COVID-19 lockdowns don't show the limits of individual climate action

I’ve seen the following argument go around a bit this week:

“So we accidently ran an experiment where we did the most any individual can do to reduce carbon emissions and it’s not enough.” (Tweet)

It’s wrong. Individual actions are not enough, but they are absolutely necessary.

Institutional/structural changes are absolutely necessary – but also not enough.

We need everything.

Treating a three-month lockdown as a proxy for what can be achieved through individual action both reduces individual agency to consumption choices and misunderstands the nature of structural changes.

Click to read more ...

Government raids aren't about journalists, but about society

Forget ‘journalists’: the AFP raids are an attack on people who make life uncomfortable for the state; people who resist the desires of government and government bodies to keep their mistakes secret and avoid being held to account. Journalists might be “chilled” by these raids, but they are primarily the vector for attacks on whistle blowers – which is to say, attacks on ordinary people exposing the wrongdoing of those with power.

Click to read more ...

We have a responsibility to, and for, terrorists

I’m uncomfortable with the Government cancelling the citizenship of Australians it doesn’t like: Neil Prakash, in this case. He’s our problem. Prakash is a mangy cur we helped raise, and rather than taking responsibility for him, we’re kicking him out onto the street and expecting our neighbours to take care of him.

Click to read more ...

How much superannuation do I need?

Don’t panic about your superannuation. You probably won’t need as much as you think – 80% of current retirees spend less than ASFA’s “modest” standard, and the current Age Pension mostly covers that.

(That said, long term compound growth investment is terrific, and I encourage you to invest in your super if you can afford it.)

Click to read more ...

Victoria's Citizens' Jury on Obesity #1: Introduction

We have an obesity problem.
How can we make it easier to eat better?

The newDemocracy Foundation and VicHealth are running a Citizens’ Jury on obesity, and I’ve had the luck to be one of 100 people randomly selected. I intend to post about the experience along the way, both here and probably on Twitter.

Click to read more ...

Equivalised Income: How do you compare to other Australians?

Updated on Wednesday, April 3, 2013 at 17:46 by MCJ

Updated on Thursday, April 4, 2013 at 11:49 by MCJ

Updated on Tuesday, May 14, 2013 at 16:49 by MCJ

Per Capita recently released their latest report into public attitudes toward taxation and government expenditure. Between this and the federal government’s contemplation of increasing superannuation tax rates for high earners, there’s been another round of discussion about incomes and who is “rich”. One of the aspects that, as always, struck me was the disconnection between how well off people are and how well off they think they are.

The ABS publishes data on household incomes, both gross (pre-tax) and equivalised disposable. I’ve pulled this data together so you can see where your weekly (household!) income falls relative to other Australian households. I guess it’s then up to you to decide how many people you want to be earning more than before you consider yourself “rich” (or high income, at least).

Click to read more ...

Time-of-use Pricing Uncomfortable, But Not Flawed

Discussing the Government’s renewed push for electricity market reform on ABC Breakfast radio, in particular time-of-use pricing and the ability for households to shift their consumption, Dr. Lynne Chester from USyd said,

we all know when we’ve got a household full of children and teenagers it’s incredibly hard getting them to switch off all those appliances and not use electricity in particular heavy use periods.

Well, yes: getting people – adults or children – to change their behaviour is hard – but it’s also absolutely necessary.

Click to read more ...

The Nub of the Houston Report

Updated on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 at 19:51 by MCJ

Updated on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 at 20:46 by MCJ

Updated on Sunday, August 19, 2012 at 13:57 by MCJ

I’m far from an expert on asylum seekers, and am still trying to wrap my head around all the stuff in the Report of the Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers (the ‘Houston Report’). Here’s the nub of the matter, though, as far as I understand it – this is essentially thinking out loud, so please do correct me if I’m wrong.

Problem: Asylum seekers are risking, and losing their lives coming to Australia by boat – as ‘irregular maritime arrivals (IMAs) – rather than waiting to be processed in transition countries.

Cause: Asylum seekers believe (rightly?) that they and their family members will be accepted as refugees in Australia more quickly than if they went through the ‘proper’ channels.

Proposed solution: IMAs should not get any advantages over asylum seekers coming to Australia through approved channels, so they will instead be taken and processed somewhere else, with no chance of arriving in Australia more rapidly than if they’d used the proper channels

Click to read more ...

Wish One Is ALWAYS for More Wishes

At a party celebrating the 5th birthday of the Centre for Policy Development, I was asked the following question:

“If you had three wishes to change the world to help the environment, but that change had to occur through political processes, what would those wishes be?”

I found the question fascinating, and pondered it for a minute or two. Think about your own answers for a while, if you like. (You know it’s a happening party when people stare into the middle distance rubbing their chins thoughtfully for a while.)

Click to read more ...

The Fundamental Question on Asylum Seekers

Australia’s dog of a policy on asylum seekers – at least, those arriving by boat – appears set to be a continued topic of political discussion this year, so I’d like to echo the sentiments of Guy Rundle as expressed just before Christmas:

The Australian asylum seeker discussion is wrongly framed. As signatories to the Refugee Convention, we have a categorical moral imperative to allow any potential refugees that reach our shores to claim asylum; this is their right.

However, the policy debate revolves around whether we can

“wholly negate someone’s rights (that we have explicitly promised them), in a situation where their life and freedom will be wholly annihilated indefinitely, all as a strategy for dissuading unknown future persons from making a possibly perilous journey.

By that definition we are using the ‘deterrent’ — the people locked up for years on Manus, Nauru, in Malaysia, or god knows where — as a means to a utilitarian end. It is a clear use of human beings in their totality, as means to other ends, and cannot in any sense ground a moral policy.

Click to read more ...