Massachusetts:
Niall Clugson writes: Re. “Why the Massachusetts Democrats are Browned off” (Friday, item 3). Reading Possum Comitatus’s analysis of the “Boston Red Shock”, what strikes me is that American politics is polarised. Sure the Democrats ran an incompetent, probably complacent, campaign. But the Republicans turned out in force. Why? Because they are motivated to protest against Obama. The Democrat supporters are still in a cloud of euphoria. Disillusionment may be seeping in, but in no way does this motivate them to “get out the vote” to “fight the right”. For the Mad Haters’ Tea Party, on the other hand, all America’s traditional enemies – the blacks, the Muslims, the socialists, the Nazis, the financiers, and the British — have inexplicably coalesced into a clear and present danger never before posed outside the manic imagination of Lyndon LaRouche. Of course their numbers held up. And of course the Democrats’ wilted.
Graph Nitpicker writes: Possum Comitatus left Boston off yesterday’s graph because of scale issues, I just wanted to say that he could have used a log-log scale, which would have spread out all those pesky little towns in the bottom left corner and made it possible to include Boston.
The IPCC confusion:
Ralph McKay writes: Re. “Crikey Clarifier: how the IPCC works” (20 January, item 12). Andrew Macintosh says, “The glacier incident has provided a vivid illustration of the need for the IPCC to be exacting in its standards and for scientists to be cautious when engaging with the media.” However he did not mention the obvious fault in the IPCC procedures or how to fix it. The IPCC has never invited scientists to vote. This means the IPCC’s processes for representing scientific opinion fail the most basic test of robustness and transparency. Custodians of all democracies understand that a secure vote is the only reliable and scientific way to measure group opinion. Yet no one in authority has invited scientists to vote. It’s remarkable that the media, policymakers and scientists have all overlooked this point.
The IPCC’s use of working groups is an efficient way to condense peer reviewed scientific papers and other material into a single less technical report. However this process does not guarantee that the authors of the scientific papers endorse the IPCC reports. The process also excludes the views of many scientists less exposed to any conflicts of interest yet qualified to comment on the published research. Without the vote legitimate doubts remain and no one has scientific authority to represent the experts. It means the most basic questions on climate change science and economics remain unanswered. Vested interests will inevitably determine the outcome, which may or may not align with the best measure of scientific opinion. The risk is a dangerous overreaction or expensive and useless under-reaction to the actual threat. Without the vote, failure at Copenhagen was obvious.
Vocal and frustrated scientists concerned about global warming say there is no debate about its cause while other scientists write letters and books in strong disagreement. Naturally the public is confused and losing interest. A vote will resolve the debate and sharpen public focus. For several years I have been inviting scientists to vote on climate change issues. From all sides the response is that scientists don’t vote. So where is the voice of political scientists in this debate?
Water privatisation:
Geoff Russell, Animal Liberation SA, writes: Re. “Diving into water privatisation is a suicidal leap” (Friday, item 14). Great article exposing the fundamental selling out of Australia’s water future to private greed by Ian Douglas. But water markets, whether theoretically optimal as advocates claim, or as downright greedy profiteering as history shows, also have a massive international knock on impact. How we use our water isn’t just our business, it can expand or shrink the food we can export. Reductions in our food exports caused by suboptimal use of water, are, quite literally killing people on the other side of the planet. For example, at its peak in 2000/1 the dairy industry used more than double the water used by rice (and far more than cotton … and 10 times more than Cubbie) and nine times more water than the fruit and vegetable industries combined in the Murray Darling Basin but produced just 20 percent more calories of food than rice. What’s more many of those calories are saturated fat and removed before sale. The real calorie per mega litre ratio is far more tilted to rice than simple calculations reveal. The water market allows rich lovers of cheese to outbid the poor who need rice.
A similar argument applies to grain markets. Grain, like water is dominated by a market mechanism where it is sold to the highest bidder. This means beef cattle feedlots or chicken factory farms in Victoria easily outbid the poor in Nigeria or Haiti. Factory farm domination of the grain market is the number one cause of the continuing world food crisis. Some commodities are far too critical to be under the control of market forces, and that includes both grain and water.
Princely PR coup:
Peter Wotton writes: Re. “Republican movement’s new enemy: Prince William” (Friday, item 5). Oh , for heaven’s sake, did the Palace really pull off an extraordinary PR coup? Prince William may be an extraordinarily nice young bloke but the crowds (?) he pulled were by no means large. There will always be the elderly who still remember the days of empire and the young girls who remember the romance of Princess Mary. I would imagine that if Madonna were to undertake a similar sightseeing tour, the crowds would be far more extreme. Prince William is British, not Australian. I cannot imagine that his visit will have any significant long term effect on when we eventually become a republic. He is a visiting celebrity whose visit has received minor coverage. He is largely irrelevant to the political process in Australia.
Green Loans:
Shaz Gerchow writes: Re. “Tips and Rumours” (Friday, item 7). I suspect your tip about the Green Loans is correct. I was assessed in September last year but only received my report late in October. I had intended to apply for a green loan to replace my ancient electric hot water system, which was the only item rated poorly by the assessor. My assessment report, however, states that I should replace my toilet and install a rainwater tank – an interesting suggestion since I live in a block of units. Since then I have been calling the Department regularly to try and have my assessment reviewed so that I may purchase a new hot water system. . Each time I call I am told that someone will call me back, but do date have received no contact. I have even tried emailing the Department on their feedback form but that also failed. Today I couldn’t even speak to anybody but had to record a message for the assessment team. As I only have six months from the date of receiving the report in which to apply for a loan, any bets that I won’t receive a call back until May?
Bagging The West:
Nigel Dolan writes: Re. “Talking the Town: Pilger’s wrong to bag The West” (13 January, item 17). I would like to advise you and Mr Apps of errors and disparaging comments made in your recent article concerning a public lecture at UWA Extension held on Tuesday morning 12th Jan.
1. I am not aware of a ‘stumbling introduction’ by the session chair. This should be clarified factually.
2. There is no indication of what this ‘technological glitch’ might be. Note it is not unusual for adjustments to be made to computer and AV equipment in Lecture Theatres, e.g., adjusting the lighting and sound level.
3. Mr Pilger’s preamble was not ‘rambling’. It was focused, on topic and clearly enunciated.
4. There WERE journalists in the audience, though it was true that they did not make themselves known — for their own reasons.
5. Mr Apps should be aware that while Pilger said relatively little about the West Australian, the paper’s indigenous coverage was vigorously praised from the floor. So what is his issue – strongly titled: ‘Pilger’s wrong to bag the west’? I would hardly think that the main focus of the discussion was about bagging the West.
6. The session format DID lend itself to questioning Mr Pilger on anything that he said and about his work in general 0- it was a largely audience-oriented Q and A session. As such there was plenty of opportunity to ask Pilger to comment on ‘media moguls’ or any other related issues. I believe the engagement of the audience and the unusually loud and vigorous applause was a telling statement of their satisfaction.
Abandoned trolleys:
Nikos Andronicos writes: Re. Ava Hubble’s comment (Friday, comments) Regarding the proposed fines on Coles, Woolworths etc for dumped trolleys – notice that the top five ‘culprits’ are all stores in inner-city suburbs where people WALK to the supermarket rather than DRIVING THEIR TARAGOS right up to the loading dock. Penalised supermarkets would surely pass the fees onto customers, and believe me, things are expensive enough in Surry Hills as it is. The councils should work out how much carbon is being saved by environmentally-friendly pedestrian shoppers before slapping fines on. One truck driving around retrieving abandoned trolleys is clearly less harmful to the environment than hundreds of 15-year-old Corollas clogging up the Coles carpark to pick up their litre of milk. Amen.
Rod Metcalfe writes: Why is it we continue to blame the victim rather than the perpetrator in these instances. Why should supermarkets be responsible for the actions of the individuals who take trolleys and leave them in the street (and bear the cost which is put onto the price of groceries). It is the same with newspapers which attack public transport for dirty trains/trams/buses when it is the passengers who leave rubbish behind. Okay, I admit it is hard to police the actions of these individuals but Ms Hubble’s suggestion is very simplistic – and we all pay for the action of a few.
Pete Wilson-Jones writes: I am not sure how fair it is punishing the supermarkets, or in fact how it would stop trolley theft, when the fact is the customers are the ones who take the trolleys and dump them out on the street/in parks, etc. I live in Campsie, and it’s no different here. Nearly every second person going past my place is pushing a Woolworths or Big W trolley (I live a kilometre from Woolworths BTW).
In NSW by law the police can arrest and charge someone for taking a trolley away from a store or it’s car park — it is theft — but I have never seen it enforced around here. I am aware it is already a big financial problem for the supermarkets, who constantly have to purchase new trolleys, as well as employing people to drive around and find dumped ones.
Short of installing cattle grids at the perimeter, or hiring security to man the entrances, I just don’t see how Ava Hubble and the City of Sydney Council’s NIMBY idea can be a solution to this problem.
Crikey ruins Australia Day:
Anna Louise McNaughton writes: Re. “Oz day spoiler: ABC leaks Hottest 100 victor” (Friday, item 4). Boo to you for spoiling JJJ Hottest 100. Just because you can report something. Doesn’t mean you should. Boo Crikey Boo.
Smoking Sigourney:
Laurie Patton writes: Has anyone counted how many times Sigourney Weaver lights up a cigarette in her role of chief scientist and, ironically, resident social conscience in the movie Avatar? The first gasp occurs within a few minutes. These days most people would take exception to anyone smoking in a confined space, let alone an oxygen enriched space vehicle. It is worth noting that Weaver — one of the few high profile ‘heads’ in the movie – is the only one to pull out the fags. There is plenty of material on the web about smoking in films and the tobacco industry. This Cancer Council link is a good start.
Whilst I’m normally quite receptive to Geoff Russell’s arguments, I really don’t understand how the choices Australian farmers make to support themselves “are quite literally killing people on the other side of the planet.” Spare us, Geoff, and leave that to the Marines.
There is no global food shortage. People starve when they can’t afford, or physically cannot obtain, even locally-grown food, not because they are out-competed in international markets for bulk-traded grain which they would otherwise be eagerly buying at some hypothetical fixed low price (which would not meet the costs of most growers).
Places where people starve to death invariably have grossly disrupted (as in by war, hurricane or earthquake) infrastructure for the local exchange of food and labour, and are not in any way affected by the quantity of rice exported from the Riverina. The annual fluctuation in the volume of rice exports from Thailand alone (let alone the other big rice exporters such as Vietnam, Pakistan and India) exceeds the total quantity of rice grown in Australia. It makes no sense for exporters to target the starving in any case — most of the rice exported from any country is in the premium long-grain market segment, while the world’s poorest consumers generally buy cheaper mushy rice grown much closer to home.
There is nothing morally reprehensible in a farmer choosing to grow what will earn an income on a farm. In a remote and urbanised country like Australia, that necessarily means serving the demands of urban consumers and the wealthiest export markets.
Conversely, most of the world’s poorest people rely on agricultural income, either as small farmers, herders or as labourers in cash-crop plantations. In general, higher food prices benefit poor rural people. Urban people might suffer from price increases, but they also have better access to imports (so are less hard-hit by local seasonal conditions) and spend less of their income on food, overall.
No-one is starving, or dying, because of the choices made by Australian dairy farmers. Literally or otherwise.
Niall – since when were the Nazis the “traditional enemy” of the American Right? Just wondering…
Where do you get your information that ‘there is no global food shortage’, Jonathon Maddox? Last I heard the world had not produced enough to meet demand for at least the last two years, and stockpiles are being depleted. On top of that, 1 billion people are near starving, and another 2 billion malnourished.
On the shopping trolley matter, I suggest all councils insist that trolleys be coin operated. It seems to be 100% effective at Aldi, and I’ve only see one stray Coles trolley since it was introduced by them. At least one Canberra Woolies is using coin-tethered trolleys now too. The system works much like a bottle deposit – 99% of people return their own trolleys, and there is a financial incentive for anyone who finds a stray one to take it back.
Shopping and trolleys.
Shopping is not anymore what it used to be. Remember buying biscuits loose by the ounce and the shopkeeper knowing you by name? All gone now. A typical shopping experience is now often bereft of contact with anyone, unless through a person with trolley rage. By the time one fights for parking with the usual hoons giving the two finger greeting, the tone is set and with grim determination one sets forth for the task ahead.
The wrenching of a trolley out of a long row of tightly jammed together stainless brothers is just the beginning. Of course after one goes through the one way electronic gates, the trolley decides to go off at a tangent when pushed, and as the return through the gates for another one, has now has been barred, one sadly tries to ‘shop’ with a dysfunctional trolley..
Silently one trundles through row after row of vegetables that are now often pre-peeled and mayonnaised, perhaps even pre-digested. Most meticulously sealed and ready to throw out. Lucky that the onions and carrots are still recognizable, so are beans and celery. On the left are the delicatessen and fish counters. By this time the trolley has been loaded with some items and now obstinately refuses to go straight at any cost and the hapless shopper is forced to counter this by pushing from the side and aiming for the next isle totally askew. This means that one side of the trolley is further away from the shopper than the other side. To compensate for this discrepancy, the pusher has to cross one foot over the other occasionally in order not to end up on floor.
With some basic maths and luck one might end up at the delicatessen side. After waiting to be served, and being the only customer with a cramp in one leg, a large bearded lady tells you to get a ticket. Finally: three hundred grams of double smoked ham, please. The bearded lady rubs a plastic bag between kransky like fingers, blows in it, sticks her hand in it and turns bag inside out. Now, (get a little closer to the screen now) this is silver platter stuff and ultimate platinum service. She grabs a fistful of double smoked ham and forces it in the inside out bag, kneading the item unconscious and to a pulp. Will four hundred fifty gram be ok? Meekly, yes ok. Anything is alright by now, hoping Mental Health will not be necessary.
Next, the dairy products need to be bought and isle after isle of the most miserable items are limped through, also traversing past acres of toilet papers called ‘symphony’ (with a hint of Ludwig’s 9’th and oh so choral) and ‘confidence’, then through a puddle of spilled mock vanilla slush. One finally arrives at the butter, frozen foods and cheese section. Bedlam here. Why are the isles so full of shoppers? What is it that seems to draw and fascinate shoppers inexorably to all those frozen boxes? Do they come here for a good read like to a library? One shopper is deeply immersed in studying the instruction on a frozen instant lasagne box while her three year old is scooping violent crumble bars out of a huge sack.
The only way to put up with this punishing and unrelenting shopping abuse is to take a leaf out of how I bravely try to get even with the abusers.
I want to share this with you.
Go for ‘specials’ that have been discounted. Not so long ago at a carnivorous Woollies store, I bought smoked salmon that was on special as well. Going through the counter I was charged the full price. Overcharged items incur full return and item given for free. Check small print near check out. Try and concentrate on items that you could get overcharged with! That is the secret. You will get them free. A win win!
So, free salmon after going to customer desk. It is important NOT to tell cashier at check out about mistake but calmly pay up and get refund and free item from customer service after. As you have been overcharged, show some indignation!
So, back I went for another smoked salmon. Another refund and more free salmon. I did this until I collected 2 kilos. This is all legit. Oddly enough, Helvi is not impressed by my canny devices to balance the injustice heaped on shoppers. I have now exploited this many times with different items and pride myself as a modern Robin Hood of the Shopping Mall.. I always check for mistakes and the girls at the desk know me by now and are powerless, also don’t care.
Those trolleys of course are abused by hoodlums who skate them away for miles, across kerbs and open wastelands. Helicopters fly overhead, tracing them. Reward posters for errant trolleys are on telegraph poles. Suburbia and shopping malls have become war zones.
Rachel,
Starvation and malnutrition are consequences of *unfair* distribution of resources, not about inadequate total resources. Malthusian over-population scenarios may apply in some parts of the world, but not globally. In Haiti and Rwanda, yes; in Europe, China and Australia no.
*Locally*, in places with poor infrastructure, storage and distribution of food supplies may be disrupted; more often by localized crop failures than by global supply (or rather, price) fluctuations.
Under conditions of overpopulation and inadequate infrastructure, people may starve because they cannot afford food which would otherwise be available to them at a price. This is a failure of politics and welfare — an issue of wealth, savings, cash flow and infrastructure — not a failure of the global food supply as such.
Endemic malnutrition, likewise, is a welfare issue and not proof that we are already exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. Not that I believe we could feed an infinite number of people, but eg. diverting a few percent of the world’s defense budgets and bankers’ bonuses to addressing malnutrition could solve the problem without ploughing under any additional land. We *already* produce enough food for everyone alive today, we throw away much of what we produce, and that wastage roughly accounts for under-consumption.
I’ve read a few scaremongering articles that said there was about to be a food crisis … 18 months ago when oil prices irrationally soared and food prices with them, and again more recently when the financial crisis supposedly caused agricultural production to fall at the same time as stimulus (especially in China) caused demand to rise. But most of the supposed reduction in production is a “recovery” ripple after the price spike-and-fall encouraged production and caused financial losses for farmers. More to the point, the figures depend mostly on how much of what crop farmers choose to plant on what land, in any given season. Pasture, crop rotations and non-food crops such as cotton and fodder (crops eaten by livestock but not by people) are frequently adjusted from season to season. The *capacity* to grow more or less food exists, and farmers make that choice according to price signals. Crop failures happen and are part of the annual change in production, but they are not known to occur simultaneously in all the world’s growing regions.
(Perhaps of greater concern is a rumour circulating that statistics bodies such as the US Department of Agriculture have started misreporting actual production figures to keep prices down — if true, this may be a self-defeating Potemkin strategy contributing to a starvation crisis in coming years, or it may be a strategic stabilising move that controls exuberant price spikes while allowing an appropriate rise over a manageable time period).
Reassuringly, despite the large wobbles in prices, year-to-year fluctuations in supply are still tiny in proportion to the total amount of food produced and consumed in the world, and do not come close to exhausting the existing supply-chain storage in most countries. More to the point, they are dwarfed by the annual wastage of perfectly good produce (over and above any gross inefficiencies of eg. feedlot meat production, which is one point of Geoff’s I thoroughly concur with).
It’s quite possible that in any one year, production could fall somewhat below demand. It might even have been the case in two years running. But generally supply follows demand, and demand includes a massive amount of waste — up to 20% of all food production — mostly at the domestic end in consumer societies such as Australia, but also in the supply, storage and distribution chains in places where that infrastructure is lacking. Those few places with large low-income rural populations which *do* have the technology and economic infrastructure to safely store and distribute their own food supplies tend to export food : prime examples are Brazil, Thailand, Vietnam and certain bread-basket regions of China, Pakistan and India (though I believe the latter two countries are no longer net exporters of food, due more to urban population growth than anything else. China *is* a major food exporter).
If people with any sort of market power (whether it is a few dollars a day or a few hundred) in any part of the world actually start to go hungry, they will quickly find opportunities to eliminate their domestic wastage and will choose cheaper and easily-stored foods over more expensive perishables, thus reducing waste in the supply chain also. I believe that that slack will easily cover any season-to-season shortage.
Those whose market power is negligible are clearly in need of assistance from the rest of us — but the rest of us can equally clearly afford to assist, “crisis” or not. It’s a matter of good will and of politics.
When people starve, it is “acts of god”, warlords and short-sighted politicians that are to blame, not farmers.