”

For what we have to do urgently – install renewables, return air CO2 to 300 ppm, return carbon as biochar to the soil, re-afforestation and cessation of carbon pollution and deforestation – see Climate Emergency Facts and Required Actions and 300.org – return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm.