Environmental Elitism and the Inconsequential Worker

June 15, 2017
Written by: Trish Corry
331 Replies

Bolman and Deal’s “Reframing Organisations” encourages leaders to look through various ‘windows’ to reframe and solve problems. The Author argues that climate change activism is led from a position of privilege. To counter this, the worker must be central to the climate change debate.

The Rise of Climate Change Activism

Climate Change Activism is not a passing phase. Warnings about climate change have progressed since the 1980s. Aerosols and cows expelling gas would destroy the earth. Climate change activism has become increasingly more prevalent in politics, media, and society.

The current phase, post-Paris Agreement, is a particularly strong phase of climate change activism. This is globally pushing leaders to implement legislation and regulations to mitigate the impact of climate change.

The Force of Change on the working class

The vocal aim of activists to shut down entire industries, such as coal (and some say beef is on their radar as well), places climate change as a (negative) force of change on the working class.

We are no longer in an era where we are debating the reality of climate change. The majority of people accept that climate change is real and we must act on climate change.

Many activists still operate in the mindset that any question about jobs equals denialism. They do not try to understand if the other person believes in climate change. Lectures about the merits of climate change stream forth in abundance, regardless.

Abuse and ridicule are common responses to the jobs issue. A strong position is jobs do not matter in the end. They argue fiercely if mining destroys the earth, there will be no jobs at all. This is particularly exacerbated by the current anti-Adani movement at present.

Activists who do try to engage only have one solution – all the coal workers will now work in renewables. There is no vision to reinvent communities or truly see the human factor and offer diversity and true renewal.

Other activists are quite discriminatory about who deserves jobs. They will respond with the notion that Great Barrier Reef jobs are more important than coal jobs. The notion of job losses in the coal sector is sometimes even celebrated by activists as an achievement.

Rebuttals are in the form of industry that is not yet prevalent.

Oh! They can just go get jobs in the renewabls industry!

The conversation around jobs and regional communities towards a post-coal world is extremely difficult to get off the ground.

Concern for Jobs isn’t Climate Change Denial

Environmental activists must cease the perverse accusation that one is a “climate change denier” if displaced workers are a major concern.

(And Malcolm Roberts, by some weird turn of events you read this; despite what you may have read from Climate Change activists yelling at me on Twitter – I am not in love with you).

To achieve positive progress we need to reframe the debate with the worker as the centre. This will highlight the negative impact climate change action has on workers.

Environmentalists must question if their position is so pure that negative consequences, such as mass layoffs are inconsequential. If mass layoffs are inconsequential, and workers can’t put food on the table, then does one’s activism come from a position of privilege?

The Negative Consequence of Positive Action

Activists generally sincerely value their actions and advocacy as a positive effect on society. I do not disagree that this is the intent with climate change activists.

However, I would strongly argue to value the intent of activism is not enough. I would also argue it is ignorant. Activists must also value the consequences of their actions, not just the intent. Sometimes a positive action can result in negative consequences.

An environmental lens ensures the following remain silent:

Displaced workers, economic loss, increased welfare, homelessness, poverty, despair, an increase in psychosomatic symptoms and even suicide.

Reframing the debate with the worker as central to the climate change debate is essential. This places climate change action as an externality that is a force of change on industry and work. This shifts the worker from an irrelevant byproduct of change to the central focus.

This should serve as the impetus to mitigate harm to the working-class co-existent with positive action on climate change.

What does Feminism have to do with this?

I am using this example to demonstrate activism and privilege. Often the negative consequences of positive action, are not recognised. The activist does not have a desire to reframe the debate. It is not until voices push for reframing that the negative consequences of activism are realised.

As a white liberal/radical feminist in the 1980’s, I was oblivious that the activism I participated in had negative consequences. This activism had a negative affect on women of colour and also misrepresented men of colour.

It has been through women of colour persisting with their voices, who created this change. This forced white liberal feminists to reframe their activism and recognise specific feminist issues for women of colour. Many white liberal feminists now follow women of colour as allies in support of their activism.

Through reframing by women of colour, white liberal feminists could then identify the negative consequences. They recognise their activism was from a position of privilege.

A united and stronger feminist wave was born.

Stop Lecturing and Start Uniting

Activism that spares no thought about how to alleviate harm on the worker is from a position of privilege.

Activism that is not involved in ideas and discussions to mitigate harm to the worker, is a position of privilege.

Persisting with ‘lecturing and convincing others’ and shouting down concerns about jobs is regressive and obstructive.

If this continues, unlike feminism – a new wave will not be born.

Privilege and Elitism

Privilege is a term commonly used in sociology and feminist literature and it is described as:

As a concept, privilege is defined in relational terms and in reference to social groups, and involves unearned benefits afforded to powerful social groups within systems of oppression (Kendall, 2006; McIntosh, 1988).

Within Environmental Literature this concept is defined as “Elitism” (Dunlap, 1986). There are three types of environmental elitism.

Compositional Elitism: The suggestion that environmentalists are generally more upper-class and financially well off.
Ideological Elitism: The suggestion that environmentalists protect their own interests at the cost of the poor – i.e. Preventing a power plant on land that is beneficial to their own interests.

The third type of elitism is the most relevant for the purpose of this article:

Impact Elitism: The suggestion that environmental reform measures that have (intended or not) regressive, distributional impacts on society. (ie job losses, economic loss).

Some examples of impact elitism are:

The cost of reducing energy costs benefits the wealthy and excludes the poor. (Older cheaper cars versus newer Tesla cars).
Solar panelling and insulation benefits wealthier home buyers and excludes those who rent
People from poorer countries live in unhealthy environments. This is because they cannot afford the infrastructure or cost of electricity for a healthier, cleaner environment.
Purchasing a set of environmentally friendly shopping bags as a choice between an inedible bag or much-needed food.
Wealthier advanced countries advocating against poorer countries accessing fossil fuel energy. Although this may be a step enable fuelling, farming, agriculture and new industry.
Activism to shut down an energy intensive plant, even though its closure will result in mass layoffs.

Reframing the Debate

The Climate Change debate would look much different if activists, politicians and media reframed this to a worker-centred debate.

Decisions around budget measures, domestic and foreign affairs, industrial relations, training and the distribution of revenue would look much different.

The continual lecturing and ridicule from activists who are stuck in the view that the majority of people still need convincing are stifling the debate.

The leader of the Labor Party, Bill Shorten, is also guilty of this. Shorten’s narrative concentrates too much on the environmental, rather than the working class.

It is up to the Australian Labor party to lead serious reform in this area. Leave the environmentalism to the Greens. Australian Labor should be working to mitigate the effects of climate change whilst simultaneously loudly advocating for national reform. Championing the new way we look at jobs, industry and the economy in a post-coal world.

A Serious Transition is Urgent

The Labor party has a transition document available. However, in my view, it does not go far enough. The legacy of Labor is about national progressive reform. I welcome a transition plan. However, one that responds within an environmental framework is not enough. The answer is not just about renewables.

We urgently need a visionary set of serious reforms for regional communities.

How will revenue be redistributed?
How will the loss of coal revenue impact regions?
What are the impacts on specific communities, rather than nationally?
Should we focus on regional unemployment or a national average?
Do education and training need greater investment?
Should renewables training colleges be set up in regional universities?
Do we fully fund TAFE to secure the necessary training required to reskill for the future?
How do we attract a range of non-energy related industry investment to regional communities?
Is funded redeployment for displaced workers to existing and new industry an option?
Should regionally focused apprenticeship quotas be funded on a national scale?
Will redistribution of centralised public services to regions relieve the burden?

These are some questions to be asked.

The Labor Party’s narrative about the world of work in a world of serious climate change action is also non-existent.

Unless we fight and win a region-focused jobs and economic transition plan, the resultant high unemployment, filled with skilled heavy industry unemployed, only risks tipping the balance of power to the employer. This is a huge risk for further erosion of job security, safety and fair wages and conditions.

I have renewed hope now that Australian Unions are speaking up.

Food on the table, rewarding and permanent secure work should be an inherent value we ALL fight for.

A Synergistic Policy Framework

This cyclical fight does not have to continue to be the case. The “left” appears to be fighting itself to champion one social cause (environmentalism) at the expense of another (the worker).

Mass layoffs and closures will become a prevalent and a visible acknowledgement of successful climate change activism. Without a serious region focused economic and jobs transition plan, this divide will deepen. It will hurt.

Arguments that the worker is secondary give fuel to the ONLY argument that the actual climate change deniers have left. That is pretending to care about the working class as the reason to block change. We saw that in abundance this week with the Liberal and National Party’s rejection of the Finkel Review.

The absence of narrative about jobs is also partly attributed to the rise of Trump and Hanson. I do not want that to continue. Do you?

Reframing and placing the worker at the centre of the policy debate and self-identifying privilege is the first step. A step towards a synergistic policy framework of positive climate change action united in positive progress for the worker.

Like what we do at The AIMN?

You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.

Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!

Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.

You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969

Post Views: 2,138

331 comments

Login here

Register here

Joseph CarliJune 15, 2017 at 5:50 pm

Trish..I have to wonder where you are going with this proposition. What is at stake is completely out of the hands of ANY worker in ANY industry. The forces at play in this policy decision (and I am presuming you are continuing on from your last piece..correct me if I am wrong) could be of great consequence to not only local (Qld’.) employment in the mining sector, but throughout and beyond the influence of Australia..Climate Change politics and radicalism is now a world-wide concern…for good reason, and placing the workers of Qld’. at the centre of the politics is a tad difficult to justify and a tad unfair to utilise.

A transition to other employment is, I agree, difficult for the miner / worker trained and used to systemic employment for many years..but if one keeps on financing such high employment and training projects, the inevitable…inevitable winding down of obsolete projects will be just that more difficult and more horrendous.

The difficulty in this current situation, is the double fact that all mining projects currently operating or planned are run on the capital / shareholder based economic structure and with a federal govt’ not interested in govt’ owned energy producers, there is little ambition to move those miners employed and the young folk from the regions into alternative energy employment..and most employment in the mining industry is of a skills level relatively easily managed in training.

A bit of a check-mate situation managed by corporate capital and government indolence so far out of the hands of the workers who are but pawns in the game.

FreethinkerJune 15, 2017 at 5:57 pm

I will take more time to reply to other point in your article but for start I disagree with you views about the Greens.
Read please the Greens Platform which it is not perfect but better that the one from both big parties
https://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-energy
https://greens.org.au/policies/natural-resources-forests-mining-fisheries

Quote from their page:
A prosperous and sustainable economy relies upon a healthy natural environment. Economies exist within, and are dependent upon, natural systems. Environmental stewardship is, therefore, central to sound economic management.
In order to provide for the needs of present and future generations, economic management should prioritise improving the quality of life rather than the production and consumption of material output. The pursuit of continuous material-based economic growth is incompatible with the planet’s finite resources.
Human induced climate change poses the greatest threat to our world, requiring Australia and all nations to transform to a low carbon economy. The cost of addressing climate change now is far less than the cost of failing to do so.

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 5:59 pm

Thanks, when you respond, can you also please point out where I have expressed an opinion about The Greens? Except to tell Shorten to leave the environmentalism to them?

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 6:03 pm

Placing the workers of Qld’. at the centre of the politics is a tad difficult to justify and a tad unfair to utilise.

I am at a loss how you see this as a point I have made in this article. Some of the things you talk about however, do connect to the article. That is why I am suggesting a set of national reforms, to counteract various issues. Not just see renewables as the simple solution.

If you placed the worker at the centre of the framework and the coal you speak of was phasing out or didn’t exist? What are the answers to your own questions?

diannaartJune 15, 2017 at 6:10 pm

Let’s just mine all coal to keep workers in jobs until all fossil fuels run out.

Apparently to suggest that mining workers be retrained for post fossil-fuel-run-out is not a consideration. In fact it may even be ‘elitist’ to suggest that mining workers be retrained for alternative technologies.

Just one question. When fossil fuels do run out. What happens to workers then?

Another question. Telstra, yet again, is “restructuring” itself by slashing the jobs of 1400 workers. Where’s Labor’s outcry? Or are only certain jobs not “elitist”?

Damn it, more questions. Why do you favour mining sector jobs over other jobs? Why create a division between workers at all?

That is hardly “inconsequential” now is it?

FreethinkerJune 15, 2017 at 6:13 pm

Joseph Carli, the argument put by many regarding lost jobs due to closure on mining is wrong
In USA as an example ( a fact that Donald Trump does not like) solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce.
This confirm the argument put by Richard Di Natale regarding solar and wind energy in Queensland.

Also we have to remember that it is the intention of the mining companies to automatise the machinery and transportation of the coal which will have as a result job loses.
If the argument that will be difficult to training miners to work in the eco-energy plants, the same we can say about few of these workers operating robots, computers and automatic machinery.

Joseph CarliJune 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm

You : ” The Author argues that climate change activism is led from a position of privilege. To counter this, the worker must be central to the climate change debate.”….

ME: “Placing the workers of Qld’. at the centre of the politics is a tad difficult to justify and a tad unfair to utilise.”

You: “I am at a loss how you see this as a point I have made in this article.”

You: “What are the answers to your own questions?”

Me: “The difficulty in this current situation, is the double fact that all mining projects currently operating or planned are run on the capital / shareholder based economic structure and with a federal govt’ not interested in govt’ owned energy producers, there is little ambition to move those miners employed and the young folk from the regions into alternative energy employment..and most employment in the mining industry is of a skills level relatively easily managed in training.”

The federal / State govt’s must reclaim control of the energy producing industries, both raw materials and production / distribution..There is the opportunity for security of supply and delivery, security of apprentice training and “end of working life” support. But as I said above… there is no appetite at the moment for such large ventures to be taken up by either State (except, it seems; South Aust’ ) or Federal govt’s. A tragedy, because blind Freddy can now see just what a mammoth and spectacular failure and disaster privatisation has been.

FreethinkerJune 15, 2017 at 6:20 pm

Trish Corry June 15, 2017 at 5:59 pm
Thanks, when you respond, can you also please point out where I have expressed an opinion about The Greens? Except to tell Shorten to leave the environmentalism to them?

Exactly Trish, why environmentalism to them?
Are you suggesting that the Greens only are interested in the environment and do not have any other policies or concerns?

Trish without healthy environment there is no quality of life and no jobs as well, we are part of the ecosystem, just one tiny part of it.

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 6:25 pm

The comment is about Shorten’s narrative, not the Greens. As the article is about the working class. I think I made your last point in my article as one reason we can’t talk about a serious jobs and economic transition.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Why equate environmental activism to elitism?
Why use the same ploys of hijacking positive language for reverse meaning with probable negative consequences?
Why be prepared to play the same semantics and eloquent debating tactics as the little Liberal twats who have done that through their student and young Lib years?

People need jobs. Even more so as this Lib/Lab dinosaur duopoly persist to frustrate and reduce our diverse lives of many opportunities. (That’s why we need further discussion of equitable concepts such as the Job Guarantee as espoused by Modern Monetary Theory, so that every role in society is given both a social and economic worth.)

However, just coz we need jobs, does not mean any job will do. Working on the Adani mine and assisting with the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef equates to economic prostitution and can be equated to its social kin which many people put their noses up against.

LeahJune 15, 2017 at 6:50 pm

Meanwhile there are predictions that within the next decade, and from then on, countless thousands of formerly relatively “secure” and reasonably well paid jobs will be replaced by robots.

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm

Thanks Leah. I forgot to mention in my article that was another consistent reason given by CC activists as to why we can’t talk about a serious transition for jobs and the economy towards a post coal world.

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 7:08 pm

Because it needs to be pointed out Jennifer so workers are not forgotten and workers are the focus as we move towards a post coal world. Urgent reform is needed for jobs and economy now. Not later. Sorry if the word makes you or anyone else uncomfortable.

helvityniJune 15, 2017 at 7:36 pm

“Why do you favour mining sector jobs over other jobs? Why create a division between workers at all?”, Diannaart asks the Labor….

The Coalition and Anna (Labor) want to concentrate on mining jobs at the time when world wants cut down emissions…Maybe our saviour, who promised ‘jobs and growth’ will take care of the 1400 people losing their Telstra jobs, and no doubt of all other jobless people….
Mal , please prove that you are a man , not a mouse, and honour your promises:’vote for us and the job numbers will GROW.’

‘You just have to get innovative and agile’ ; I’m all that the jobless say, but I’m still not rewarded.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 7:55 pm

Unless you’ve been blind, Trish, you will have noticed I care almost mostly for workers unless they’re not workers or families in destitution or the homeless or the dispossessed or the savaged environment or abused animals etc, etc, etc.

Sadly Trish,

the way you argue for workers’ rights still appears to be elitist in your focus coz they still have something to grasp onto. Your stubborn support for Pliberchuck’s pathetic response gives both you and her no merit coz it is now well documented that Adani cannot address Qld growing unemployment and under-employment.

Time to tell Pliberchuck to get off her butt and collaborate with grassroot groups to decide smart solutions for alternative employment opportunities in renewable energy industries that Queensland is well known to be able to provide otherwise why should YOU be called “the Sunshine State”?

FreethinkerJune 15, 2017 at 8:01 pm

Jennifer, Qld is in grave danger of becomes the Toxic State instead of the Sunshine State.
There is not a tad of political will to look for options, instead in the same all traditions of Joe “solutions” make a quick dollar without caring for the consequences.

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 8:03 pm

If it is viewed as elitist to put the worker first and argue strongly for a serious economic and regional focused jobs transition, towards a post coal world, then the powerful right wing conservative worker hating bourgeoisie have already won.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 8:13 pm

Sadly Trish,

your Qld coal workers and coal workers elsewhere have had their opportunity to mobilise for primary alternative energy industry opportunities for decades.

To be still crying about lack of such opportunities at this late stage after minimal if all effort from such worker bodies, does not cut the mustard.

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 8:43 pm

After having a long convo with an ex Hazelwood worker and unionist the other night, in the context of this article, your comment is particularly heartless.

I do hope some may read this article and actually take on the challenge to pressure political leaders and fellow activists to do better for the current and future displaced workers, and entire communities affected, rather than finding someone or something else to blame for inaction.

paulwalterJune 15, 2017 at 9:27 pm

Look don’t bother with it.

Don’t bother with anything she writes until she becomes a bit honest. It has all been dealt with previously and on many points refuted, yet Corry peddles, unmodified, the adversarial nonsense she was propagating last month as if all the comments returned her might as well have not been written since they weren’t read.

It’s just not good faith stuff, just alibis for the worst of Labor’s enviro outlook, regardless of whether this outlook is a sincere attempt at a factual representation or not. All it does is make me the more suspicious of Australian Blairite or New Labor and Corry herself.

Honest broker here?

Nah, move on…

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 9:30 pm

Our hearts go out to the now unemployed Hazelwood worker your spoke to.
Where was his (maybe her) heart when Latrobe became biggest unemployment region 20+ years ago?

Also, has your unionist friend considered how his/her workmates can automatically transfer into renewable energy industry which his/her comrades are building today???

Did you bother to ask that???

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 9:32 pm

True, Paul

Sadly Trish has lost her mojo 🙁

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 9:40 pm

If you read the article Paul, you would realise it is not an anti climate change, nor a pro coal stance. Disregarding the personal rot on here and the slurs towards me on Facebook by you, in the context of making excuses for Labor, considering in the article I call them out, your comment is just nonsense.
It is clear so far that many people including you are unable to move forward and demand better action on jobs and rethink how we handle the economy as we progress forward acting on climate change. It reinforces that many activists consider workers as inconsequential byproduct of their activism. I’m pretty sure the pro climate change lobby has won. It’s time to think about what we want the country to look like in terms of jobs and the economy moving forward towards a post coal world. If that’s dishonest, I can live with the accusation.

paulwalterJune 15, 2017 at 9:42 pm

If Trish wanted to REALLY impress me as to her credentials she would have been discussing why so little coverage of the Telstra sackings, 1400 workers, eg addressing the REAL issues of neoliberalist Oligarchy that mitigate against the working classes as to democratic representation in tandem with the despoiling of the common wealth including environment.

That is, not bellyaching against the left because it demonstrates again the ever present contradiction between what capitalism, including Blairite Laborism promises and what it actually does.

paulwalterJune 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm

Here, just reading this half an hour ago:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-difference-between-liberalism-and-leftism

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm

Jennifer you said the other day you community applauded the closure of Hazelwood. The person I spoke to is a champion. You have no idea. He is most likely more educated on this topic of how we should transition than anyone reading this, including me. I am asking for a much bigger picture than renewables in this article. If people could put down their weapons for five minutes they may actually see that.

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 9:46 pm

Why would I want or need to impress you Paul? I didn’t write the article for you. A very odd comment indeed.

FreethinkerJune 15, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Trish,
Workers are inconsequential by of the politicians that do not come with policies, the party members that do not put pressure on the politicians in their own party to change or be replaced and last but not less the people that are prepared to work in a industry or activity that damage the environment.
I am not a member of the ALP because I do not agree how it is working, but members like you, that are concerned with the environment and jobs should be active asking Anastasia Palaszczuk to come with better solutions and policies or just move to one side.
That is were your passion will get results, not in this site.

paulwalterJune 15, 2017 at 10:11 pm

Don’t worry, Trish. You don’t.

Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 10:12 pm

Completely agree. A serious transition plan I am talking about in my article should have commenced over ten years ago. If is urgent we have a vision of what we want this country to look like. Do we want the many pockets of 20% unemployment that Jennifer mentioned or prosperous regions? Hence my inclusion of Labor not putting workers central in this. I personally have been doing as much as I can. I’m off to bed now. I’ll respond to any other comments tomorrow.

Mick ByronJune 15, 2017 at 10:20 pm

Hi MS Corry I think you have written a thought provoking article
You really do seem to have a way of bringing out some strange responses from commenters and it seems to be the same ones who regularly lead the attack from what I’ve read of your past contributions. Personality conflicts?
Jennifer Meyer-Smith, “Trish lost her mojo”? hardly 😀
Who is “Pliberchuck’s”? I don’t mean it too sound too harsh but you rarely make sense

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 10:37 pm

Mick Byron,

send my regards to cornlegend and his housemaid whatever her name pretends to be 🙂

Kaye LeeJune 15, 2017 at 10:55 pm

Trish,

As a local, what are YOUR suggestions for employment opportunities in your area? What are YOUR suggestions for jobs that redundant coal miners could move into?

And could you please desist from your passive aggressive labelling of people as elitist because they are trying to protect the planet. The goal is to find sustainable employment.

Mick ByronJune 15, 2017 at 11:07 pm

Jennifer Meyer-Smith
And what is this all about “send my regards to cornlegend and his housemaid whatever her name pretends to be”
To use a Hanson line please explain

paulwalterJune 15, 2017 at 11:18 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior

silkwormJune 15, 2017 at 11:25 pm

Wind and solar are industries that employ workers too, you know. Why privilege coal workers over renewables workers?

P.S. The Adani mine does not yet exist, so if it does not go ahead, inshallah, there will be no jobs lost.

Kaye LeeJune 15, 2017 at 11:39 pm

“The report said competition from Adani’s Queensland mine would reduce exports from Australia’s largest coal terminal at the port of Newcastle by 11 to 12 million tonnes a year — equivalent to the output of a Hunter Valley coal mine employing about 1,400 people.”

wayne johnsonJune 15, 2017 at 11:57 pm

we need clean energy why cant we retrain them to build the technology a lot of the miners have young children and in the environmental energy sector we can bring a lot of apprentices and during the mining boom why as the mining eventually does subside we have a lot of factory’s around to produce the equipment needed to build the technology i think we need to start training the kids now

JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 6:26 am

Trish
I consider myself working class and I would also consider climate change a sever threat to my employment.

wamJune 16, 2017 at 6:32 am

Planned obsolescence is to make money not help society.

There will be VETFEEHELP available and the institutions anointed by the rabbott will join with the ‘bums on seats’ vice-chancellors in the scramble for the debt cash. To waive that debt may be a start???

Certainly the selling of power has made money for fewer than the selling of telstra to the elite (the workers who invested are nearly on parity) but the power boys’ price hikes are in the 40-50% range not too far behind the ‘shed a couple of thousand more job’ telstra.

Heard the fryer announce the small and big business complaints about power his office has received. Pensioners and their power costs didn’t get a mention.

ps
Keep the diludbransimmiks(elites) in context as an establishment of the elite loony 10% being marginally ahead of Pauline 8% whose concept of Adani’s altruim in helping raise the lifestyle of the poor of India takes care of the neo-loonies.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 8:32 am

Kaye Lee, If a key term is overtly displayed in a heading, then in the body the argument that key term is defined by synthesising sociology/feminist and environmental bodies of literature and then detailing that support for the argument in the article- it is hardly passive aggressive. It is blatantly overt and direct. The opposite of passive aggressive.

Some of my ideas are listed as points within the article. I have no idea what you mean “as a local” This has an impact on all of Australia.

And for the record, I won’t desist.

Sadly, the majority of comments on this article, only reinforce the main argument of the article.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 8:37 am

Thanks Wayne. Some good ideas there. I list a few ideas in my article about apprentices and training as well. This article is not about Adani, it is about the progressive shift in our industry as we move towards a post coal (and possibly post beef) Australia; which has an impact on what our jobs and economy look like.

However, regardless of project, if a job opportunity was going to occur for a group of individuals and that project no longer went ahead, it could be argued that these are lost jobs. I really do not want to make this about Adani, though. It is much bigger than one project.

I agree, we need to start training kids now (probably ten years ago) but yes, now.

diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 9:46 am

Of course, this article should not be about Adani – apart from its timely example of the worst of private enterprise and government subsidising.

The decades of big business and government subsidies into large scale, low employment enterprises have resulted in Australia losing the skills of many trades and placed reliable workers into the dole queues. This trend is not unique to Australia, it is a world wide trend across the majority of the OECD nations (except for those canny Scandinavians who are able to plan for the future and care for people’s welfare).

However, the blatant harm caused by profiteers and their government cronies is not the debate here, any more than it is about Adani. The issue Trish is concerned about is the effect on jobs by elitist environmental activists.

Now it is not difficult to ascertain the damage to secure employment wrought by the aforementioned profiteers/governments, I see examples of it every day; from people sleeping out in the CBD to people working for less hours and less pay for the basics of life’s necessities.

I have not been privy to the impact on workers by elitist environmental activists – I hadn’t even heard the term before until Trish introduced it to this forum. No doubt they exist, human nature lends itself to feeling superior to others at every opportunity – which is why communism never really worked, but I digress.

Trish, I read your analysis of what elitism is, could you please identity exactly who these elitist environmentalists are (names, groups)? Being on a very low income myself, I rarely come into contact with the wealthy.

What percentage of the environmental movement do they hold?

… and detail the damage to employment prospects.

For convenience, you need only discuss the impact here in Australia by these elitists.

Thank you.

Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 9:59 am

Action on climate change and concern about the environment has nothing at all to do with privilege or elitism. It is about survival. “Leave the environmentalism to the Greens” is an astonishing abrogation of the responsibility we all must take to defend the planet.

As I mentioned before, the goal should be sustainable jobs and the reason I asked for your employment suggestions as a local is that you mention regional solutions. Opening Adani might provide a few jobs for regional Queenslanders temporarily but at what cost?

At the peak of construction, Dr Fahrer estimated, there would be about 2400 workers. But there was a catch. He found that these jobs would come at the expense of around 1500 jobs in manufacturing, agriculture, and from other mines. Overall, Fahrer said the Adani mine and railway would create “on average around 1464 employee years of full-time equivalent direct and indirect jobs”.

Should the medical profession who exposed the dangers of smoking not have done so because of the jobs that would be lost in the tobacco industry?

JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 10:23 am

Trish
I would like to the end of massive military expenditure, millions of JOBS are tied up with the military. What about the person in the factory building ground to air missiles or cluster bombs etc. These jobs would have to go for a more peaceful planet.

Mick ByronJune 16, 2017 at 10:24 am

Trish Corry
I took the time to look up some of the terms used in your article
Ideological elitism is often combined with compositional elitism. Ideological elitism accuses environmental reform proposals of having the underlying purpose of distributing benefits to environmentalists and/or costs to non-environmentalists, particularly to the least privileged. In other words, accusations of ideological elitism charge that concerns for environmental protection is a subterfuge for the pursuit of self-interest.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~hallman/ELITISM.htm

Aside from at-home environmentalism, the rich can afford to support state and federal policies favoring the environment without considering personal financial impact. For example, a Pew Research Center Poll found that two major voting groups oppose the Keystone XL pipeline: Democrats who make more than $100K annually and Democrats with college or advanced degrees. Vast environmental implications aside, constructing the Keystone XL pipeline would tangibly benefit the poor, who at present can’t afford gas accrued by lengthy commutes and old cars.

While the poor are understandably more concerned with job creation and saving gas money than saving the planet, the rich can deride from a distance anyone in favor of Keystone XL’s construction.

https://www.elephantjournal.com/2014/12/is-environmentalism-elitist/

I understand the concerns of many about the cost of power and at present renewables are out of reach of the many. I have spent almost $80,000 to get to a carbon neutral position but speaking to others and my employees their greatest concern is having an affordable energy source to provide the necessities of life at an affordable price.To them renewables are the future but the costs are beyond their means,They seek an affordable energy source and at present that is coal.Of course they have concerns for the environment and future generations but unfortunately they have to survive,provide heat light and power on an affordable here and now.Many dread the next power bill and that occupies their thoughts much more than debates about coal or renewables,one being hardly affordable to them and the other beyond their means

RoswellJune 16, 2017 at 10:37 am

Why do you favour mining sector jobs over other jobs?

Very valid question, diannaart. I like it.

To put it into context, “why favour a small percentage of jobs in a sector that has no future over a large percentage of jobs in thriving industries?”

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:02 am

Kaye. This is much bigger than Adani. I have listed a set of questions to be asked in the article as the reason we need a set of national progressive reforms as we move with action on climate change.

Action on climate change, when it disregards the impact on workers who will be displaced, is indeed from a position of privilege.

I have used an analysis of the literature, rather than just putting forth my own opinion for a reason Kaye.

Environmental elitism has three constructs detailed in the article below. Impact elitism is the one focused on as discussed. To ignore the impact on jobs as one champions for those jobs to be extinguished for a (positive) change, then the focus is only on the positive action, ignoring the negative consequence of job loss. It is indeed a position of privilege. Unless you are a coal or heavy industry worker and look forward to a world of unemployment with nothing else in its place for the greater good – then you are a Martyr. Essentially, the argument here is some commenting want displaced workers to be martyrs for the greater good. That is indeed privileged. Don’t they deserve for us to fight for a just transition for them?

Activists have said to me in the last few weeks that they would consider beef on the agenda next, as beef farming it is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. One even put up a detailed scientific explanation of how they can now reproduce beef without cows.

When climate activism (for a positive action) seeks to shut down beef farming, will activists be more sympathetic to farmers than they are coal workers? Is Beef Farming “less icky?”

Please reflect on action to job losses when it is an externality that we don’t agree with, such as the Government removing subsidies from the car industry and SPC. I still ONLY buy SPC to this day. I will always drive a Holden, but that is another story.

Please reflect on the position of caring for the jobs that will be lost if we don’t act on climate change. Is that a faux reaction of sympathy and outrage for workers, or a meaningful one?

Then reflect on the position of not caring for jobs in an industry that is despised and needs to shut down for positive change.

Then reflect on the position that says we can’t talk about a new future for these workers, and it is shouted down because in doing so means that you do not believe in climate change.

Then reflect on the position that says we can’t talk about a new future for these workers, and it is shouted down because climate change matters above all else.

Then reflect on the position that says we can’t talk about a future for these workers for the other million reasons that will follow.

Do you not agree that a positive action such as action on climate change that is being fought for to shut down an entire industry has negative consequences? Or do you just think it will be all apples? Or do you think the workers are insignificant? If not, what should be done about it?

The point is, CC is agreed upon, the change IS here. As more calls for change from activist emerge and Govt responds, the more our industrial landscape will change. My article argues for a series of national reforms to coincide with the action taken on climate change. Displaced workers need activism for a JUST transition. I point to the ACTU meme in the article. I don’t see any party getting off their arse and doing a thing about encouraging new industry to make jobs long term and sustainable in this shift. We need to think about what we want the country to look like. Not just smile and say “we did it! too bad about the unemployed though!”

This answers Dianna’s and Roswell’s question as well. Why care about jobs at all? It is clear many commenting here do not.

If this article sticks in anyone’s guts who hasn’t given a thought to advocacy around displaced workers in the coal free world you fight to have (with beef farming possibly next to kill off). It is meant to.

Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 11:03 am

I cannot understand using the power bill debate as a defence for coal. We do not have a price on carbon, we provide billions in fossil fuel subsidies, and power prices have still skyrocketed. Coal and gas aren’t cheap.

Solar energy is now cheaper in Australia than retail power prices in most capital cities after dropping 58 per cent in the past five years. The cost is predicted to fall a further 40 per cent to 70 per cent by 2040.

As for jobs, the solar sector employs 2.8 million people globally, outnumbering coal jobs. In the United States, solar now provides
twice as many jobs as coal. Over 8,000 Australians are now employed in solar and solar has the potential to create thousands more jobs as it grows.

Nationally, coal mining is projected to cut its workforce by 21 percent by November 2020, according to Commonwealth Department of Employment projections.

In Queensland, all parts of mining (coal, as well as gas and other resources) are projected to fall by 7,400 jobs to 2020.

Even disregarding the environmental cost, if you care about people having secure jobs, coal mining is NOT the way to go. You are making false assertions when you say the commenters are ignoring the need for jobs. It is those who pretend that coal mining will provide them who are being the privileged elitists who want those very high wages they have enjoyed to continue regardless of the consequences.

Hettie LynchJune 16, 2017 at 11:12 am

Three points.
1. There are NO jobs on a dead planet.
2. It’s not that the 69,000 jobs depending on the Great Barrier Reef individually have more importance than the 50 direct and indirect jobs that Adani’s own sworn testimony claims (if you allow a 30 year life for the mine- 1464 job years ÷ 30 = 50 near enough). It’s that those are jobs now, held by workers who spend their money in the local area, pay tax here, keep the local economy humming. The most wildly over optimistic estimate of 10,000 Adani jobs is still only a tiny fraction of the jobs that will collapse with the Reef.
3. The push for environmental responsibility may be led by the better off, better educated, but the people who will suffer first and most from climate change, are starting to hurt now, are overwhelmingly the worst off, the least educated. Those who can’t afford air con, let alone afford to run it for long periods.
Those who live far from their jobs and have to pay a big chunk of their income to get to work.
Those who rent substandard housing that is vulnerable to storm and cyclone damage, because they can afford nothing better.
Mining employs only a tiny fraction of the workforce. Renewables employs far more.
It is difficult to find comparison figures for Australia, but several websites state that in the US, jobs in the renewable sector outnumber jobs in the fossil fuel sector (which includes oil as well as coal and gas) by a factor of 5 to 1.
Jobs for women in renewables are also increasing rapidly, now 29% of the total.
So sorry Trish, but your analysis is deeply flawed, clearly driven by ideology not evidence and ultimately does both you and your cause a grave disservice.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:15 am

Case in point from Hettie above of WHY we can’t talk about displaced workers and why anyone is concerned about the impact on jobs as we move with these new changes is shouted down as a climate change denier.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:16 am

Thanks Mick. A good addition.

JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 11:31 am

Trish
What are your suggestions about how the transition could work ?

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:31 am

I am amazed (well not really) at the amount of commenters who position me a climate change denying pro-climate banshee when the article clearly calls for unity in moving forward in unity WITH these changes.

This article does not speak about resistance to CC at all. This article calls for those who ONLY talk about climate change to start thinking about a new way forward for jobs and using the same energy used in climate change activism towards activism to DEMAND a just transition for workers.

Not platitudes, not ‘feelings’ but action.

Where will the Govt build these renewables and when?
Where will they be?
How many short term and long term jobs?
Is that enough?
Do we need to attract non-energy related industry to keep certain regions viable as well?
Do we need to reskill people? How? At what cost?
As coal industry dies, will the revenue be replaced by other means? if not? What does that mean?
Will certain regions be impacted more than others? if so, what needs to be done?
and a million other questions, some, not mentioned by any commenting here, are listed in the article.

Rather than reflecting on the personal and taking offence, look at the bigger picture. It might feel nice and safe to be amongst the band of people calling for change, but stepping out of that and asking the questions about what happens next once the goal is achieved (which is is now being achieved), is not as comfortable is it?

Hence the article’s conclusion:
Reframing and placing the worker at the centre of the policy debate and self-identifying privilege is the first step. A step towards a synergistic policy framework of positive climate change action united in positive progress for the worker.

Going by the comments on this article, there is a long, long, long way to go.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:32 am

Labor has put out a transition plan which I have linked in the article. I’ll write a piece on that later on.

Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 11:38 am

Case in point of you entirely misrepresenting what Hettie said. She in no way “shouted you down as a climate change denier” and, far from ignoring workers, the majority of her comment was about jobs and future employment opportunities.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:40 am

Case in point that it is the same lecture given that there is no reason to worry about jobs because renewables (that are not happening in abundance by the way) are better. The lecture in itself about climate action instead of engaging in a discussion about jobs for displaced workers, is the case in point. One which you are continuing to engage in Kaye.

diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 11:57 am

I have never called you, Trish Corry, a climate denier. You are misunderstanding people when they point out the cruel reality, that to ensure our future and this includes employment, we must do a lot more to repair and maintain the environment.

As others have pointed out, ad nauseam, finding short term jobs in a dying industry such as coal mining, is a mistake.

You claim people here at AIM are not understanding your position on job creation. The majority of posters here have clearly stated their concern for workers and the future.

You deliberately reframe MY questions – well at least the single one you answered:

This answers Dianna’s and Roswell’s question as well. Why care about jobs at all?

I did not ask “why care about jobs at all”. I asked very clearly, why care more about coal mining jobs than other workers?

In your previous article “Australian Politics – an Aimless Discourse”, I gave the example of the Hazelwood closure in some detail. You did not bother to comment at all. However you have since suggested above that you are now concerned about the Hazelwood workers having spoken to a former employee. What you have not done is made clear the reasons for the Hazelwood closure.

The plant was ancient and failing and owned and closed by foreign investors – nothing to do with environmentalist activity.

Hazelwood was closed with only 5 months notice to workers – there were NO plans for worker retraining until AFTER the fact, both Labor and the LNP knew well in advance the age and imminent close of the plant if not the actual date. There is NO excuse for such poor performance leading to the unemployment of many workers.

As processing plant age or become obsolete plans can be made for workers. This responsibility is within the power and ability of both business and government. Both are failing us.

Instead you wish to argue that workers are being disadvantaged by “elite environmentalists”?

Again I ask, who exactly are these influential elitists that they concern you more than the lack of accountability by government and business?

BlairJune 16, 2017 at 12:05 pm

So, no mention that mining companies are automating from “the pit to the port” so there are very few jobs anyway. Corporate shill!

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm

Sorry, I forgot to mention that is another reason why we can’t talk about a future for displaced workers. It was mentioned about. For the record I have absolutely nothing to do with the mining industry. No family works there either. My concern is about jobs. Thanks.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 12:23 pm

Dianna, I don’t normally reply to you. but I would like to outline this from you:
As others have pointed out, ad nauseam, finding short term jobs in a dying industry such as coal mining, is a mistake.

There is absolutely nothing in my article that speaks to the continuation of coal. You are however, still finding excuses about why we can’t talk about what the post coal world will look like and how we get there in terms of sufficient work. Cheers.

paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 12:30 pm

So you “dont normally reply” to Diannart either. Are you a snob?

What “intellectual elitism” is this”?

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm

No Paul. I am not a snob.

Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Annual direct FTE employment in renewable energy activities in Australia was estimated at 11,150 in 2015-16, a decline of 8,070 FTE (-42%) from a peak of 19,220 in 2011-12.

This decline in FTE employment in renewable energy activities has mainly occurred due to a decrease in the number of roof-top solar photovoltaic (PV) systems being installed on the roofs of homes (over a 60% decrease between 2011-12 and 2015-16)

Total annual direct FTE employment in wind power has been varied, with a high in 2013-14 of 1,720 to a low of 620 in 2015-16

In 2015-16 NSW recorded the highest level of annual direct FTE employment in renewable energy activities of any state or territory in Australia, with 2,920 FTE employees. Queensland recorded 2,710 Victoria 1,900 , Tasmania 1,190, Western Australia 1,060 and South Australia 710. The ACT recorded 550 FTE while the NT recorded 110.

The largest fall in FTE employment occurred in Queensland, where employment fell from 5,570 to 2,710 between 2011-12 and 2015-16

Employment in renewable energy activities is influenced by policies put in place by federal, state/territory and local governments including renewable enrgy targets and feed-in-tariffs.

Aside from renewable energy projects, displaced miners could work on mine regeneration and reforrestation. Power interconnectors could be built between states.

diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 12:46 pm

@Paulwalter

Trish doesn’t like to answer my questions, nor my comments and gives me the distinct impression I am on some kind of personal vendetta.

I think she doesn’t like me. 🙁

Now.

Trish.

You haven’t mentioned specifically coal mining in your most recent piece of writing.

You have in the past.

However, lets let bygones be and talk about the future – you are in support for planning for the future? (rhetorical question).

Where and how should retrenched workers be retrained and redeployed? Oh, and what has this got to do with these “elitist environmentalists” you keep banging on about – as I have stated previously, the future of all workers is under threat and great change due to new technologies and preparation for climate change; which neither big business nor government are doing very much about (unless a little to make themselves look good).

Hint: Read Kaye Lee’s excellent post above.

Why are a small percentage of environmentalists with too much money and not enough to do, taking up so much of your precious time in research and analysis?

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 12:47 pm

Dianna – can you please re-read the section about what environmental elitism is? Thanks.

diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 12:58 pm

Trish

I understand that elitism is and I understand what environmentalism is.

What I am asking you is: WHO ARE these environmental elitists?

Do they have organisations or are they just an annoying percentage of sincere environmentalists?

You do understand what I mean by ‘sincere environmentalists’, don’t you? I am happy to explain, but have to go out now.

Ciao

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Dianna if you have to asked who the environmental elitists are then you still do not understand the term as defined by the literature outlined in the article.

paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 1:08 pm

Geez,

Still with the passive-aggressive?

JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 1:13 pm

Kaye
Aside from renewable energy projects, displaced miners could work on mine regeneration and reforestation.

Reforestation would be great and it would also be great if the land clearing happening today in Qld is very quickly stopped.

Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 1:36 pm

“The cost of reducing energy costs benefits the wealthy and excludes the poor. (Older cheaper cars versus newer Tesla cars).”

They haven’t made Tesla cars compulsory. Cheap second hand cars are still available. The poor are excluded from many things. That does not mean it is wrong for those who can afford and are willing to reduce personal emissions to do so.

“Solar panelling and insulation benefits wealthier home buyers and excludes those who rent.”

If those who can afford improvements reduce their energy drain on the grid then theoretically that should translate into cheaper prices due to decreased demand.

“People from poorer countries live in unhealthy environments. This is because they cannot afford the infrastructure or cost of electricity for a healthier, cleaner environment.”

Our coal would not make one iota of difference to that problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/05/linking-adani-coal-mine-to-social-uplift-in-india-ridiculous-says-conservationist

“Purchasing a set of environmentally friendly shopping bags as a choice between an inedible bag or much-needed food.”

A set of 8 reusable shopping bags is a one off cost of $8.99. Perhaps you could suggest to the Labor Party that, rather than paying millions for advertising, polling and endless leaflets and junk mail, they send each of their constituents a set of bags with an approriate logo like “The ALP cares about our planet”

“Wealthier advanced countries advocating against poorer countries accessing fossil fuel energy. Although this may be a step enable fuelling, farming, agriculture and new industry.”

Wealthier countries have been asked to contribute to the Green Climate Fund designed to assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change. At its board meeting in South Korea held in March 2015, the GCF refused an explicit ban on fossil fuel projects.

“Activism to shut down an energy intensive plant, even though its closure will result in mass layoffs.”

Can you please provide an example of activism shutting down an energy plant? The closures of which I am aware have been due to aged equipment which was not economically viable to upgrade or to unprofitablity.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 1:44 pm

Hang on…. I’ll email the authors from the articles in the literature who gave the examples. It might take me a while to track them down ?

Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 1:48 pm

What’s that mean? Don’t you have an opinion? Am I not allowed to comment on their opinions? Are my comments/thoughts unworthy of response and I should just accept what “the authors” say without discussion? Did you even read my responses?

You are quick to tell others they don’t understand. Perhaps you could correct my understanding of your examples of environmental elitism by responding to what I said rather than sarcastically rolling your eyes.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Do you Kaye? Do you have any thoughts on if we need a set of national reforms for job creation? Do you think that displaced workers deserve advocacy and activism? Do you think the ACTU meme that is asking for the same thing I am is wrong
Do you even believe that the actions pushed for on Climate Change such as shut down coal will even displace workers? That’s a key question. If you don’t, you won’t see any value in what I have written. You are not commenting in any seriousness of what the article calls for. Basically this nitpicking rubbish that has continued since it was published adds nothing.

Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 2:01 pm

“Do you think the ACTU meme that is asking for the same thing I am is wrong”

I totally agree with the meme and see no resemblance between it and your attack on what you call environmental elitism or your assertion that environmental activism comes from a position of privilege.

It is apparent you do not want discussion. You want unquestioning agreement as you persistently and wrongly accuse everyone of not giving a shit about jobs.

I give up.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 2:09 pm

Kaye you REALLY need to move beyond the personal offence you feel. If you cannot understand that activists who only care about the positive action and not the negative consequences from that action, which then is from a position of privilege; then I can only assume the argument is too complex for you and I cannot help you further. It is explained in detail with two different points of view from socialism and environmentalism. Do you have an understanding of what it means to put the worker at the centre of the debate? If you do, and you do that, you may view climate change action (which I am not saying is a bad thing) has a negative affect on the worker.

Don SutherlandJune 16, 2017 at 2:10 pm

Most of the comments so far have focussed on some aspect of detail that Trish has used to reinforce her main thematic and, also in my opinion, critical strategic point. I do not agree with every single point either. However, Trish is profoundly correct in pushing a discussion that focuses on the centrality of workers in the transition from a fossil fuel based economy / society to one based overwhelmingly on clean renewables. That is what should be focussed upon in the discussion that she is provoking. She is not the first to do so, but that she, here in this moment in the Australian context, has done so is necessary and reinforces the discussion that is happening in other parts of the world and pushed by others here in Australia.
Fossil fuel energy production, in its whole process exploits nature: that is, what is drawn from the earth and the associated collateral damage is not restored or repaired and inflicts greater harm in the atmosphere as its end product. The earth and the atmosphere are exploited. In this total production process, that is also a labour process, the majority of human beings are simultaneously exploited (and in various ways alienated in the process) by being paid a wage that is much less than the value that each and all of them have created. When working miners together work on the machines to take ore from the ground they are paid only a part of the value of that ore. The owners and boards of BHP, RIO TINTO, ADANI, FORTESCUE AND SO ON do not do any of that work. They take the the lot and then pay a portion back as the wage. That is exploitation. And their ongoing capital accumulation depends on that exploitation being left undisturbed. Each form of exploitation, one of nature and one of working humans, is interdependent in the total process. The strategy to slow down, reverse, and ultimately prevent exploitation of both nature and humans in a new type of society starts now rather than one where we start now to prevent the exploitation of nature by a minority but wait until that happens until we then address the exploitation of most humans by a minority of them.
Check out various books and articles at Monthly Review for more on this and the web site Trade Unions for Energy Democracy.
For a home grown Australian case study of the principles at stake: that the state of the environment and control by workers over labour processes are powerfully interdependent, turn your minds to the Green Bans led by Mundey, Owens and Pringle and the members of the BLF.

RoswellJune 16, 2017 at 2:17 pm

Trish, forgive me if I’m wrong but you made it sound that I don’t care about jobs. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

I would rather support a number of industries that would support, say, 30,000 secure ‘green’ jobs over (again), say, 10,000 jobs in a coal industry that has no future.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm

Thanks. Look up “Not all Men” we are in a similar position here it seems.

It isn’t about what we support. It is an inevitable future.
The question is, is there a movement pushing for the serious questions of how we transition to this new coal free energy efficient landscape. I do not see one. I am asking that people start thinking about the negative consequences of job losses. Climate change isn’t good! We have fires and cyclones here. However as someone who takes a worker’s view, creating poverty for the greater good, isn’t a world I want either.

I will reiterate again, there is nothing in my article nor my personal position that is pro coal, but pro jobs, regardless of the myriad of people who misrepresent my position and prefer to believe what they like.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 2:27 pm

Thanks Don. I will certainly look at that info.

Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 3:08 pm

“Kaye you REALLY need to move beyond the personal offence you feel.”

I feel no personal offence whatsoever. I feel incredible frustration at unproductive blaming.

In the vain hope that some of us are still trying to be constructive….

60 biggest market opportunities related to delivering the Global Goals

http://report.businesscommission.org/uploads/Exhibit_2.png

diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 3:27 pm

Trish

Dianna if you have to asked (sic) who the environmental elitists are then you still do not understand the term as defined by the literature outlined in the article.

FFS. Your definition of environmental elitists does not provide any names of such people or, failing that, evidence of these people.

A definition is not proof of anything.

I have already noted in previous comments that elitists are an unfortunate part of human nature – no doubt there are some riding the environmental wagon. I agree these people could place unreasonable requests as we transition to sustainable technology.

What I want to know is who they are and, specifically, what damage they have caused.

Are these “elitists” as much of an obstacle to finding long term permanent work for all who want a job, as are big business and government failure to act in favour of the worker?

Am I not clear enough?

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 3:38 pm

Dianna in simple terms, it is an action given by an inherent set of circumstances as detailed in the privilege definition. If you do not care about the negative consequences of your activism (which harms people by changes to industry causing job losses) then as detailed in the examples it is from position of privilege, because your own set of circumstances inherently ignores consideration of that plight, your activism (positive as they may be) cause. That is the accepted definition of environmental elitism, more specifically the 3rd construct impact elitism.
Anyone who takes that position is participating in environmental elitism as defined by the actual academic term.

I hope that is now clear.

If the worker was a central point for anyone and they viewed these changes from the position of the working class, they would understand why reframing is important and why the worker needs to be placed at the centre of this climate change debate. They would not be hung up on the personal nature of the terms elitism and privilege. They would see the serious transition plan as the important part of the article to discuss.

jimJune 16, 2017 at 3:59 pm

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2817-right-wing-governments-increase-suicide-rates/ why

paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 4:25 pm

I gave it a second closer read and it is not as bad as I first thought- if I have re read it correctly.

I found the remark about Shorten favouring enviro over the worker peculiar, but that is because I don’t think Middle class Labor cares much about either except as to the symbolism of the language as it relates to its own self presentation and its use as false binary in itself playing workers and environmentalists, as do the Tories even more energetically.
It is a big problem in modern politics, which is dominated by things like the media 24 hour cycle and dumbing down in general; if I use my imagination I can eventually see where and how a proposed gendered nature of politics within this (designed?) evolving environment certainly precludes honesty for the “masculinist” ) does greed have to be gendered?) pursuit of the illusory delights of power, rather than a possible feminist politics inclusive of use value prior to exchange value.

That is, use of enviro that includes human need without thought-out conservation of resources. Less defence spending and wars, more spending on basic agriculture, housing and education, perhaps a better outlook that would see all people in society satisfied at seeing kids in Yemen recovering from agonising cholera, say.

If Trish Corry is proposing the oligarchy as the (grasping) elite it would seem a different employ of the term elite than a claiming that ordinary people like most here thoughtlessly ignore the effects of change on workers and most here would be be in sync with what she is possibly suggesting.

Certainly it resonates with the Marxist notion of commodification; the relentless casting aside of resources human and material alike, the in built disregard for the well being of any sentient creature and the bizarre behaviours of creatures like Murdoch, the Koches and Trump, who themselves are fitful and cold creations of the system they superficially appear to dominate. I suppose that not even they desired to be emotionally crippled from being born into an out of control late capitalist world and would if they knew any better, as with most of us, prefer something that combined an aspect of the productive process that allowed room for the concept, practice and experience of “humanity”.

How humanity can be de brainwashed or deprogrammed at this stage of history I don’t know, but I’ll take that away from this conversation for now.

If I’m really stupid, anyone is welcome to knock me off my perch in the meantime, because even I know that wounded pride and correction can be a small price to pay for enlightenment.

king1394June 16, 2017 at 6:13 pm

Overlooked in the coal equals jobs mantra is that coal/electricity etc have been great thieves of jobs. Once you needed 300 people with picks and shovels to do the work of one bulldozer for example. Jobs have disappeared with the growth of fossil fuel use and people have become redundant because their physical presence is not required.

diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 6:29 pm

What

Evidence

You

Have

for

Elite

Activism

Causing

Loss

Jobs

?????????????????? WHO ARE THESE ELITISTS?

You are deliberately insulting my intelligence, Trish.

I have had enough.

JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 6:29 pm

king 1394
Good point.

JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 6:33 pm

Diannaart
I commiserate with you. I think your question is valid.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Oh dear. I am really sorry you don’t understand. Maybe just ask yourself this question. Do you believe the (positive climate change) action that will result in closure of plants, mines and industry will result in job losses? If you don’t, then maybe that is why you don’t understand the arguments put forward on this article. If you do and you don’t care about those job losses because fighting climate change is the main thing, or you agree but your main mission is to shut down the (offensive) industries and you aren’t concerned about the jobs it’s just unfortunate. Then by default it is a position of privilege. Because no care is given to the negative impacts of those job losses. The article is asking for people to think about the vision of Australia without these industries by putting the worker at the centre. By focusing on the workers whilst simultaneously acting on climate change, the public can demand we transition with fairness for workers as well. I see no evidence of real discussions about how we will transition in terms of jobs. There are plenty of discussions about transitioning from coal to renewables. By putting the workers central this really impacts on how we make decisions as we move forward. See my list of questions in my article for an example.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 6:41 pm

My goodness it is not a hard concept to understand. I’ve just explained it another way.

paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 6:55 pm

Perhaps, if other settings were corrected re various social and material infrastructures- if basic standards of living and income were reintroduced- people would be less fearful of unemployment.

What is needed is an opposite approach say to Britain, where inadequacies were not “clad” in various material and cultural instances, where a less consumer fetishist culture enabled people to rediscover ignored alternatives like improved education skills and enjoyment of nature, human company, etc?

Such a beaut country and such a rich human cultural heritage, yet all millions know is the treadmill rat race with deferment of gratification rewarded in some nebulous, probably crass material way before, during, or after death.

One doubts that it well ever happen ,of course, but giving up is also unpalatable.

diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 6:57 pm

Trish Corry

You manage to sound intelligent yet, you have failed, spectacularly, to provide a shred of evidence of environmental elitism and its impact on jobs creation.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 7:06 pm

Paul you do raise a valid point. By reframing and putting the worker central to the debate the window we look through is different. In the cure debate with climate change at the centre it will look like this:
Due to POSITIVE climate action
Coal mining is eradicated
Not enough jobs created to sustain the new unemployment
The welfare is too hard to sustain and Liberals make it more tough and punitive blaming the new unemployed
The skilled unemployed take the jobs of unskilled who need a start
Extremely high unemployment in some areas
Poverty increases
Crime increases

Worker at the centre
Before all coal industry shuts down A plan is determined to plot out how to transition workers to new employment
Planning of renewables go in hardest hit areas
Non energy related industries are attracted to regions
The public accepts Government has to use tax payer funds for transitioning employees for redeployment to other industries
If still high unemployment the public realise it’s the new world and basic income support is granted rather than punitive welfare

Just a quick example. Probably has gaps, but best I can do quickly.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 7:07 pm

Thanks Dianna. It really comes down to if you believe there will be displaced jobs or not. It’s a very simple concept.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 7:09 pm

Current not cure

paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 7:12 pm

It was raised a while back on QA that Hazelwood did not need to be shut down quite as quickly as it was and Abbott’s closuring of the auto industry was just destructive malice.

The people who run things prefer churn and anxiety because they think it will distract attention from and keep them”safe”, but what use a life driven by fear?

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 7:14 pm

Yes. As more Hazelwoods occur by putting workers at the centre of debate then people who give a damn can use activism to demand a fairer outcome than the workers at Hazelwood got.

paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 7:18 pm

Diannaart, it is true that language slippage and over determination of a word’s meaning and subsequent understanding will always make these sorts of threads difficult.

I personally had trouble with the “environmental elitism” meaning also and was forced to eventually re read the whole posting which proved helpful.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 16, 2017 at 7:34 pm

We can debate to the cows come home, as to what the key imperatives are, when putting the workers front and centre in transitioning from coal to renewable energy industries.

But from my experience from the Hazelwood closure, we need Federal, State and Local Government and Statutory Authorities with their ears open and the accessibility to legislative measures that can allow flexible implementation of grassroots’ and community groups’ lived experiences of what the needs are and how they can be positively addressed.

That means we need Government contacts on board, so those possibilities are opened up for community collaboration. Otherwise, it just boils down to a feel good talk fest with little result derived from grassroots people.

Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 8:26 pm

“It really comes down to if you believe there will be displaced jobs or not. It’s a very simple concept.”

Some concepts are indeed very simple. The concept that we must stop mining fossil fuels should be easy enough for anyone to grasp. The concept that automation is replacing workers has been simple to understand from the time Henry Ford introduced the production line – or even before when someone invented the loom, or the lathe, or the printing press, or the conveyer belt, or any of the other “labour saving” inventions that are part of our reality.

The real work comes, not in trying to tell others they don’t understand the job losses, not in trying to blame people who see the need for change, but in coming up with suggestions for a changing workforce in a changing world.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 9:16 pm

An excellent contribution Jennifer. If there was strong activism around that it will happen. It will take movements to get politicians to listen the same as it does for other issues.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 9:51 pm

Kaye to expect me to write an article, that includes all the answers to a transition is very presumptuous and very short sighted. An analysis of Labor’s transition plan itself, may take more than one article. An entire series of articles would be required to discuss many aspects of transition. This article is about raising the awareness of what a transition means. And especially raising awareness that people should put the worker central when they think about action on climate change. I think what the changes matter for workers, and how we deal with that change are very, very important.

There is not widespread movement of activism that is putting the worker at the centre of the actions happening around climate change. That is quite clear.

If there was, ideas about jobs transition and communities affected would start becoming part of regular conversations and topics of blogs, and even national discourse. It is not.

The reasons you list in your comment, are just some of the reasons used to deflect discussions about displaced workers. This is very consistent with every interaction I have had online regarding this topic.

Perhaps, if people admit that climate change action will displace a lot of workers, they may feel uncomfortable thinking about that. Or might need to concede some demands with activism. that is a topic on it’s own to debate.

The comments here show how difficult it is to get a conversation going about displaced workers and future jobs in relation to action on climate change.

At least Paul has finally understood what I meant and started talking about how to transition jobs. JMS also made some good suggestions, after Paul’s post, you appear to want to continue nitpicking even on day 2. You either don’t understand the arguments presented in this article, or you are deliberately trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.

Going by your logic activism and real action for climate change has come about by not encouraging anyone to speak up and rally together, but a lone wolf with an idea expected to have all the answers.

Your logic again says that when women of colour spoke up because they felt ignored in the feminist debate, the reason they were ignored had nothing to do with white feminists inherent privilege of not seeing WOC (oppressed) position and speaking over the top of it and all around it.

The workers are being largely ignored in the climate change debate. It is like they do not exist. I am sure you are not so obstinate that you can’t at least acknowledge that fact.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 16, 2017 at 10:36 pm

So Trish,

several of us have attempted to understand the premise of your article. Good.

But also it is important that you invite your Labor MPs and political machinery insiders to come on board too or collaboration is inconsequential despite our best efforts.

To pretend otherwise is disingenuous of which I suspect you hate being accused.

Remember Trish, we’re all on the same side in varying shades, so don’t take ANY of us for granted.

Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 10:48 pm

Of course I try to get people on board. I’m sorry but I can’t understand how anyone can misread my passion on this as disingenuous. I don’t write things I know that will cause backlash for fun. I don’t argue with people in real life within my own circles for fun. I guarantee I give you that I am 100% dedicated to making sure workers are front and centre as we navigate the changes ahead. I am only a branch member in a regional branch, I am not involved in the upper echelons of politics. I can only do what everyone else can do and that is use my voice.

paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 11:48 pm

People we are much more together on these things than we realise. We realise that change can occur with much less conflict if only the system worked better.

But, we realise that powerful forces have yet to be convinced that a cooperative human-oriented society is the way to go.

A wall of horseshit has been erected by msm over a generation now, that prevents many from seeing that change is not oppositional to well being for the ordinary punter, in fact it can be welcome for all, even including, if they only realised it, the Oligarchs.

But despite the Meltdown, despite the multi-$Trillion dollar troubles in the Middle East, all of the austerity on one hand and tax dodging on the other,global poverty and angst, all the burlesque of politics in the West, which is the main source of political power in the world, the Wall of Horseshit has remained unbroken and much of the public thus still believes or has come to believe, that the abnormal has to be normal, that a fair society is inimical to the rights of the unitary human and that things like enviro and jobs must remain opposed as one of many false dichotomies that fly at people to keep them confused.

Yet there is also a hope encapsulated in the Corbyn comeback, say, or the Arab spring, that the people fight back, trying to mine a hole through the wall.

Probably, as ever, the movement will be undermined, but even the people who run things realise that not all people can be robots, or their system collapses for them too,m so they cannot kill humanity completely.

With the Grenfell episode, it can be seen how complacency tripped the bosses. First with Cameron/ Osborne austerity, Grexit and Brexit then May’s hubris. The result is that now they are discredited and they are shamefaced, forced to an enquiry into the evils that brought about the Grenfell tragedy at least tragedy and the signs do not look for them.

Realistically not much will probably come of any effort to remove the worst of oligarchy for any length of time, yet while there is life there is hope.

But just think for a moment.

Say Turnbull cocks up like May and Cameron did. Say rulers across the world also stuff up and get run out of town. Say a Labor government perhaps, kept honest by the Greens and somehow rediscovered of the ideals it once held, did work toward a resolution of unemployment and change with a commonsense approach to the role of the environment as resource that properly managed feeds the economy rather than eroding it.

In the era of Globalisation, ridiculous? Of course. Yet I cant help being in awe of the glimpses of the raw power of humanity that sometimes show themselves and the effort and pain that goes into it all.

I cant believe in it, yet I can’t walk away. So let;s think of how a genuine future can be actualised.

paulwalterJune 17, 2017 at 12:05 am

First thing I read on leaving here was this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/manufacturer-of-cladding-on-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors

Does your stomach crawl?

How can they be allowed to get away with this, then worse if they get away with it this time?

I know it is off topic, but my excuse is that I mentioned Grenfell Tower in my last post and this emphasises that.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 17, 2017 at 8:07 am

Hear, hear Paul,

to both of your last posts – except I retain hope and expectation that change for the better will happen, as we recognise how we can work together to make it happen.

Joseph CarliJune 17, 2017 at 8:32 am

Fully agree with you , Paul…and I believe it is only the Left-wing who has the sympathy and the empathy to create policy to bring such change around in the extreme face of opposition…I leave this little episode here for anyone’s interest.

A Quiet Little Corner of the World.

KeithJune 17, 2017 at 10:14 am

There is a continuum in relation to views on climate change from Malcom Roberts; the complete moronic denier to Guy McPherson et al who believe climate change will take out humans in a decade or so.
On learning about the pingoe explosions in Siberia, Dr Jason Box stated “we are fxxked”. Since making those comments there have been further pingoe explosions and concern is being expressed about the level of methane which can potentially be voided from shallow continental shelves in the Arctic Ocean. The Siberian traps (volcanic action and greenhouse gas release) in past epochs have caused near extinction according to a recent study.

https://www.livescience.com/41909-new-clues-permian-mass-extinction.html

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-domes-frozen-methane-blow-outs.html

It is not that long ago that ponds were first noticed on Greenland ice sheets, now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/15/scientists-just-documented-a-massive-melt-event-on-the-surface-of-antarctica/?utm_term=.ca26e4a977e1

Though whether the same mechanisms have occurred in Antarctica as occurred in Greenland is being questioned; whatever, it is not a good sign.

There are numerous research studies which display concerning signs which would suggest we are not at the end of the continuum as suggested by McPherson et al but certainly reaching a dangerous area. Knowing where runaway tipping points are is not able to be identified, but pose more danger than ISIS.

Many jobs have disappeared since I began work 49 years ago, some have been created through the development of the computer chip; but, now through artificial intelligence many jobs are beginning to be eroded. Not the fault of activists; for example, mechanism in the forestry industry has destroyed thousands of jobs. Where I lived in a rural area as a youngster there were a number of small sawmills within a ten mile radius, they no longer exist; industrial forestry took out those positions.

Gigafactories are being built in the US and China to produce electric vehicles and batteries; which will have an impact on the internal combustion engine. These giafactories are not being built by activists but by shrewd business people.

Clean coal is being promoted by the LNP; yet, the technology is in its infancy, and the carbon capture and storage technology adds extensively to the cost of production of energy. Battery storage is now getting to a price which is becoming increasingly affordable.
To suggest that coal sent to India will help those living at a subsistence level is very thin when the infra-structure of poles and wires are not in place.

Research and development in renewables and instalation of industrial sized plants and house sized units provides employment.

Something being lost in discussions on energy having implications for employment, has been privatisation by ideologically driven governments.

paulwalterJune 17, 2017 at 11:51 am

Yes, Keith, it is interesting how they persevere with clean coal even after the alternatives seem to scrub up better.

Fifteen years ago Australia was advanced at developing alternative energy technologies, but Howard and his Philistines knee capped progress in a thousand ways for the benefit of the fossil fuels industry. The IPA and social conservatives hobbled this country out of greed, stubbornness and ignorance.

Australia and its society are very much like Joseph Carlis shunned idiot child buried out in the sticks for reasons of cheapness. Does any neo liberal mourn her?

diannaartJune 17, 2017 at 12:08 pm

People are starting to discuss transition from old tech to new for workers – after a long belly-ache about “environmental elitism”.

Better late than never.

diannaartJune 17, 2017 at 12:13 pm

Joseph & Paul & Keith

The trust in ‘deregulation’ so-called ‘freedom of choice’ and the (controlled by the most powerful) free-market were always about placing old Dracula in charge of the blood bank. The citizens of London must needs maintain the rage…

paulwalterJune 17, 2017 at 4:00 pm

You can hope diannart. It would be a long time coming.

diannaartJune 17, 2017 at 4:10 pm

paulwalter

Pragmatism is not always a bad thing, yes, it is used to exploit and violate, it is also the only way to survive.

Pragmatism will be the backbone we need to change along with circumstances that occur regardless of human preferences.

Joseph CarliJune 17, 2017 at 4:47 pm

Paul..:” Australia and its society are very much like Joseph Carlis shunned idiot child buried out in the sticks for reasons of cheapness. Does any neo liberal mourn her?”….you hit the crux of the tale right there..; “does any body mourn her / him ” (forget the neo-liberals) …yes…the character ; “Andy” does..one person there who represents all of us, WE mourn the “lost soul”.. which is the core cry of John Donne’s most beautiful line : ” So ask not for whom the bell tolls…” and I am with Jennifer on this one..I maintain optimism.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 17, 2017 at 7:23 pm

Joseph Carli,

thank goodness I’m not the only one who defies negative barriers to what we believe common sense, common decency or simply, self-preservation dictates which equates to the magnified wider community.

paulwalterJune 17, 2017 at 8:54 pm

Glad for last few comments because it encourages a return to the underlying central point of the Trish Corry posting, the “worker centred” idea.

I think at back of it is an idea to do with “othering” and decentring, or getting oneself off one’s own case for long enough to see how others are going.

This week we saw the burying by media of Telstra sacking 1400 worker. We saw no reportage on the cholera epidemic in Yemen and the selfishness arrogance and greed at bottom of the Grenfell Towers mess. We saw 2000 odd refugees finally get a skerrick of relief in the courts, but still no sign that politicians have learnt the lessons of being involved in murderous wars.

We have to ask Trish, for progess can we identify whether human nature is genetic or culturally induced, or do we give up on the idea that the press and media can report news in a way that reasserts humanity over the wants of vested interests requiring of a manipulated public. If the press and media are not at fault how is human nature changed if the public is not fear filled and brainwashed toward all sorts of battlers but behaving”normally”, biologically?

What then?

Trish CorryJune 17, 2017 at 9:46 pm

As my field is organisational behaviour and not biology; naturally, my school of thought aligns with culturally induced.

The media are powerful. However, the media is a symbol. To look at this through a symbolic interactionist lens, the way the media creates meaning in how we view the world, is fast becoming a symbol of distrust. Activism is so powerful and it can overcome the media.

Activism is so powerful because emotion IS contagious. By placing the worker (HUMAN BEING) at the centre of the climate change debate, you are forced to view the climate change ACTION, as an externality that impacts on said human.

The question is how other humans react to this. Do we react and demand dignity, respect and safety for those who will be displaced?

Or do we react by believing the workers are an unfortunate consequence in a must do action for the greater good?

There are some environmentalists I have spoken to on this, who strongly believe, human life is secondary to the planet. Climate change above all else. These environmentalists will never, ever agree with my main arguments here. That is because the worker is not framed as central, but as by product of the main goal (I hope that makes sense).

By placing the worker at the centre of the debate, and using activism, it is a force to lobby Government to have a more emotional and human response in how they implement action on climate change.

This is a VERY simplistic answer and there is so much more to this, in terms of humans interacting with other humans and how powerful humans can be to enact change and why.

The question is not really biological or nature, but as humans in a country where we have agency, what do WE want the country to look like as we progress with action on climate change? Do we want pockets all over the country of very high unemployment and crime? Or do we want to transition, considering the human factor and keeping an even balance of fairness?

I’m not sure if that is the answer you are looking for, or I have misinterpreted your question.

Kaye LeeJune 17, 2017 at 10:58 pm

“There are some environmentalists I have spoken to on this, who strongly believe, human life is secondary to the planet.”

Human, and all other life, is not secondary to the planet. It is dependent on the planet.

I don’t see environmental activism as anethema to jobs. I have tried, in my posts, to stress that we must move to sustainable jobs and given several suggestions – I have many more. There is no reason for people in Australia who are able and want to work to be unemployed.

We must focus our education and reskilling on the future for people rather than bemoaning job losses in dying industries. Rather than blaming and labelling people as thoughtless elitists, we should be exploring the sustainable employment opportunities.

There are already pockets of crime and very high unemployment in the country. They have absolutely nothing to do with environmentalism.

paulwalterJune 17, 2017 at 11:51 pm

Both replies fit.

I think the agency question is problematic in our world, as we saw with the parallel Telstra example of ruthless job cutting for “efficiency”.
or, OTH, a lot of ugly stuff that passes as “development”, eg Deepwater Horizon, ruptured dams polluting whole ecosystems etc. given downstream costs). We see how cheap life can be with Grenfell Tower in the privileged West, let alone in the more grim examples of Mideastern warfare and say, global starvation. For over the span of my life, history has been the history of Oligarchic obstruction at every turn, from monopolism through to interference with attempts to modify use of the enviro to a more rational level by vested interests. Consider the shining example on offer of Trump and his close mates like Murdoch and the Kochs.

Hence, Kaye Lee’s comment resonates bell-like also.

I wonder how it can change on ANY front, with the times as they are.

Enviro and human rights must not be seen as a unresolvable binary, the two ideas should be assimilated easily enough in a rationally governed world, yet huge slabs of the population don’t see them as complementary, because both factors have been abused in practical situation by proprietors and governments seeking to avoid responsibility. And these oligarchic forces are the forces with the truncheons and bogus laws and monopolies on black propaganda fake news that keep things muddled and militate against the solutions rational people would want to see.

It seems to be a water tight system as to ALL species of human rights. from transitional packages for workers through to the rights of humans to fresh air, water, enviro etc, for the short term illusory gain of a very few.

What is going to change the world mentality.?

What magnitude of a Grenfell Towers before any mentality or thing even begins to change? Did things change all that much after Fukushima?

In isolated places like Australia the minimum is some times done, but its against the back drop of atypical salvage in a globally chaotic system,

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:20 am

Kaye, we have just had a tragedy in UK where many lives were lost. The decisions made by Government caused these deaths.

The decisions made by Government and what the public demands Governments do influence decisions made by Government (otherwise, CC action probably would not be happening).

When Governments take action on climate change mitigation, the decisions they make will impact on workers (humans). How activists demand we take action on climate change is very important as this does influence Govt. Otherwise, what is the point of activism at all? My case is to place the human being at the centre of this advocacy.

I am in no way relating the absolute devastating tragedy to a loss of job – but to demonstrate how political decisions impact on human lives.

The activism that will follow this tragedy will demand that Governments take a more humane response to vulnerable people and build dignified and safe housing. This activism places the human at the centre of the debate about housing for vulnerable people.

If activism just appealed to the Government to build houses, anything to put a roof over their head, not placing the person at the centre to ensure dignified and safe housing, then what is lobbied for is very different, as the action (solve homelessness) is the primary and the human is secondary (ie not at the centre of the debate).

Is ignoring the plight of vulnerable, when you demand action on homelessness because you do not seek to understand the position from ‘the lens of the vulnerable’ a position of privilege?

Is ignoring the plight of workers, when you demand action on climate change, because you do not seek to understand the position through the lens of the worker, a position of privilege?

Are you seeing any parallels at all yet?

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:39 am

Nope. The reason the fire in London happened, it seems, is because the developers went for the non-fire retardant cladding because it was cheaper – the profit motive.. I am not sure where dignity or government action in response to environmental activism fits into any of that.

Opposing new coal mines does not lead to job losses as those jobs have not yet eventuated. Let’s find better, more reliable and sustainable jobs for those seeking employment – one possible area being the construction and management of affordable and emergency housing.

paulwalterJune 18, 2017 at 12:47 am

Hold fire, please, not sure if the question is directed to readers in general.

Forgive fumbling intervention if not..

Don’t know it was the government or bad government as symptom of oligarchy. We need to know what induced the unholy neo lib attitude that saturated the tiers of government and business involved in the tragedy and whether sufficient qualified people exist in the world to deal with the uncountable legions of bureaucrats, politicians, business people and members of the public Grenfell towers seems to demonstrate seem deeply, deeply inculcated with the new black ideology of self first, whatever it takes that precludes rational responses to irrationally induced situations like Grenfell Towers.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:54 am

Kaye, there are three things I can take from your persistent line of questioning:

You do not believe privilege as a concept exists.
You understand privilege exists, but do not understand the underpinning constructs or antecedents to privilege
You are being deliberately obtuse.

Good evening.

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 1:14 am

Or perhaps I just don’t equate action on climate change with privilege and elitism or new coal mines with jobs.

Dormez bien

RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 5:17 am

Kaye said:

Opposing new coal mines does not lead to job losses as those jobs have not yet eventuated. Let’s find better, more reliable and sustainable jobs for those seeking employment,

How is that being obtuse?

Fifteen hundred jobs in renewable energy are a lot more permanent than fifteen hundred jobs in coal mining.

RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 5:28 am

On top of that, tourism along the Great Barrier Reef generates employment for 50,000 Queenslanders a year:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-05/great-barrier-reef-in-danger-listing/8093548

Let’s destroy it for 1500 jobs, shall we?

JohnoJune 18, 2017 at 8:07 am

Rosewell re the link

The Barrier Reef. Is it just simply death by a thousand cuts and cc/warming water is the final act. Similar to the 700 kilometers of mangrove habitat across the top end. From the article, no one wants to take the blame and directly or indirectly we are all to blame in one way or other. Basically, we need to clean up our act big time as these problems are in everyones backyard.

KeithJune 18, 2017 at 8:56 am

Trish

I think a false dichotomy has been established … by the argument that those who are activists in relation to climate change do not care about human circumstances; against the primary consideration we should be placing the well being particularly of those who are vulnerable from being pushed around, with the emphasis being on creating employment set as a central theme. Those concepts are not mutually exclusive; I wonder where refugees fit into your arguments? They have been treated abysmally by the LNP and Labor as shown by the recent payouts to refugees from Manus Island.

Avarice is a strong factor underlying the neo con ideology; a strong component of LNP ideology and to a lesser extent Labor.

The unemployed are hounded in Australia by a by a cruel government creating untold misery for those being pushed around.

Millions of people are dying or suffer respiratory illness through the emissions of fossil fuels.
On a yearly basis thousands of people die through the impact of climate change or are in a state where famine and lack of water resources are being experienced. Crops being lost through flooding or drought, and even fresh drinking water diminishing.
In other communities huge flooding events are happening where infra-structure is being destroyed, houses are washed away or burnt, and motor vehicles are damaged through floodwaters. Already a number of communities are needing to be moved through sea level rise in Alaska.
Disease vectors are changing.

Some scientists are suggesting that we could experience an iceless Arctic in 2020 for a short period; the significance being that sea ice ensures that temperature is maintained around freezing point. Once the ice is gone water warms rapidly; which can be shown in an experiment by half filling a glass with water and topping up with ice. The temperature of water will decrease to near freezing point and then rapidly increase once the ice has melted.

What’s Not To Like? Extinction Radio, Vanishing Sea Ice, EcoShock

Many scientists I gather suggest we are facing an ice free Arctic by around 2030; though it is highly conceivable that the Arctic could be ice free well beforehand. Temperature will soar with detrimental impact on climate once we reach an ice free state. It will then be the case that Earth’s carrying capacity of humans and other species will be hugely diminished through the impact on climate. Civil unrest and war are obvious results. The US military have been studying the matter of climate change impacts for many years.

JohnoJune 18, 2017 at 9:50 am

The relentless push for fossil fuel goes on..

Greenpeace
Ah Scandinavia. Clean and green, right? So why is an oil and gas company out of Norway planning to drill in the pristine waters of the Great Australian Bight?

We’re not Big Oil executives, so far be it for us to speculate. But in a colossally stupid move, Statoil – an oil and gas company backed by the Norwegian Government – has signed a deal with BP to take over the very permits to drill for oil in the Bight that BP abandoned last year. Statoils want to start drilling the Bight by October 2019.

Yeah, nah. That’s not happening.

Wilderness Society
Recently, community groups from Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania lined local beaches in unprecedented numbers to show their opposition to the push by Big Oil to carry out risky, deep sea drilling in the Great Australian Bight whale nursery.

Late last week, Statoil revealed plans to drill in the Bight after taking over two of BP’s exploration permits. For governments to allow oil companies to continue with this madness—after BP withdrew and released oil spill modelling that showed catastrophic risks—is beyond belief.

When BP was up to this last year Canavan started banging on about jobs.
We don’t want another deepwater horizon, that’s what we don’t want, not to mention the cc impact.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:10 am

Keith Asylum seekers policy is indeed set from a position of privilege- would you disagree?

If you reframed the current Asylum seeker policy and put Asylum Seekers at the centre of the policy development, what would change?

Is this also meant to try to convince me climate change exists and how urgent is is to act? Because my article supports the position we need to act.

Do you believe there will be no displ

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:12 am

Is this a general statement or do you see my article as a relentless push for fossil fuels?

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:17 am

Roswell Why are the workers who will be displaced by zero carbon progress less important than GBR workers?

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 10:22 am

Trish,

you are correct to argue that any action plans for the transition to renewable energy industries away from coal mining should have workers’ needs and interests in centre place so they are well represented in the new sustainable industry opportunities.

However, the environment is more important than the workers, whoever they are. You need to make it clear that you understand that.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:28 am

Jennifer IF we don’t act on climate change there will also be massive job losses. No one speaks from this position either. Apart from “There are no jobs if there is no planet” as a general statement when deflecting arguments so we don’t need to talk about displaced workers. The worker is far from central in the narrative on action for mitigating climate change. It’s almost as if they do not exist.

RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 10:33 am

I thought I answered that, Trish. There’s more of them. Lots more of them.

Perhaps I should ask you why 1500 coal workers are more important than 50,000 tourism workers?

It is just so bleedin’ obvious.

Mick ByronJune 18, 2017 at 10:33 am

Trump’s Clexit from the Paris agreement and his next target likely to be UN-CLEXIT – withdrawal from all UN climate agreements and obligations, and defunding the government climate research will be a major setback for the planet.
My fear is there will be other countries sitting eyeing of Trumps stance and if they slip Trumps way we are in for a whole heap of pain which could be a major setback in the fight against CC

RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 10:35 am

Jennifer IF we don’t act on climate change there will also be massive job losses.

Great! Now let’s focus on renewable energy and forget coal.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:35 am

No you haven’t Ross. Stating GBR workers are more important than coal workers, frankly is a sickening position of privilege. Coal workers too icky to care about are they? They should just be martyrs for the cause should they?

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:36 am

Heads up Roswell, this article says nothing about the continuation of coal jobs.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:38 am

And by not fighting for a fair transition for workers people are giving the climate deniers even more fear based ammunition. To stop people like Trump, the workers need to be central to the debate. Something so many people have trouble seeing.

Mick ByronJune 18, 2017 at 10:38 am

Roswell “1500 coal workers are more important than 50,000 tourism workers?”
where is it stated that if we have 1500 coal miners jobs 50,000 will lose theirs?
I haven’t read any reports as to this calamity so if you could provide a link to any studies that declare so it would be appreciated

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:40 am

It is a common theme amongst activists except the jobs lost number has climbed to 70k I think

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 10:42 am

Trish @10.28am,

that is an unfortunate generalisation yet again. Frequently on AIM when we are talking about this issue, commenters equate the importance and expectation of replacement jobs in the new sustainable industries that will be created.

In fact, the expectation is that those jobs will far outnumber the ones disappearing.

RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 10:46 am

Trish, you asked me a question so I answered it. And now you suggest I’m off topic. Don’t expect me to bother any more.

Mick, I linked to the article a few comments ago. I apologise in advance if I’m not around on this thread to discuss it further. I’m outta here. Differing opinions are not welcome, so it seems.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:52 am

Jennifer I spent four weeks deeply immersed in discussions on climate change to collect data to write this article. The qual analysis Used theming and these are indeed very common themes. If individuals are lobbying for how displaced workers will be treated as we move forward then obviously their behaviour is not consistent. In qualitative research even rare responses are important; however four weeks of data did not show one person talking about how we will transition workers. However some people will respond that renewables will create jobs that are better than coal jobs, which is not advocacy around a fair transition, but one fact to negate another in a context where transition is raised. If people actually cared as you say they do, at one point someone commenting would have discussed the merits or otherwise of the questions to ask to ensure a just transition in the article. No one has.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:53 am

Also I often see your last line often. The Govt can’t even decide on the Finkel report. They hardly look like they are making moves in planning a just transition.

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 11:04 am

“The worker is far from central in the narrative on action for mitigating climate change.”

I completely disagree with that. False promises of employment in a dying industry help no-one. We certainly have an unemployment problem, worse in some areas and in some demographics than in others, and destined to deteriorate as automation increases, so we should be looking at real jobs for these people and at training people for the jobs of the future.

“Activists who do try to engage only have one solution – all the coal workers will now work in renewables.”

or….

Construction of affordable housing
Mine regeneration
Landcare
Reforestation
Building public transport infrastructure
Power grids and interconnectors
Energy storage systems
Meat and food processing
Organic farming
Sustainable aquaculture
Pest eradication
Energy efficient vehicles
Information technology
Aged care
Child care
In home support services
Waste management, recycling and reusing.
Education at all levels
Tourism
Park rangers
Nursing
Police and security
Research

etc etc

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:05 am

Opinions are welcome Roswell. Not all will be agreed with. Free country do what you like.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:07 am

Kaye did you spend four weeks collecting qualitative data on this topic? I did. The themes I mentioned are indeed prominent.

The fact the you STILL believes this is somehow trying to cling onto coal, means you do not understand what a fair transition means? Is there anything in my questions in my article that alludes to clinging onto coal?

townsvilleblogJune 18, 2017 at 11:11 am

I really don’t like two giants of AIM arguing Trish and Kaye you both are fantastic people and your arguments so well researched and delivered that you both should be proud of your essay’s please try to compliment each other instead of argue, please.

JohnoJune 18, 2017 at 11:21 am

Trish
When BP was stopped/ or decided to abandon their drilling attempt in the Bight, Canavan began discrediting environmentalists and gave the usual job mantra. If you didn’t want the new current attempt by Statoil to go ahead what would you do ?

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 11:26 am

You blame “environmental elitism” for “mass layoffs”.

Can you give me one example of this?

The vast majority of job losses in the mining industry are because of falling commodity prices, falling demand, and automation, not environmentalism.
The car industry didn’t die due to environmentalism.
Manufacturing is dying because companies are offshoring to where there is cheap labour and bigger markets.

Blaming environmentalists for unemployment doesn’t stack up in my opinion and labelling them as privileged elites misses the point.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:33 am

No I am NOT blaming environmentalist elitism for Mass Layoffs.

I’m sorry Kaye. I cannot explain the concept of privilege in a fifth way. It’s not a new concept.

Mick ByronJune 18, 2017 at 11:36 am

Roswell
just in case you do pop your head back in thanks for the link – which outlines how many are employed but nowhere coild I find expected job losses.It seems that if 50,000 jobs is bandied around people will come to believe that number will be job losses- not the case
What I did ask for is predicted tourism jobs destroyed and I can’t seem to get any research on that or even if there will be any job loses in tourism at all

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:40 am

Kaye are you denying that there will be

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 11:44 am

As I said on June 16 @ 7.34pm,

community activists exist everywhere but they also need well-meaning government officials who genuinely strive to facilitate community activists’ involvement and collaboration with ideas borne of the people at ‘coal-face’ so their needs are addressed.

We also need those government officials to be on hand to provide assistance to other community groups with inspired ideas to promote grassroots’ alternative industries that can provide an array of goods and services.

Those same government officials must be able to interpret and adapt legislation to support such positive public infrastructure and service projects with the over-arching objective that each initiative is equitable, sustainable, innovative and time effective.

That was not my experience with the State Labor Government, Latrobe City Council and Latrobe statutory body especially set up.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:44 am

Kaye are you denying that there will be job losses as we move to a zero carbon future? No existing jobs in a country heavy in the resources industry will go? The international council of Trade Unions disagrees with you. Along with action on climate change UNLESS You also address the needs of displaced workers you are acting from a position of privilege. The privilege doesn’t displace the workers, the action of what you demand the action be, when you ignore the displaced workers in that demand is the ACTION of privilege. Well there you go, I can explain it five ways.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:45 am

And how do we get Govt to listen?

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:48 am

Kaye it states in discussions from stakeholder groups in talks for the Paris Agreement that many workers will be displaced as we move to a carbon neutral society. To flip this off as these jobs are all going anyway and it has nothing to do with action on climate change, is in disagreement of the discussions held in the biggest climate change forum to date.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:51 am

My reply wasn’t meant to distract from your points Jennifer, you are spot on. The only way leaders listen and do the right thing is if we loudly insist on justice for displaced workers as we move ahead. My data I collected of four weeks of narrative shows opinion is very deep that ex resource workers are an unfortunate by product, which does not have to be the case.

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 11:52 am

“Environmentalists must question if their position is so pure that negative consequences, such as mass layoffs are inconsequential. If mass layoffs are inconsequential, and workers can’t put food on the table, then does one’s activism come from a position of privilege?”

Sorry, I took that to mean you feel that mass layoffs are a negative consequence of environmentalism.

privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group

I do not understand how this is applicable.

“Kaye are you denying that there will be”

I am not sure what you mean by this. The nature of employment is, and always has been, changing. Jobs are certainly important but they are not incompatible with environmentalism. I am not ignoring changing employment. I am offering suggestions for real jobs for the future.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:54 am

Kaye very, very simply yes or no, do you believe there will be displaced workers as we move towards action on climate change?

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:55 am

Kaye very simply, do you believe that action on climate change is an externality that will cause job losses in existing industries?

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:57 am

In addition Kaye, my article calls for action in tandem, if you are suggesting a list of jobs well that must mean you believe jobs will be displaced? Or will resource workers be working in shut down mines and coal based energy plants and your list is additional jobs?

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 11:57 am

Trish,

your answers to comments in this commentary provide information that frankly is more palatable than slabs of your article. Your language in parts of the article assumes a disapproving and divisive tone, which is unfortunate coz you have a valid argument in defending the rights of displaced workers.

Instead of taking an implied anti-Greens and overt oppositional stance to well-meaning environmentalists, you should encourage collaboration with those groups so it’s a Win-Win for us all.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:01 pm

Jennifer my article is MEANT to get under the skin of people who have not given a thought to the worker in this. I won’t apologise for the tone of the article. As I said, I collected a lot of narrative over four weeks. Dismissing or ignoring the worker are the two most prominent themes in this data. As someone from a pro worker position I found this deeply disturbing.

If people truly believe they are putting the worker first, they will have no problem using activism to ensure workers are not left behind.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:04 pm

And can I just clarify this is not to do with the Greens Party. There are many environmental activists in Labor and as pointed out, even Shorten is NOT placing the worker at the centre of the debate as we move forward. People appear to be taking this as some individual attack on the party they favour- the Greens, which is not so.

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:04 pm

Mick,

Based on surveys of Chinese, UK, American and domestic tourists, results show that tourism areas adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef risk losing over 1 million visitors per year, worth over $1 billion in tourism expenditure. This expenditure supports around 10,000 tourism jobs in regional Queensland, which are also considered at-risk.

http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/Swann%20Campbell%202016%20Great%20Barrier%20Bleached%20FINAL%20w%20cover.pdf

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:12 pm

Thanks for making it “very very simple” for me Trish. Perhaps I can do likewise. Do you think climate change will cause job losses and destruction of livelihoods?

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Yes Kaye. If we DON’T act on climate change there will be a lot of job losses. However even from this perspective it is not centred around the worker. The data I collected shows this argument is used overwhelmingly to deflect an argument if the question of displaced coal workers is used. Existing workers who will be displaced deserve our compassion and fairness as we move ahead.

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:19 pm

Which is why I am making suggestions for sustainable employment rather than trying to “get under people’s skin”. I am not trying to “deflect” anything at all. I am looking for practical solutions.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:23 pm

If the worker was central to this debate activism would be very loud around Adani to push the Government urgently invest and build alternative energy to create jobs in this region. Sadly it is a very minor theme. The overwhelming theme of the narrative is to stop Adani and the jobs it is proposed to offer are irrelevant. That is a very clear message to people who can’t put food on the table, that they are irrelevant. Not putting the worker central and lobbying to negate job losses, allows the fear used by cc denialists to fester and cause resistance to progress. Environmentalists are hurting their own progress if they continue to ignore the plight of displaced workers. This is the beginning of change, not the end.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:28 pm

Kaye I have not written this article for you. I have written for the overwhelming voices who ignore the worker and just assume “she will be apples.” I have listed a range of questions to be asked about a fair transition, yet even those who say they care about jobs have not even commented on them. You keep saying “I” did you miss the part where there is an entire movement out there and this is drawn from their narrative? I’ve explained that quite a number of times.

KeithJune 18, 2017 at 12:40 pm

Trish
You stated: “Asylum seekers policy is indeed set from a position of privilege- would you disagree?”

That was my point; if you have ever seen Maslow’s pyramid you would realise that in a very general sense that it is those who are not continually fighting for survival who are the people who will advocate and lobby.

From your current article, and what you have previously written, you are advocating for the Adani mine as you believe employment will be created. Barnaby Joyce on Insiders was suggesting 30,000 jobs would be created. Adani suggested at first before being caught out that 10,000 jobs would be created; the figure has now disappeared and is more like 1,500.

A coal mine the size of the one proposed by Adani will negate any promises in relation to reduction in emissions promised at Paris. It really doesn’t matter whether the CO2 and other pollutants are voided in Australia or elsewhere, we still in the end have to contend with a changing climate.

Blaming those who advocate against fossil fuels is logically inconsistent with your premise; people pushing for action on climate change are fighting for humanity.

Beyond all the hype expressed by political parties; a business as usual situation ultimately leads to extermination of the human race and other life forms. Even Turnbull has stated a business as usual approach is unsustainable; but, he says the words and doesn’t follow through with the required actions.

Tony Seba, discusses how new technologies have quickly superseded old ones; he begins with the horse and cart and first motor vehicles, coal is equivalent to the horse and cart, and renewables with batteries is like the motor vehicle. He uses a number of other examples to push his argument.
A number of giga factories are currently being built to produce electric cars and batteries expected to be operational beginning in 2018:

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:44 pm

Since January 2016, Queensland has seen an unprecedented level of investment in renewable energy, with 17 large-scale projects either commencing construction or finalising commercial arrangements.

These projects will deliver almost 1200 megawatts of clean power to the state, boost investment by more than $2.2 billion and create 2200 new jobs, mostly in our regional centres.

Achieving a 50 per cent renewable energy target has the potential to deliver broad benefits to the economy, particularly in regional Queensland. The Expert Panel found that the target could drive $6.7 billion of new investment, and deliver a net increase in employment of 6400–6700 full-time equivalent positions on average per year between 2020 and 2030.

The Government will undertake a reverse auction for up to 400 megawatts of renewable capacity, to commence in the second half of 2017, with priority given to projects that support local jobs and businesses.

Seems to me it is far from a “minor theme”.

I do not agree that we are ignoring the future of workers. You can’t be displaced from a job you don’t have yet (Adani) and it is not the fault of environmentalists that employment is changing.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:44 pm

I have been advocating for the Adani Mine? No I have been advocating for jobs using the same message trying to get people to understand the importance of jobs. Unfortunately your misguided assumption and interpretation of my anything outside of this article is wrong. The statement I make that I will not stand against Adani unless there is a serious transition in place, is a protest for jobs. Not a protest to keep Adani. I suggest you stop misrepresenting my position as it adds nothing.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:48 pm

Kaye, have you had a look at the questions on my article about a fair transition. In contrast to reality, these sort of statements whether they come from you or politicians are platitudinal and do not address the wider shift in thinking that needs to occur. It’s like saying Hazelwood workers are ok cos we are building a solar farm in Sydney. There is no doubt renewables will create jobs, However a transition needs to be concentrated and fair.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:52 pm

Kaye demanding to stop a project that will offer jobs, and advocating for nothing in its place, is ripping opportunity and hope from the unemployed. I would strongly argue that is a sickening level of privilege . Yet you fail to see what I mean about privilege.

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:59 pm

“advocating for nothing in its place”??????

Every comment I have made contains suggestions for things in its place. Sheesh.

“It’s like saying Hazelwood workers are ok cos we are building a solar farm in Sydney.”

Far from being “platitudinal”, those 17 projects I mentioned are happening now in regional Queensland.

And by the by, Hazelwood didn’t close down because of environmental activists.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 1:03 pm

Thanks for looking at the Questions in my article Kaye. You still think this article is all about you. The very huge movement is just calling for Adani to be shut down with nothing in its place. If you can’t see that, you haven’t been paying attention. The argument that you are trying to put forward that people are actively concentrating on mitigating harm to displaced workers simply does not exist. Labor even has a transition plan that is not good enough in terms of addressing workers for goodness sake and they are the party of the Worker!

KeithJune 18, 2017 at 1:21 pm

Trish

Did you make comment when the Abbott gang destroyed the motor vehicle industry?
There was a loss of jobs, not jobs that have merely been projected by a very dangerous undertaking.
Do you rail against the LNP for their abuse of people unemployed?
Did you complain about the cruel Abbott budget publicly?

Many of those you are complaining about now, did advocate against the plain nasty decision making and out of touch neo con politicians.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 1:27 pm

Everyday Keith. It’s probably good not to start personal attacks towards me and speak to the article.

Advocating (positive) action on climate change is not implicit in advocating to mitigate the negative consequences on the worker. In fact, conversation about displaced workers is largely absent, from activists to the media to politicians.

paulwalterJune 18, 2017 at 2:44 pm

What a depressing day’s group of comments. Sorry, wont go into it further, won’t say any more.

I’ve got to get away from the computer… put an axe through it? Why is there no sanctuary?

Gimme shelter.

KeithJune 18, 2017 at 3:32 pm

Here is quite a long article about how scientists are feeling about climate change, the human factor is loud and clear.

My opinion is that it is the most important matter that confronts us now:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/

diannaartJune 18, 2017 at 3:54 pm

Just managed to catch-up on 69+ posts since I went off for a well earned nap.

One of the observations I made to myself but did not publish at the start of this thread, was that Trish has done a lot of work.

This thought was immediately followed by, who is this work for?

I doubt there are many commentators here at AIMN who do not care for the worker (which I do believe is ourselves, isn’t or wasn’t it?). Anyone who does not care about workers, piss off now.

I asked, therefore, for evidence of environmentalist elitism causing loss of jobs.

I got absolutely nowhere.

Which is a shame.

Now I do not want to go over old ground, such as “I do not understand Trish’s article”, because I bloody well do. I may not be the most intelligent person here, but I have enough smarts, as do many others, that there are better ways to make the argument for the binaries of long term employment and action on climate change.

I know I am preaching to the converted when I state:

“Protecting, repairing and maintaining the environment, protects, maintains and repairs all of us”

Not just a few, everyone, even people who are parasites, like most of the government and big business.

We do not need the approval of the neo-conservative control-freaks to take action.

We are already doing so, with huge take up of solar on individual homes, factories, schools etc. All of which fits in well with Capitalism – people source materials, make solar panels, sell to other people. That’s how it used to work – until the early 20th century advent of the private for profit monopoly.

We need to return to genuine competition, rather than the confected chimera we are pretending is Capitalism now – Rupert Murdoch/MSM, massive food processing companies, fossil fuel cultists and more.

Think local, is not just a cutesy saying, it is a big finger to the 1%.

We can build small wind turbines, solar panels, water gravity power generation in our back yards – we can most certainly do this at a suburb or town or local council level.

…and all this creates jobs.

Helen BatesJune 18, 2017 at 3:59 pm

My husband has family in Charters Towers and Bowen and the politician in their area that didn’t support the Carmichael Mine would be on the dole queues real quick.It is ok for you lot in Brisbane Sydney Melbourne all in your little homes almost certainly built on clearfelled rich agricultural and grazing land to lecture Nth Queenslanders. How about if you move out of your houses turn your areas back into pristine land and go live in a cave and stop burning fossil fuels then the locals might listen.It is ok to stand for the environment as long as it isn’t in your backyard apparently

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 4:24 pm

Helen..This old chestnut of ; “why don’t you lot give back / invite into your home / return your land back into / live in a cave..etc is a worthless , lazy attempt to shift responsibility from destructive right-wing ideology onto the shoulders of those trying to salvage what pristine land left to the lost cause of marginal return projects that have little or no hope of long term survival.
If you read my piece on the pioneers of this area where I live,( On one side the night so dark), you would be better informed on what happens when hard-working people are driven by forced necessity to exploit their land..ti becomes marginal then totally unproductive to the point, and I will quote a farming cousin from of one of those pioneer families..: “We are no longer dirt-farmers, we are chemical farmers” referring to the amount of chemical fertiliser and herbicide / pesticide they have to use to produce a one-in-five year profit crop…many are now moving out or considering such and the soil / environment left behind is ravaged beyond a fifty year turnaround…perhaps longer.
There is only blind stupidity in once again going down that route in this day and age where there are other alternatives..marginal land does not improve with more desecration, it just becomes more unviable and unlivable..
WE..of the “progressive left” are trying to be part of the solution…when we can see there is no point continuing with the problem.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 4:35 pm

Helen Bates,

how’s your business welfare tax concessions from Snotty Morriscum coming along (since you run your own ‘small’ biz)?

Better be careful or the peasants will come with their pitchforks to force you out, so it can be run by a grassroots collective with clean, green energy.

Helen BatesJune 18, 2017 at 4:59 pm

Jennifer Meyer-Smith
We pay plenty of taxes so did you collect your dole payment last week paid from our taxes?

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 5:08 pm

“Environmental activists must cease the perverse accusation that one is a “climate change denier” if displaced workers are a major concern.”

Laborists must cease the perverse accusation that one doesn’t care about jobs if climate change is a major concern.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 5:21 pm

Helen..you are a “wasted space” as far as trying to “educate you” on the notion of the social contract in a nation goes..you do not read, you do not reason, you do not analyse even what you are arguing about…you are one of those right-wing deniers who become social cannibals as a means of survival…

“… It has used the stupid to attract the stupid, much like one uses a cut piece of bait from the one fish to attract and catch another of the same species. The Right-wing has used those now familiar fools so clumsy in their knowledge of politics and social needs, but so rat-cunning in their use of phrasing of tongue so that it appeals to the most gullible.”

You praise a party that is run by a millionaire investor who supports and once was a member of a party run by a multi, multi-millionaire tax evader who lives in one of the most exclusive residential areas in Sydney and you ask us , many of whom are struggling with paying a mortgage, for US…US…to surrender OUR little piece of hard-worked for ownership and you do not even think to look to those parasites you praise to give any piece of their unearned wealth back to the nation.

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 5:24 pm

Helen, people who earn over $37,000 are on a significantly higher tax rate than businesses big and small and they have little opportunity to minimise their tax by deductions.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 5:36 pm

I’m not trying to be part of the solution Joe, by asking people to stop just fiercely advocating about the environment and start advocating for a decent transition for workers? If we get closer to that 2 degrees who do you think are going to be the casualties in this if Govts shut down existing mines in quick succession? The workers and the poor, that’s who. A transition plan should have started ten years ago, but apparently just having confidence there will be jobs is enough. Hear Helens plea – don’t brush it off. If people pushed the Government to build new work strategically Adani would not matter. Why can’t people see this?

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 5:41 pm

You comment something like that after Helen put her case foreword? Wow! People seriously don’t get this? Does anyone stop to think why Gonski is said to be successful? Because it is a student centred Policy. To not draw anything from that shows you have great difficulty understanding the workers plight in all this. Not just Kaye. Everyone who does not get this.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 5:43 pm

People who are desperate for jobs are a waste of space? Wow!

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 5:46 pm

” People who are desperate for jobs are a waste of space? Wow!”….Now THAT..Trish..is a classic example of “quoting out of context”…something I would not have expected from a research academic.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 5:48 pm

Helen Bates,

you still haven’t answered how your tax concessions are going for your so-called ‘small’ biz.

By the way, have you heard of Modern Monetary Theory which explains how your and my tax dollars work? Probably not, since you made that erroneous statement about your tax dollars paying for somebody else’s rightful Constitutional social security.

And since you asked about how I’m doing, I’m doing fine thanks while working many volunteer hours for the community. Mind you, that is an aspect of this current neoliberalist system that fallaciously undermines the integrity of the citizen.

When you read up on Modern Monetary Theory, you will find that the Job Guarantee component is long overdue for ascribing a monetary value to EVERY occupation in society.

If a job is worth doing; it is worth being paid for it. Don’t you agree? Or are small biz owners like you (as defined by the LNP fascists) only entitled to pecuniary benefits?

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 5:55 pm

I wanted to stay out of this arguement on the grounds that your thesis has moved fluid-like to find higher ground each time a contested point is raised..a “troublesome position”…I will join this accusation if you persist to misquote me and argue that the claim that putting the worker at the centre of a nation-wide unemployment problem is nothing but playing one section of unemployed against another and using the worker as little more than a “trump-card” in the gamble of corporate poker, where the “kitty” is little more than short-term employment relief…
My earliest reply to this article gave what I saw as a solution and I will leave it there..ie: the re-nationalising of essential utilities and raw material supplies so that there can be both permanent, secure employment and transition to newer technologies when inevitable.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 5:55 pm

I would expected more from someone who shows compassion. Someone comes on here and states their case about jobs and she gets nothing but ridicule. You told her she was a waste of space. Not educated. Others have started ridiculing her political beliefs. And people wonder why some think someone as dangerous as Pauline Hanson is the only one listening. Everyone commenting is making this about their hurt feelings of whether I don’t think they care about jobs. If they cared about people having jobs the main thing they would have taken from this is the urgent jobs and transition plan, the questions to be asked about how to develop it, would have been the most things talked about. Apart from JMS who listed the urgency to have levels of Government listen to community, no one has even come close. For your info, I work in management, I am a skilled researcher, but that has stuff all to do with my position on anything.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm

PS…Helen’s “case” was little more than an “overnight travel bag”..not a “case” at all!

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 5:59 pm

Well I rest my case. People just don’t see the worker as important. There is no point in trying to put this argument forward to people who can’t be humble enough to put theirselves in the shoes of people facing the dole.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm

Trish,

Helen Bates has elsewhere said she wants to vote for Pauline Hanson already. Why bow to her ugly, antagonistic, uncompassionate sneers?

Those people who are facing the dole because the industry that they have grossly been overpaid for for decades and which they have gladly done despite its environmental and health threats, need to get mobilised right now and do what a lot of other marginalised people have done and start looking for alternative solutions.

A dead industry that causes environmental damage has no right to exist.

diannaartJune 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm

People just don’t see the worker as important. There is no point in trying to put this argument forward to people who can’t be humble enough to put theirselves in the shoes of people facing the dole.

Am I take to this comment as a generalisation?

Or, are you making this claim about everyone who has commented on your article?

I would appreciate the clarification.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 6:05 pm

Have you asked yourself why she thinks Pauline is listening?

JohnoJune 18, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Helen is a troll

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

Anyone who can’t understand Helens plight about desperation for jobs, and unable to reframe this debate with the worker at the centre, commenting or just reading and the hundreds I’ve spoken to online, the comment is directed at. That’s the clarification.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 6:22 pm

I have no idea about her participation here, but her plight about jobs underpins the entire article and the responses to her when that is raised is the very loud narrative that seeks to ridicule and lecture anyone who raises the issue of jobs is the overwhelming theme of four weeks of qualitative data analysed. Frankly the attitude of some people I have come across online towards people who are scared about job losses or even raise them as an issue, is disgusting.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 6:24 pm

” For your info, I work in management, I am a skilled researcher, but that has stuff all to do with my position on anything.”

A skilled researcher you may be, but when I see 207 replies to your thesis WITHOUT yet reaching consensus with ANY of those people, I have to suspect that it must be either your contrary nature or the clarity of the written arguement..

I have no fight with you..and I don’t see why you want to start one with me.

Helen BatesJune 18, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Wow where to start
Joseph Carli did someone buy you a book on socialism and you didn’t fully understand
as for “You praise a party that is run by a millionaire investor who supports and once was a member of a party run by a multi, multi-millionaire tax evader who lives in one of the most exclusive residential areas in Sydney” please direct me to where I said that or praised Turnbull in any shape or form or are you just full of it and make up things to make you try to sound intelligent? FAIL
Jennifer you didn’t answer about your dole payments, how much longer are you going to suck on the public teat?you’ve made about 10 comments that could have been job applications {use your time more productively!} as for this MMT please direct me to one place it is in place and working and not just some unproven”theory”
As for the environment my family have 4 properties over 12,000 acres and had them for over a century and I dare say the land is in better shape now than when my forefathers set foot on the land and I have spent my 32 years here and will continue to protect the land till they bury me in it.It is in our interest to do so or else it would probably end up clearfelled and covered in little boxes like Sydney and Melbourne.Let me know when you all will make personal sacrifices and return your properties back to the wilderness in pristine condition or doesn’t it count. I would like the Sydney harbor bridge torn down to stop all those filthy cars spewing fumes all over.Let’s start a campaign on that

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Do you think the only people commenting on here are the ones who read the article or who I talk to? Because Kaye Lee and the regular few who disagree with every single article I write, disagree with this one, my article is a load of crap? Joe welcome to AIMN. You fit right in. Disappointed.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 6:30 pm

Trish,

do you accept Helen Bates is a nasty little troll who has capitalised on your divisive article that threatens to entrench further current divisions?

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Trish..Have you heard of the “$8 an hour man” ? I have met him many times, many more times HE is a woman employed by those same “small business” people all over the country, just trying to “help out” and “keep those unfortunate unemployed people in a job”…just “doing my bit for the unemployed”….by making a deal with an unemployed person to pay them $8 an hour cash and they can then keep their dole money and so make what could be called “above the poverty-line wage”…a ; “win-win” situation surely..because , Hey!..they are “so worried about the plight of jobs”.

I would think “Helen” should ask HERSELF why she thinks Pauline is listening.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 6:39 pm

Helen Bates,

my secret is out. You’ve exposed me! OMG! Where will I hide?

I almost wish you were a real person coz then you could prove how ignorant, selfish and uncompassionate such types, as you pretend to be, are.

I also could say, “Well if you want me off my bum and earning me dinner, give me a job, then hey!” I said the same to cornlegend once, but he went eerily silent.

I find it amusing that you and your prototype think it’s ok to scratch sores but refuse to offer solutions, which could be within your grasp.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 6:39 pm

Trish!!…you “challenged ” me from the first comment I made of this article and I felt compelled to show you just where you had been mistaken…I wondered THEN just where you were coming from and so desisted any more commentary..but with your challenging my reply to Helen, I saw THAT as once again challenging me to some sort of verbal duel…I have to ask : Just what is your gripe?

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm

And as for “Helen”…give it a rest..we all know what Helen’s biggest gripe is..: The lowering or remission of the diesel fuel / fertilizer subsidies and other Agricultural “helpies” that once, like a kind of Ag-dole for many, gave that little bit of “pocket money” for those little “extras” when they took themselves and the kiddies to town.

RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 6:50 pm

Everyday Keith. It’s probably good not to start personal attacks towards me and speak to the article.

Trish, I read Keith’s comment. All I saw was that he asked you a few harmless questions. I can’t possibly see how that is a personal attack towards you.

If you want to see a personal attack, just read what you said to Joe.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 6:53 pm

By the living Geezus, I gotta say, Trish…you’re one hell of a “scrapper”..I reckon you’d take on a bloke over the thickness of the froth on two schooners of beer!

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 6:53 pm

No I have no idea who she is. However her comment about the fear of no jobs with climate change action is real and should not be sniggered at. Threatens further divisions? As far as I’m concerned I am absolutely despised by the AIMN vocal commentators, I’ve learnt not to take it personally, because it doesn’t mean my different perspective is wrong either, or that I have no right to speak up. The division is expected every time I publish and as Mick pointed out way earlier by the same people. Who cares is my answer. I’ll still publish what I write regardless. As I’ve said. I don’t write for a fan club. if I voted on the right side, I’d probably be labeled a troll as well. Getting personal about someone who disagrees with the vocal consensus of opinion here doesn’t help me try to defend my argument that climate action needs to include action for displaced workers at the same time. What Helens point did was actually highlight the privileged position of those who chant with smiles on their faces to shut down jobs. And don’t stop to think to use activism to put something in the place of those jobs. As my article said, some admitted to me beef farming will be next to target to curb emissions? Will the general mood out there be as viscous towards Farmers as it is to people who work in the resources sector if that happens? Her response about people in Sydney giving up things to neutralise carbon instead of insisting it’s only resource sectors that do it, is a response I’ve witnessed many times. As the lessons post Trump and Hanson have taught us, the world doesn’t happen in our own little bubbles. Unless people start taking jobs seriously when their activism is a threat to these jobs, people who are under threat will see nothing else but attack and division. As we move towards the 2% and displaced jobs aren’t managed and it becomes urgent, the biggest victims will be regional and rural workers and the poor because as it becomes urgent, coal mines and plants will be shut down very quickly. We have a space of a year or two to get this right. It is urgent for a serious jobs transition now, that looks after targeted workers and regions now.

Helen BatesJune 18, 2017 at 6:55 pm

Joseph Carli there you go making more things up.Look the bottom line is I am a proud Queenslander and I do support One Nation. I am content in the knowledge that in Queensland there are more people who think like me than you poor Greens and the next State election will again prove that.
Jennifer I don’t care what someone else may or may not have done but you would have no hope of a job with us as you sound like you are “entitled”

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 7:03 pm

Helen,

I wouldn’t want to work in your enterprise either. I’ve met many people like you pretend to be and I know you’d make me sick.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 7:03 pm

You have my number Joe. If you have an issue you can call me or inbox me on Facebook.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 7:06 pm

” I am a proud Queenslander “…what’s THAT?..what is being born within vague state drawn boundaries got to do with your last few comments..I’m a mix of several ethnic groups and born in this geographical location…that gives no weight to m arguement that cannot be gleaned from the four corners of the globe..and THAT claim of “proud Queenslander” places you in contradiction to any claim, surely, that you have the interests of the rest of the country at heart..I’d bet London to a brick you are of the “secede” crowd.

JohnoJune 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm

Trish
You say ‘Her response about people in Sydney giving up things to neutralise carbon instead of insisting it’s only resource sectors that do it’…… Many people live in Sydney on the smell of an oily rag, catching buses, riding bikes, walking…. WTF we are all in this together. Cityfolk and countryfolk alike.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 7:10 pm

Trish…I’m not ringing you ,man..not until that blowtorch you got threatening my nuts is showing less of a blue flame!

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 7:16 pm

I am simply reporting to you it is how they see it. People in Melbourne and Sydney screaming to shut down hope and opportunity albeit a mine that is harmful to the environment. But with nothing else in its place it’s all these people have. People say Corbyn gave them hope. The people where jobs are plentiful screaming at people where jobs are scarce is terrifying and hopeless when you reframe it from their perspective. If people took a bit more time to understand the element of reframing in this article, they might see things differently. Pauline comes in there and says she will fight for jobs. WE know she won’t and has no solid policy solution but it is this hope they cling onto. Although I vote Labor they are not introducing the narrative of making sure job fears are eased when we talk about action on climate change. If they wonder why they lose seats, they haven’t looked at this right. People want jobs. It is not about hanging onto coal. In a country where we are fighting to act on climate change, and when a coal mine is the only source of hope, something is terribly wrong and that is, the worker is not central to the climate change debate.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 7:21 pm

Trish,

it is not the only thing they have. They have become lazy and complacent depending upon something that had a limited timespan and they have been caught out when they have had plenty of warnings.

Tell Helen and her sooky-la-las to get off THEIR bums and work out a path out of their situation. Hanson won’t provide the answers but then modern Labor won’t either, so the answer has to come from the community.

For the record, I’m starting to see there’s more to you than I have given you credit for. You need to think grassroots alternative thinking and not Labor neoliberalism.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 7:26 pm

Joe. As someone I’ve chatted to for hours, personally I am at a loss as to how you cannot see putting the worker first is essential and why ridiculing someone and calling them a waste of space because they or their family truly fear job loss and poverty from this because no other offers of jobs to replace coal are evident….well I don’t understand how people think that’s ok. I don’t understand how for some it is so hard to look through their eyes. I don’t threaten people either. I certainly haven’t threatened you.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 7:33 pm

Sorry Jennifer but the workers do not have full agency here. It is up to the Government to get this right. The unemployment you talk about in your area is absolutely unacceptable. Malcolm Turnbull’s position is to make your own job as the market shifts. That’s a radical free market perspective. A socialist perspective would be to automatically invest in (Govt funded if needed) infrastructure and services to create more jobs. Socialist Governments interfere in the job market for job creation. The Liberals think it should be left alone and let the people lift themselves up by the bootstraps to find work. The latter is not my position, i will refer again to the questions raised in the article about development of a serious jobs and economic transition plan. Hanson doesn’t provide any solutions. But until Liberal or Labor do, they will believe anyone who says they do. Even if that is a huge lie.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm

I refer back to my 7.21pm comment.

I know you’re worried about losing these morons more to Hanson but I’m not sure what to advise except that you could get up and act as a Labor affiliated Independent, who they can aspire to vote for.

At the end of the day Hanson is a disguised Liberal functionary, who happens to be on the take for running her own party.

You could do well acting for people, who are caught between the raw realities of changing socio-economic community by representing Labor and OMG! Greens-leaning people, who are about to be personally impacted by Adani being told to f*ck off.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 7:57 pm

The Hanson factor is not the main issue. The media does over inflate her popularity but it is strong in pockets, but mainly traditional LNP voters. But some Labor voters too and a lot of swinging voters. I’m sorry I don’t know what your last paragraph means. If people were lobbying Government for a real investment in alternative jobs, because they seem to have trouble doing it on their own, Adani wouldn’t even be an issue, There are other ways to invest in jobs and even help India. However, what is required in terms of the way we spend our taxes to do that is not going to pass the pub test right now, Fear for jobs with action on climate change is not isolated to QLD, it is international. The International Trade Union movement raises it as an issue. It doesn’t have to be jobs or environment. By placing workers at the centre it can be both. What they said about Trump was right. Obama acted on Climate Change and Left resource workers behind. He didn’t find solutions for them. Until jobs are lobbied for, the right wing, including Hanson will continue to care about the worker. I raise that point in the article too.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 8:00 pm

Lol sorry that should read “PRETEND to care about the worker as a reason to not act on climate change”

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm

I was trying to encourage you to try to get elected, as a Labor-affiliated Independent so that dissatisfied Labor and Greens voters can vote for you and NOT Hanson when the shit hits the fan at Adani’s expulsion from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

Those voters will be wanting an alternative to the parasite Pauline Hanson, who unashamedly supports the Liberal Party.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 8:08 pm

Oh. No I’m not interested in being a politician. The closest id come as a dream job is a researcher for a senator because that’s the only place to stop bad legislation. Labor is the party to do this. If Shorten came up with a detailed transition plan for jobs and impacted economies. People would not be so fearful about ending up in poverty. Labor does talk about staged closures which is good, but their narrative needs to change as well and a more serious and vocal position on combating both climate change and employment.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 8:18 pm

Well said Trish.

You need to keep showing thousands that you can also see Labor’s shortcomings when the rest of us need them most AND the Greens against RWNJ’s in Liberal/National/PHON/LiberalDemocrats/FamilyFirst/etc/etc

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 8:31 pm

“Because Kaye Lee and the regular few who disagree with every single article I write”

I engaged with this article in good faith trying to make some suggestions about sustainable employment. I should have realised it would be pointless. What you seem to want is, not suggestions about how action on climate change can be synergistic with future employment, but rather some admission that I am a privileged elitist who couldn’t give a shit about jobs. That is totally false.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 8:33 pm

Alright..I’ll put forward a synopsis of why I think You ; Trish and Qld. Labor are pushing this “Why won’t anybody think of the workers” line so determinedly..:

The Ardani mine may or may not get off the ground, but if it does AND if those jerkoffs in the LNP “govt'” give the little “shoeboy” the one billion forelock tug, and it does get a start at least..The Qld. Labor will be on an election ; “win-win” proposition..
A: The inland railway could get built and THAT would serve the developing beef industry there (AND “Helen”s humble little spread).
B: If the mine gets off the ground we all know the major employment numbers are in the development stage which could take several years, thereby giving the Qld. govt’ kudos for regional employment prospects.
C: If the project fails for lack / lowering of export contracts after development due to India going renewable quicker than first thought, there will be no loss of “Face” on the Qld. Govt’s part and by then they would have phased in a plan (we hope) of transition…another electoral “win”.
D: If and when this LNP federal govt’ wakes up to the fact that coal is screwing ALL the environment and the Reef by association, and is forced to cut coal mining, it will be “out of the hands” of the Qld. govt’….no loss to the electorate there either.

Nothing but “good news” ahead for politics, as long as we “place the employment of the workers” at the centre of the discussion……dontcha know?

Oh…and f#ck the environment.

And I think your thesis is VERY cynical…very cynical indeed.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 8:34 pm

Oh for goodness sake it isn’t personal Kaye. I just say Kaye Lee and everyone instead of listing everyone’s names. It’s not like this is new.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 9:08 pm

Actually no Joe. That has nothing to do with why I’m pushing this. To imply my position is disingenuous is mind boggling. I have no ulterior motive to stand up for workers. This is bigger than the Adani mine. The Adani mine is insignificant in the whole scheme of things. What about when coal mines and brown coal plants need to be shut as a matter of urgency? This isn’t some happy exchange where jobs are just going to magically appear as we take climate action. It’s an international concern by trade unions and worker displacement needs to be a huge concern. If we act or if we don’t act on climate change. Workers and the poor will suffer either way. I am really tired of this short sightedness with Adani when there is a much bigger picture here.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 9:09 pm

Well at least you are honest that workers are insignificant and how cynical it is to give a damn about them Joe. At least you are honest.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 9:26 pm

If that is not why you are pushing “this”, then you are politically naive…and there I have some doubt..This whole Adani issue is political…workers jobs come and go, esp’ in mining…and even if YOU are not aware of the political implications of both the railroad to Gina’s “Bonanza” beef projects and the regional employment prospects the development of the Adani mine mean, it is there that the “care of the workers” will be fought out.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm

And will you PLEASE stop framing and argument around words or implied notions that I did neither say nor hint at.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 9:32 pm

Frankly Joe, I’m insulted. Very insulted that you think I’d make a passionate plea for people to look at how they are participating in climate change activism and also speak up for the worker, because you have some weird idea this is about Adani. Go and read the concerns from International Trade Unions in Paris talks and you will see my position has stuff all to do with Adani. And once again if people gave a damn about making sure workers were not left behind, politicians and billionaires wouldn’t have the weight to use it as a reason to not take climate change action seriously.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm

What on earth are you talking about?

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 9:43 pm

Pray tell…: Just when was it decided that “the worker” was a separate individual from “the climate change activist”…when many many more working-class people are active in environmental activism, particularly around the issue of the reef. I have had about a gut-full of this “I’m for the worker” crap…we ARE the “worker” we are not stupid, many here can see the shadowdy hand of the Blair/ Labor “third way” in this agenda…They ought to take care not to alienate their base..we are all watching..we are not silly.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm

Trish,

it seems to me that you need to heed what Joe and Kaye are saying in their own different ways so that your perspective can evolve to the finesse on this subject of employment for grassroots people, which it may deserve.

You have good intentions but you don’t have the entire way of framing those good intentions.

Listen to advice of other good people and break the party-line delineations to arrive at those good intentions.

Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 9:45 pm

This : ” Well at least you are honest that workers are insignificant and how cynical it is to give a damn about them Joe. At least you are honest.”….I will not continue on this post..

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:06 pm

I won’t heed what Joe and Kaye are saying Jennifer Thanks. They seem to struggle to understand the main argument of the piece itself. Which is about the working class.

Frankly, you are the only one who has made a serious contribution on the actual point of the article. Mick also made a contribution, explaining the key terms more.

Imagine how good the commentary would have been if people could have engaged in THAT topic of getting Govt to listen about jobs and how we configure all of that to help the working class in tandem with these changes. how good would have those comments been?

There is a series to be written on this and this is the first. Well kind of second. Please don’t make out others are good people and I am not IF that is what you are trying to make out.

My intentions are good intentions, that is to see that the working class who will be displaced by climate change action are looked after. This may mean we need to change the entire landscape of the country in how we do things. Taxes, jobs, social security, education, services, everything.

If then entire world hates my guts for it, then so be it. I will live with it. But I won’t just sit down and say nothing, as thousands of workers are under threat of joblessness and poverty as they are going to be displaced. I won’t shut up. If people don’t like it, it is tough for them. More activism on the workers would be ideal, but I’ll lobby the Government, Labor and Unions on my own if I have to. and I certainly won’t have it implied it is for some other reason that is not genuine, like being pro-adani- or links to mining or being corporate shill. I’m none of the above.

This article was meant to get under people’s skin. the same way as any identification of privilege is supposed to get under people’s skin. If they only think about moving towards zero carbon as the sole aim and not what happens to people along the way – it is indeed a position of privilege.

It is clear you don’t like Helen, and there is some history there, but her comments about jobs in Townsville Region and the reactions to her comments about jobs are a clear example of the prominent experience of anyone who raises the issue of jobs in this space. It is really wrong.

The Working Class and the poor will bear the brunt of all of this, if we act on climate change AND if we don’t act on climate change. I spent four weeks fully engaged in online conversations with people, trying to raise the issue of jobs transition and asking people their thoughts on displaced workers, I literally themed hundreds of comments and frankly it was a sickening experience. Abusive, vile and sick. To even mention jobs to MANY means you must be against climate change. The same experience is felt in this thread. That is not the case.

The narrative of Labor is not one that places workers at the centre and says, we need to do X on climate change, but this is how we will look after workers who’s industries will shut down in the future. This is how we will be planning for it. But one that is purely from an environmental focus. That makes me feel ill too.

As I progress with these articles, I am sure people will see it more clearly, but my fear is that they will not. Frankly at the moment, I do not see an overwhelming concern by anyone for the working class and how these CC Changes will change the shape of our country.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:07 pm

Unless you want to talk about how we can lobby for a decent serious transition for displaced workers, please don’t.

KeithJune 18, 2017 at 10:14 pm

I have mentioned artificial intelligence earlier; whether we like it or not jobs are going to be lost by such technology. Yet, it is something which is hardly being discussed. Structural change has been an issue which the LNP particularly does not wish to countenance; an area they handle particularly poorly.
Rather than wait for the crisis of even fewer jobs caused through artificial intelligence, planning needs to occur in how to deal with the matter. It might begin by treating unemployed people with respect. Planning how those made redundant can live in dignity. Dignity might be provided by the implimentation of a universal wage?

Already there are driverless trucks being used at mines, passenger cars are heading towards being driverless, and a huge push for electric vehicles is not far off; meaning the potential loss of positions as professional drivers and mechanics of internal combustion engines; these being areas where a huge amount of employment appears as though it will be lost.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:21 pm

Thank you Keith. This is exactly what we should be talking about. The International Trades Unions say there will be serious structure change in employment with climate change action and as a country we need to fight for what we want that to look like. we need activism, because the LNP don’t give a stuff and they use their caring for the working class as an excuse not to progress. Along with climate change action, there is automation, off shoring, climate change action is a conscious structural change imposed from Government. it is not through incremental or radical innovation like technology and automation. It can be planned out to respond properly. It may mean the Government may need to own more means of production and buy back privatised assets and many other things that could be done.
The conversation has to start though, by putting the worker first, or it will never happen.

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 10:54 pm

The 1986 Dunlap article that you reference made the following conclusions:

“The evidence bearing on each of the three types of elitism is examined in some detail, and the following conclusions are drawn: Compositional elitism is an exaggeration, for although environmentalists are typically above average in socioeconomic status (as are most sociopolitical activists), few belong to the upper class. Ideological elitism may hold in some instances, but environmentalists have shown increasing sensitivity to equity concerns and there is little evidence of consistent pursuit of self-interest. Impact elitism is the most important issue, and also the most difficult to assess. It appears that there has been a general tendency for environmental reforms to have regressive impacts. However, it is increasingly recognized that problems such as workplace pollution and toxic waste contamination disproportionately affect the lower socioeconomic strata, and thus reforms aimed at such problems will likely have more progressive impacts.”

Dr. Hallman of Rutgers University makes the following observations:

“by the compositional criteria, the opponents of environmentalism come closer to being an elite than do core environmentalists. Much of the most vocal, coordinated opposition to environmentalism comes from the top levels of corporate management. Such objections to environmental reform are hardly above suspicion as representing upper-class interests, even if frequently couched in a rationale of concern for general welfare.

Over the past two decades the impacts that have received the most media coverage deal with plant closures and layoffs. Yet there is reason to believe that the number of jobs lost through pollution control regulations in industry is small relative to the number of jobs created by such regulations.

Impact elitism is the bottom line. It is the accusation that environmental reforms create, exacerbate or sustain social inequities. It is the basic reason that the question of elitism is a matter of concern. It is also clearly implied in most accusations of compositional and ideological elitism. Yet the evidence for impact elitism is on the whole less clear than for ideological or compositional elitism, and the evidence for even these is scant.”

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:56 pm

I’m not sure what you point is here Kaye.

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 11:13 pm

“The International Trades Unions say there will be serious structure change in employment with climate change ”

Trade Unions and Climate Change
ITUC Contribution to UNFCCC COP22

The times when climate action was raised as a job killer are behind us. Ambitious emissions reduction and adaptation policies are now recognised as vital to protect jobs, people and communities from the impacts of climate change, and investment is creating jobs in renewable energy, public transit, energy efficiency in buildings, sustainable agriculture, forestry, water and more.

The ILO has found that most studies show a positive net employment effect of policies facilitating climate transition. Net gains are up to 60 million jobs, combining economic growth with environmental improvement.

While all sectors hold opportunities, the key to the transformation of our industries and our communities is energy – reliable, renewable energy.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm

Yes, what is your point?

Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 11:19 pm

My point is that there is little evidence to support the accusation of “environmental elitism” and that there are many job opportunities created by action on climate change, caring for the environment and sustainable practice. I understand your point about supporting workers in a transitioning economy. I don’t understand your attacks on environmentalists.

Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:45 pm

Kaye, I’m really truly sorry you do not understand the structure of my article. I tried to structure it as clearly as I could. It is a big topic to tackle in less than 2000 words. I have demonstrated the term “Privilege” which is used widely in the sociology literature.

A term most of us are familiar with. I then demonstrated that there is terminology used relating to environmentalism. Of course, in the environmentalism literature, it is a rebuttal. However, it does not mean that this is a term that does not exists. Privilege and environmental elitism clearly have the same underpinning constructs. As stated before, I can only draw three things from your persistent line of questioning, one is that you do not understand the underlying constructs and antecedents to privilege.

The “attack” as you put it, is to ask people to not just champion on climate change. To use the terminology in the sociology space on privilege. I am asking people to “check their privilege” and place the worker at the centre of the framework and look at how you will tackle climate action by looking through the lens of the worker. This is demonstrated by a comment left by Helen, the people who will be displaced – all they see is others (who don’t live in those areas) screaming to have opportunities taken away from them and threats to their community existence. This is a real fear. It is not a joke. If the worker was at the centre of the debate, the way we look at climate change action would be very different, than it is now. The responses were attacks, not compassion and not thought provoking discussion about what else can be done. The latter is what I think we need to be doing.

There is a myriad of people out there (as I said, I analysed over four weeks of narrative) who only champion climate change. If jobs are brought up, if how we transition workers is brought up, then it is met with three things: Abuse, Ridicule, or a lecture on the importance of climate change.

Unless people start to put the worker front and centre and start thinking about the jobless and concede that there will be job losses due to climate change action (an idea overwhelmingly refused by many I have spoken to) but not only will workers be displaced (some areas will be affected immensely) but it will impede progress on climate change action.

I am calling for people to lobby and use activism to use their voice regarding the plight of the worker and what should happen to them. How will we manage it, if action becomes urgent and say five mines need to be shut down quickly in succession? What about those workers? Should we be prepared? I have a series of questions in my article that speaks to this.

As I said, this is not about Adani. This is much bigger. If you read the entire raft of information from the union stuff you posted before, you will note that there is only a few years with the 2 degrees increase limit. That means, if our country does not get it right and start making sure workers are looked after, two things will happen. We don’t act on climate change properly and there will be devastation and disaster and jobs will be under threat, economies could collapse.

If we act on climate change and not ensure enough jobs are in place and we don’t re-jig the economy and look at safety nets such as welfare by ensuring displaced workers are looked after, then there will be huge pockets of poverty if action needs to be taken very urgently so we don’t hit the 2 degrees. The detail about the 2 degrees was in 2015, I’m pretty sure the consensus is that action is now urgent.

I know people see me as some sort of enemy of climate change, but that is certainly not the case. I am pro-worker. Worker focused. I view the world through the worker and disadvantaged.

If we act or do not act on climate change, the worker and poor will bear the brunt of these changes. The worker and the poor do not have complete agency as they rely on others, work, govt to live life. They deserve to be protected.

As I said, Labor is not leading a national conversation on the envisaged displaced work of the future and that completely ignores the workers who will be displaced. They have good ‘intentions’ by writing a transition plan. However, in my article I raise a lot of questions to think about in what a transition plan should look like. This is not just about ‘the Greens’ It is about anyone who isn’t putting the worker first. Believe me, I’ve wanted to jump through the computer and yell at Shorten sometimes too, when he ONLY talks about reducing emissions and not the workers who will need to be retrained, replaced, redeployed etc.,

Anyone who doesn’t care what happens to jobs and people who work in those jobs because we need to act on climate change, is acting from a position of privilege. I feel it is important to demonstrate this because simply asking people to think about the worker does not work, as describe above, it is met with absolute hostility, and the belief that the person raising the issue is not convinced by climate change. It simply does not work.

As my conclusion states, activism needs to occur to ensure a synergistic framework that combats climate change and looks after the worker.

As you will note from the International Union literature you read before, they say, we don’t need to make the same mistakes of the Industrial revolution. We can do both.

These conversations and push to make sure politicians do the right thing can never happen unless the worker is put front and centre of this debate. Not doing so, is a position of privilege, because if everyone looked like the people in my photo, they would all be worried about the worker. They would be pushing damn hard to make sure people will not be left in poverty and communities left as ghost towns.

This does not have to be jobs OR environment pathway. It can be both.

I hope that clarifies.

Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 12:14 am

Trish, the way you speak to people is unlikely to unite them in a common cause. You are patronising and dismissive and totally misrepresent what others are saying. I’m out.

Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 12:15 am

The feeling is quite mutual Kaye. Night.

paulwalterJune 19, 2017 at 12:59 am

I think Helen Bates’ mistake has been in attacking concerned people in cities rather than LNP tax cheats for the lack of money available to facilitate regional development/redevelopment.. Don’t forget, Turnbull wants to turn $60 billion MORE over to big business and the wealthy over the near future and am thus surprised at Helen Bates’ ignorance as to where the REAL financial drain on the system is emanating from, resulting thus in others appearting surprised at Helen Bates’ comments which indicate lack of seriousness through lack of research as to causes.

diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 7:57 am

I, Kaye Lee, Keith, and many others have discussed ways of transitioning workers from defunct industries to sustainable ones. We have pointed out the need for both government and big business to act responsibility in a changing world and to provide training and support for workers.

Yet, Trish, you keep telling us that we are not concerned about workers.

I am confident in saying all of us are workers or have retired from working. Many of us have experienced retrenchment, stressful work and long hours, some of us were harmed by our jobs.

Yet, because we question your wisdom in choosing to target what you term “environmental elitists” you claim that we are unconcerned about workers.

This makes no sense.

FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 8:02 am

Trish Corry, quote: Anyone who doesn’t care what happens to jobs and people who work in those jobs because we need to act on climate change, is acting from a position of privilege. End of quote

How wrong you are!

JohnoJune 19, 2017 at 8:19 am

Freethinker, Diannaart…. I agree with you both. Most, if not all the activists I know are workers and definitely not elitists. They are just average people who are sick to death of the treatment by often seemingly large untouchable companies who run rough shod over the environment.

Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 8:21 am

Dianna, give yourselves a pat on the back. Despite explaining countless times this is not about you. It is about a wider movement out there who I engaged with daily for four weeks to understand them. If you don’t know this is a very prevalent in ignoring the worker, maybe expand to a few other platforms.

However, the difference between the comments here and the ones from people who see this article about putting the worker first, are very different observations about the article. Instead of thinking it’s about them they make suggestions like “you should send those ideas to policy committee. I know they are talking about transition.” And “absolutely, a conversation on climate change should always include the worker.” As examples.

Not one person even has given any thought to the most important part of the article and that is the section with the questions we should ask to develop a transition plan.

Take the article however you like. Despite the length of comments, the distaste is relatively concentrated. If I get more people to start asking questions about workers and using activism to insist on a fair transition, frankly I don’t care who thinks this is personal. Because it isn’t.

Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 8:28 am

Nope. Certainly not. If you don’t care about what happens to the workers then you are indeed speaking from a position of privilege. People forget unemployment creates poverty and poverty also kills people. If you don’t care about purposely creating unemployment as activism insists to shut industry down (you do know there are people who want to shut all coal mines down right?) or gloat and celebrate the closure of Hazelwood because it was a filthy coal plant and your concern isn’t about how those people feed their kids, then it’s a position of privilege. As a friend pointed out. There should never be discussion on action on climate change without including the worker. Spot on I say.

diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 8:46 am

If you don’t care about what happens to the workers then you are indeed speaking from a position of privilege.

No one here has said they don’t care about workers, quite the opposite.

As for:

There should never be discussion on action on climate change without including the worker.

Tell that to big business/government who are ignoring workers, scientists, landscape planners and any who beg for a sustainable future.

I have never claimed this discussion is about me, nor have I gotten personal. I just happen to disagree with part (only part) of your article.

Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 8:48 am

What part of “this is not about a few people on AIMN” that you don’t understand? Again instead of making a suggestion, it’s easier to blame something else. There is a pattern. You just can’t see it.

diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 8:50 am

Not one person even has given any thought to the most important part of the article and that is the section with the questions we should ask to develop a transition plan.

This thread has been full of support for and ways to find transition plans.

Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 8:51 am

Lol ok

JohnoJune 19, 2017 at 9:00 am

What would you say about the Sea Shepherd. You could not get a more direct action group of activists. Would you consider them as elite privileged activists.

FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 9:01 am

Trish, read the attached link, it is not the silver bullet buy IMHO is a good step.
https://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/Caring%20for%20Coal%20Workers%20FINAL.pdf

Are you aware of any ALP plan?

RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 9:12 am

Trish keeps saying that we don’t care about workers. We’ve been saying all along that we care about workers, so I can’t figure it out.

If she looks at what we’re saying she’d see that we care more about ten workers than two workers (not in those words). But all she sees is that we don’t care much about those two workers, therefore we don’t care about workers.

I’d like to think that we could have jobs for those two as well as those ten. We can’t. It’s one or the other.

Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 9:13 am

I’ve linked Labors transition plan, it’s just the pro worker people on here exhausted discussing the merits of it. ?I have read Greens plan though. I’ll be writing an article on the transition plans later on. Thx.

Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 9:18 am

Roswell if you are leading some type of activism about a fair transition of workers, if you are engaging with the wider movement and raising work transition within, if you are writing about why we need to put workers first etc than it’s not about you. Frankly the pattern is, let’s talk about how offended I am that Trish thinks I’m privileged instead of discussing the important part of the article which is about jobs transition and responding to climate change through a worker framework.

So no, I don’t see what you saying because everyone has been focused on the term privilege and making cases for how they aren’t and how horrible I am to say so, rather than discussing what a worker led response would look like.

FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 9:27 am

Trish, is the ALP Strategic Industries Taskforce and the Just Transitions Advisory Council up and running or the ALP wait for people be unemployed to start doing something about ?

diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 9:32 am

I don’t see what you saying because everyone has been focused on the term privilege

Trish, please give example.

Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 9:34 am

Goodness sake Dianna, just go and read through the comments yourself. The commentary certainly hasn’t been about workers.

FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 9:41 am

Trish for the last 10 years, since Howard government the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) said quote:
“We need a massive investment in low emission coal technology.” ref: Tony Maher
Also he said. quote:
“A coalminer or a power station worker isn’t going to leave their job on $120,000-plus with well-regulated shift arrangements and decent conditions to install low-wattage light bulbs or insulation,”

So, in some ways there are in the same page than the Coalition, any solution as long as we use coal.

RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 9:42 am

Trish, I wasn’t referring to your article. I was referring to your comments. Either you’ve misread what people have written or you’re putting words in their mouths.

Do what you’ve asked Dianna to do: just go and read through the comments yourself.

Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 9:49 am

“everyone has been focused on the term privilege and making cases for how they aren’t and how horrible I am to say so, rather than discussing what a worker led response would look like.”

That is so not true. You blame “environmental elitism” for job losses yet cannot provide one example of where this has happened.

I, and many others, have discussed alternative employment. The obvious area is renewable energy. The second very obvious area is mine regeneration (which the Greens focus on) as this could provide employment in the mining communities where jobs are being lost. I won’t repeat the much longer list of alternative employment I posted earlier as it will no doubt just be ignored again.

“activism insists to shut industry down (you do know there are people who want to shut all coal mines down right?) ”

Even the International Energy Agency, in their report published a couple of weeks ago, has said that coal has no future without carbon capture and storage, and only a limited one with it. Under the 2DS scenario, all unabated coal must be phased out by 2045. Under the more ambitious B2DS scenario, the 1.75°C target, coal generation must be gone by 2040.

They could hardly be called environmental activists.

The nature of employment is changing economy wide and it has very little/nothing to do with activism.

diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 10:00 am

Goodness sake Dianna, just go and read through the comments yourself. The commentary certainly hasn’t been about workers.

You are not prepared to prove anything you claim.

I HAVE read through the comments, which is why I am confident you will not find anyone here (by ‘anyone’ I mean regular AIM commentators) who have argued they are privileged.

Ditto your claim that no-one has commented about workers.

You have terrific energy, determination – I wish you could concentrate on what has been agreed upon, which is most of your article, with the exception of your issues with “environmental elitists”.

You seem intent on creating problems rather than collaborating with others to solve them. Now you may well be actively working with people outside of AIM – as are many of us. However, you allow no dissent at all, when some part of your writing is questioned.

Helen BatesJune 19, 2017 at 10:01 am

JohnoJune 19, 2017 at 9:00 am
“What would you say about the Sea Shepherd. You could not get a more direct action group of activists. Would you consider them as elite privileged activists.”
Now this may shock you Johno but I support the Sea Shepherd and donate to the cause regularly and have downloaded all the tv shows but I would consider them as ” elite privileged activists.” able to afford to walk away from the burdens and costs of everyday life to pursue their belief. I don’t think the checkout operator struggling to feed a family or the Council Labourer struggling to pay a mortgage if he could afford one could just pack up on a whim and go to sea for months on end no matter how dedicated to a cause they might be,Do you support them and if so why aren’t you on board?
I believe I know people who are probably more committed to the cause than some on board but are anchored at home with the responsibilities of home families jobs and responsibility

KeithJune 19, 2017 at 10:03 am

It really is powerful elites ( leeches ) who need to be tackled in relation to workers; they are able to take advantage of tax breaks not possible for workers. The well healed are able to stop young people from buying homes being on the gravy train of negative gearing, politicians are in on the gravy train through buying investment properties so it is not likely we will see change here. Negative gearing is a great way to reduce taxable income.

We have known about the 1 percenters in the US, but they are here in Australia as well.

Workers and those pressing for real action in climate change pretty well have the same enemies … those residing at the big end of town, though naturally there are exceptions. Currently, it is mainly people living at subsistence level who are impacted by lack of food resources and adequate water supplies; though some wealthier people are being hit through flooding, erosion, and wildfires.
Munich Re has stated that for 2012, 180 billion dollars of damage had happened through extreme events, mostly climatic; for 2016 the figure was 175 billion dollars. Those figures do not account for properties not insured; so children, young adults and elderly are effected and affected. Workers would clearly provide a significant proportion of those having lost assets.

Scientists respond in a very rational way to evidence they find to support, or otherwise, any data they collect. The long Esquire article referenced earlier describes the psychological pressure climate scientists are under through the data they are collecting and the orchestrated efforts of powerful groups to provide fake news trying to undercut scientists. Those groups undercutting scientists represent the leeches of the Planet. Those leeches undercut the wages and salaries of workers and place humanity generally in real danger.

Trish, I do not agree that those pushing for real action on climate change are as big a problem as you present. There certainly is debate about how best to present views on climate change. Investment in renewable energy has been thwarted by neo con politicians in Australia; yet, many jobs have and will be created in this sector. We go with innovation or push a dying industry; the first being beneficial for workers, the second creating heartache all around.

Helen BatesJune 19, 2017 at 10:20 am

“We have known about the 1 percenters in the US, but they are here in Australia as well.”
How come you lot get so worked up about the 1%ers. They are exactly that ONE PERCENT.
We do live in a democracy and America sort of democracy as is the UK and most of Europe from what I know so what responsibility are the 99% taking at the ballot box to reduce the 1%ers influence or is it just a handy line to use for political benefit. Do you believe in the power of the people?
Do you think that the majority don’t see the 1%ers as evil as it seems a minority do? after all they keep voting in the likes of Abbott Trump May Turnbull
Have you stopped to think the majority may be right and you lot wrong?

Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 10:30 am

Dianna. I write. If the main thesis is criticised I will defend my arguments. It’s really not up to a small group of people on AIMN to tell me who I am, what to think or what I should be doing. Last time I looked academic freedom was still a thing. As for not allowing dissent, it’s in abundance every single time I publish. I don’t tell anyone what they can or can’t say, but I reserve the right to explain my position if it is claimed to be wrong. You reserve the right not to read or comment if my writing or person are so offensive, rude, obnoxious or whatever else, as pointed out enough.

diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 10:51 am

Trish

I have NEVER in all my time at AIM described you as offensive, rude, obnoxious.

You say you * reserve the right to explain my position if it is claimed to be wrong* – I am not making claims I have proven you are wrong in your claims of the impact of “environmental elitists”.

The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong.

Carl Jung

KeithJune 19, 2017 at 11:04 am

Helen

There is much evidence of how a process of socialisation towards neo con views has happened in the US from the time of Reagan onwards. The Koch bros have been very adept at moving into communities influencing opinion. We have Heartlands who try to influence American State legislatures; so, it wasn’t an off the cuff comment. Remember prior to the 2013 Australian election we had some LNP politicians going to the US to learn techniques used by the Tea Party.

Abbott was knifed due to his continual poor showing in opinion polls.
Trump now has the lowest rating of any past President; he is being investigated by the FBI and Special Investigator Meuller. MI5 certainly believe allegations about Trump are true. The Dutch have also put together an explosive film about Trump.
Turnbull was very lucky to scrap in, polls now are not in his favour.
May only just scrapped in and the question arises whether she will be leader of the Conservatives in a years time.
Major Parties have just been bowled over in France.
Newman was knocked out in Queensland, and it is now likely the same will happen to Labor at the next election.

Career politicians are beginning to stink in the electorate no matter what Party they belong to.

Politicians generally are now seen to be at the bottom of the pile as far as integrity is concerned, per Readers Digest.

Helen BatesJune 19, 2017 at 11:08 am

Trish Corry you and I may have different views on a lot of things but I do believe in a fair and equitable return for a working person and the right of all to employment. I can understand why the little group of regulars who seems to have nothing better to do with their time and lurk around they keyboards all day and night it seems have it in for me so bad because I support One Nation and the Katter Party but you. it seems it is personal.Some don’t want their territory invaded and some have their set ideas and you won’t budge them with explosives. I understand you are a regular writer here so if you intend to return with another article go visit a disposal store and buy some protective gear because I can predict what will happen even without you writing a single word.For peace and harmony don’t rock the boat Trish or the meanies will get you

RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 11:10 am

I’m happy to back you up there, Dianna. You have never been offensive, rude or obnoxious.

RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 11:11 am

Helen Bates, what pure rot.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 19, 2017 at 11:15 am

diannaart,

your contributions are always welcome.

Helen BatesJune 19, 2017 at 11:24 am

Rosswell I just discovered that I could go back and read old Trish Corry articles ans reckon you might need a refresher as to the attack dogs try these articles just as a sample there are more and the same old culprits
Stuff the Silent Majority. It is Your Time to Be Heard
Australian Politics – An Aimless Discourse?
WA Voters: Disrupt the Disruption. Let’s Blow This Shit Up!
Assimilate but GTFO – of our billboards

JohnoJune 19, 2017 at 11:38 am

Helen
Yes, I am surprised you support sea shepherd and I am glad you do. The ocean creatures need all the help they can get. I would disagree with your views of them being privileged like you say. In fact I look at what they do as a job ie work. Albeit they are mostly volunteers whereas greenpeace crews are paid.

Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 11:48 am

The enormous increase in capital investment in mining in Queensland from 2010-2015 was not accompanied by a significant increase in employment or fall in unemployment in regional Queensland.

Pressures created by the construction boom mean that increases in mining employment have been offset by stalled growth and job losses in non-mining industries like tourism, agriculture and local manufacturing. Job gains in the more mining intensive regions of Mackay, Outback Queensland and Fitzroy were largely offset by falls in Cairns, Townsville and Wide Bay.

Perhaps surprisingly, more than a third of all mining workers in Queensland live in the south-east metropolitan corner of Queensland

There are currently calls to use taxpayers money to be used to subsidise large resource projects that would otherwise be un-commercial, and for governments to reduce environmental protections to reduce costs to the mining industry.

The lesson for regions that have become dependent on mining is to prioritise the long term non-mining industries rather than tolerating collateral damage to these industries in a headlong rush to profit from temporary mining booms. Mining booms are by definition short term, and it is the long-term industries that are displaced by excessive mining that continue to employ the vast bulk of people from these regions.

http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/P293%20Queensland%20regional%20jobs%20FINAL.2.pdf

FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 11:53 am

diannaart, I always read your comments, they are constructive.

RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 12:23 pm

Helen Bates, how could I ever debate with you? The communication barrier is too high for me to climb.

I yield. I yield.

RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Kaye, brilliant find. Hard to argue against that.

Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 1:18 pm

On a more constructive note…..

More than 4,000 Queenslanders are now back on the job, thanks to the Palaszczuk Government’s $100 million Back to Work regional jobs program.

Employment Minister Grace Grace said the government was already more than half-way to achieving its target of 8,000 new jobs through Back to Work, less than half way into the two year program.

“Back to Work is already supporting 4,017 jobs in regional Queensland, where they’re needed most,” Ms Grace said.

“There are a further 1,146 pending applications being processed.”

Back to Work

Two-year program running to July 2018 that provides employer support payments for eligible employers who hire an unemployed worker
$10,000 for an unemployed worker
$15,000 for long term unemployed (out of work for 12 months or more)
$20,000 for hiring a young jobseeker aged 15-24 (from 1 December 2016 to 31 October 2017)

Jobs Supported by $100 million Back to Work Regional Jobs Program

Far North Queensland 877 (including 407 Youth Boost)

North Queensland 841 (including 414 Youth Boost)

Mackay-Whitsunday 574 (including 257 Youth Boost)

Central Queensland 643 (including 366 Youth Boost)

Wide Bay 793 (including 411 Youth Boost)

North West Queensland 108 (including 39 Youth Boost)

South West Queensland 181 (including 109 Youth Boost)

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2017/5/24/back-to-work-program-supporting-4000-jobs-in-regional-queensland

diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 1:28 pm

Kaye Lee

Backing your claims with evidence – I expect no less.

🙂

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 19, 2017 at 1:34 pm

We need a back to work program like that in Gippsland.

Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 1:43 pm

JMS,

You had a similar program in Victoria but it has been fully subscribed. There is some left for specific industries.

The $100 million allocation for the scheme has been fully subscribed. A $15 million allocation will be set aside for retrenched automotive industry workers and dairy industry workers. These workers will continue to benefit from the scheme. A further $1 million is available for employers of unemployed people living in the Latrobe Valley and retrenched workers from the Hazelwood power station.

Claims for the following categories will remain open until the $15 million fund is fully subscribed or 30 June 2018 (whichever occurs first):

Dairy industry workers ($5000)
Retrenched automotive workers ($7000)

Claims will remain open until the $1 million fund is fully subscribed or 30 June 2017 (whichever occurs first) for:

Unemployed people living in the Latrobe Valley ($5000)
Retrenched workers from the Hazelwood power station ($5000)

An additional amount of up to $4000 is available to employers who provide accredited training to these eligible employees.

http://www.sro.vic.gov.au/backtowork

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 19, 2017 at 2:24 pm

Thx. Unfortunately, its perimeters are not wide enough.

jimhazJune 19, 2017 at 2:37 pm

[Wealthier advanced countries advocating against poorer countries accessing fossil fuel energy. Although this may be a step enable fuelling, farming, agriculture and new industry]

Surely renewable energy research and development by the West, would eventually lead to access to energy for all poor countries, not just those that might have coal.

Personally I regard renewables as no more expensive than coal. Costs in Western countries are inflated for many reasons – not least of all excessive profit taking, but they also price according to a consumers ability to pay. China and India charge about 8c per KWh compared to 29c for Aus (2011) and I’d expect similar lower costs in renewables.

diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 2:39 pm

Further to discussion on renewables creating new and more jobs than fossil fuel:

In 2007 and 2008, more wind power was installed in the United States than in the previous 20 years combined, representing a $27 billion investment.
More than 70 wind turbine component manufacturing facilities opened, expanded, or were announced.
Moreover, according to their respective trade associations, the U.S. wind industry employed 85,000 people in 2008, up
35,000 from 2007, and the solar energy industry employed more than 80,000 people, up more than 15,000 from 2006.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_energy/Clean-Power-Green-Jobs-25-RES.pdf

I’d like to see more recent figures, however, the opportunities for creating long term stable employment are there and will continue to grow as our knowledge of renewable energy grows.

jimhazJune 19, 2017 at 2:46 pm

Back to Work programs, excluding large retrenchment situations, have to be just a political game and a mispend of money.

I’d rather give 100m to the CSRIO and give them the task of creating industries that can be sustained in regional areas using Australian inventions (why let creeps like those on Shark Tank rip off the inventors).

Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 3:05 pm

diannaart,

Annual direct FTE employment in renewable energy activities in Australia was estimated at 11,150 in 2015-16, a decline of 8,070 FTE (-42%) from a peak of 19,220 in 2011-12.

Total annual direct FTE employment in wind power has been varied, with a high in 2013-14 of 1,720 to a low of 620 in 2015-16

“Axing the tax”, reneging on the 1 million solar roof program, and deciding wind turbines were ugly and made you sick, cost us many many jobs but they are on their way back.

Since January 2016, Queensland has seen an unprecedented level of investment in renewable energy, with 17 large-scale projects either commencing construction or finalising commercial arrangements.

These projects will deliver almost 1200 megawatts of clean power to the state, boost investment by more than $2.2 billion and create 2200 new jobs, mostly in our regional centres.

The Expert Panel found that a 50% renewable target could drive $6.7 billion of new investment, and deliver a net increase in employment of 6400–6700 full-time equivalent positions on average per year between 2020 and 2030.

KeithJune 19, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Energy prices are going up, the promises made by Abbott were known to be hollow in relation to energy prices coming down, now there is evidence Abbott was completely wrong and remains so. The question is what impact will the cost of energy have on future employment prospects for workers?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-19/why-youre-about-to-pay-through-the-nose-for-power/8629090?smid=Page:%20ABC-Facebook_Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf89787966=1

diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 4:04 pm

…and deciding wind turbines were ugly and made you sick, cost us many many jobs.

I think we’ve finally unearthed a couple of “environmental elitists”: Joe Hockey & Tony Abbott.

🙁

diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm

**These projects will deliver almost 1200 megawatts of clean power to the state, boost investment by more than $2.2 billion and create 2200 new jobs, mostly in our regional centres.

The Expert Panel found that a 50% renewable target could drive $6.7 billion of new investment, and deliver a net increase in employment of 6400–6700 full-time equivalent positions on average per year between 2020 and 2030.**

Kaye Lee, acknowledging your work: I believe the above should be tattooed on the foreheads of some people who should know better.

Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 7:38 pm

Thanks dianna. I just wish I could convince Trish that we are on the same side and work together to get these dinosaur politicians to help.

FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 7:44 pm

Great post Kaye, I hope that it will not be skip by those that do a selective reading.

Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 7:55 pm

And for comedic relief, when it was exposed that climate change denier Cory Bernardi had installed solar panels on his house, his response was “Don’t fret, I haven’t drunk the renewable energy Kool-Aid. I’ll leave that idiocy to the Labor, Liberal and Xenophon crew,”

The man’s as mad as a cut snake, as my mother would say.

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/climate-sceptic-cory-bernardi-puts-solar-panels-on-his-roof-20170612-gwpsva#ixzz4kRNXVSYS

diannaartJune 20, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Kaye Lee

Even the chronic deniers will be into sustainable tech when they realise it is simply more economical.

However, we don’t have time to wait for them, nor do we have time to argue over straw men, we need to get going.

leonbrontskiJune 23, 2017 at 1:02 am

Where Fools Fail to Trend

Jumpingin late and from a different country

But here goes.

A job is only important as long as it is the source of economic survival, social status, or personal advocation. Unfortunately in market based (capitalist) systems jobs are all three of those things to many workers. Worse still jobs are also the source of exploitation, occupational danger, inequality and alienation (both Marxists and psychological).

Capitalism only works (to the degree that it works at all) when there are more workers seeking jobs than jobs. Thus most (many) (blue collar) workers are in constant fear of being unemployed.

This makes us vulnerable to manpulation by bosses and politicains who play to our fears.

Greens appear to have been beaten up sufficiently by the jobs versus environment argument that (once again) “we” generate argumentation that appears to side with capitalists in that the captialist does not care about our jobs and the Greens tell us we can go from logging to tourism, lose our unions, lose our pensions, in the US lose our health care and all will be ok because there are plenty of jobs in the city (just none where we live in the rural villages and where we have lived for generations).

The common theme here is (I hope) we are not each others natural enemy but have been wedged by those who are laughing all the way to the bank.

Until we (green and worker/worker and green) can withdraw the wedge and unite the false dichotomy of jobs versus environment will persist to be defining. Unfortunately this is easier to say than to accomplish. The way forward I think begins with identifying commonalities and building trust. Then a discussion of our difference is possible. But to talk at each other as compared to with each other tends to divide rather than unify. It is possible to develop a workers centric green agenda. The challenge is that it flies straight into the face of the power structure. As long as mulitnational corporations can be green and profitable they will be green. It means that they are either externalizing their green actions onto the commons or the worker or both. Or they have found a short term method to monetized being green (cap and trade for example). But capitalism results in concentration of economic and political power. As long as the polluters and exploiters (of both human and natural resources) are in power. We end up fighitng over the crumbs.

From the belly of the beast in the US, a retired forest products industry worker who lost his union, and too many rural communities to greed.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 23, 2017 at 8:10 am

Hear, hear leonbrontski.

diannaartJune 23, 2017 at 12:50 pm

Well said, leon

Capitalism works well by segregating people, equity works by collaboration.

Kaye LeeJune 23, 2017 at 2:07 pm

The thing that has really troubled me about this thread is that we all agree that any proposed action on climate change (or anything else for that matter) must consider the broader consequences. We all agree that action on climate change is not optional and that future employment must be a consideration. So why have we been arguing?

FreethinkerJune 23, 2017 at 2:39 pm

So why have we been arguing?
My interpretation is that in one side are those that do not like to be the first ones to get out of their comfort zone (change jobs/life style) and on the other side are those that are in a situation that any change will not change their life so lets act now.
Perhaps I am wrong..

Kaye LeeJune 23, 2017 at 2:59 pm

I understand what you are saying Freethinker but don’t really agree. According to every expert, action on climate change MUST happen now. It isn’t a matter of hey it won’t affect me. Inaction will affect everyone. If we start from there then we can focus our energy on helping the affected communities who are a far smaller number than those affected by the closure of the car industry and other manufacturing which were, in part, cruelled by the high Aussie dollar that the mining boom caused. If we could agree that the Adani mine mustn’t go ahead, that no new coal mines or coal-powered energy generation should be built, then we could forget the false promises about the jobs it will create and start looking for viable alternatives.

jimhazJune 23, 2017 at 4:11 pm

[As long as mulitnational corporations can be green and profitable they will be green]

I also like your post Leon, but on this point it needed to be phrased as “…and can maximise profitibility they will be Green”

In a globalised world, wherein ethical behavior seemingly only occurs via legislation and adequate policing of that legislation, there is umm a world of difference.

FreethinkerJune 23, 2017 at 4:41 pm

Kaye, I guess that I should have expressed my self more clear.
You are saying that every expert and I add every person that have the head screwed in their shoulders should take action on climate change
and “MUST happen now “.
Well my point is how many people are starting doing something NOW and how many are waiting for the politicians, governments, etc to start first and then follow?
How many fellow bloggers are here that are minimalist or are starting to minimise now, even starting today?
How many people have reduced the energy consumption including removing the AC from the beginning of the year?
I can go on and on

Kaye LeeJune 23, 2017 at 6:31 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with that Freethinker. Aside from reducing our demand, we should also be looking to minimise waste through reusing and recycling. Periodically my local government has a day when you can take all of your old electronic stuff – tvs, computers, phones, printers etc to the showground. They did a kerbside pickup for whitegoods. Local government can help make this easier. So much furniture goes to the tip. Surely at least parts of it could be reused or refurbished. We should also be reducing packaging and using more environmentally friendly materials. And keep things for longer. I am still sitting on the same lounge that I was sitting on when colour tv started here.

JohnoJune 23, 2017 at 6:52 pm

Thats pretty good Kaye, that must be one well loved couch. I agree. With cars it can be difficult, I am still using the old 98 hilux for my tree planting business. The gear box died last week and 3.3 k later its up and running, 3 years ago it was a 6 k engine recon. Most would say goodbye and upgrade.

Kaye LeeJune 23, 2017 at 7:00 pm

The lounge , she is dead, but my husband has been reluctant to say goodbye. It’s perfect lying length for watching tv (read nodding off).

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 23, 2017 at 7:05 pm

A customer we had in an Op Shop I recently volunteered in argued the best case for recycling. As a keen sewer (the sweet smelling kind), she found the donated clothing to be a great source of quality materials that are not as affordably available elsewhere.

Antique furniture is also an example of accessing quality craftsmanship and quality materials. It’s surprising there has not been a resurgence in the antiques and collectables industry for that reason.

FreethinkerJune 23, 2017 at 7:09 pm

My wife and I also believe that we do not need so much space to live so we minimised to a 60 square meters house.
I believe that we can do even better and will see what we can do in the future.
Our yearly energy cost is no more that $1100 and I am looking into the possibilities of go of the grid if local laws allow us to do that.
We try to cook using on season products and not purchasing products that are imported when they are made in Australia.
Globalisation is a pure economic strategy but not very good for the global climate change.
Live simple, consume foods in season and local produced if it is possible ,try to restore and not upgrade, and finally minimise.
If we all do that there will be a change and further more we will have more rights to asks to our governments to act.

Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 23, 2017 at 7:16 pm

100% Freethinker

Kaye LeeJune 24, 2017 at 12:39 pm

The largest coal mining company in the world has announced it will close 37 mines because they are no longer economically viable.

Coal India, which produces around 82 per cent of India’s coal, said the mines would be decommissioned by March 2018.

The government has announced it will not build any more coal plants after 2022 and predicts renewables will generate 57 per cent of its power by 2027 – a pledge far outstripping its commitment in the Paris climate change agreement.

Plans for nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – were scrapped in May, signalling a seismic shift in the India’s energy market.

A report in February by Delhi-based research group, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), found that if the cost of renewable energy continued to fall at the same rate, India could phase out coal completely by 2050.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coal-india-closes-37-mines-solar-power-sustainable-energy-market-influence-pollution-a7800631.html

Every day Adani grows less likely to go ahead

JohnoJune 26, 2017 at 8:18 am

The common thread of jobs, environmental flows and climate change.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/03/special-report-will-climate-change-kill-off-nz-s-rivers.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/murray-darling-basin-plan-failing-environment-scientists-say/8650270?section=environment

JohnoJuly 4, 2017 at 8:17 am

“Over the next 20 years approximately 44 per cent of Australia’s jobs, that’s more than 5 million jobs, are at risk of being disrupted by technology, whether that’s digitisation or automation,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-03/how-artificial-intelligence-will-reshape-our-lives/8674576

and this is all considering in 20 years we don’t end up like this…

Prof Hawking said the action could put Earth onto a path that turns it into a hothouse planet like Venus.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40461726

Return to home page

Login here Register here

Joseph CarliJune 15, 2017 at 5:50 pm

Trish..I have to wonder where you are going with this proposition. What is at stake is completely out of the hands of ANY worker in ANY industry. The forces at play in this policy decision (and I am presuming you are continuing on from your last piece..correct me if I am wrong) could be of great consequence to not only local (Qld’.) employment in the mining sector, but throughout and beyond the influence of Australia..Climate Change politics and radicalism is now a world-wide concern…for good reason, and placing the workers of Qld’. at the centre of the politics is a tad difficult to justify and a tad unfair to utilise.

A transition to other employment is, I agree, difficult for the miner / worker trained and used to systemic employment for many years..but if one keeps on financing such high employment and training projects, the inevitable…inevitable winding down of obsolete projects will be just that more difficult and more horrendous.

The difficulty in this current situation, is the double fact that all mining projects currently operating or planned are run on the capital / shareholder based economic structure and with a federal govt’ not interested in govt’ owned energy producers, there is little ambition to move those miners employed and the young folk from the regions into alternative energy employment..and most employment in the mining industry is of a skills level relatively easily managed in training.

A bit of a check-mate situation managed by corporate capital and government indolence so far out of the hands of the workers who are but pawns in the game.
FreethinkerJune 15, 2017 at 5:57 pm

I will take more time to reply to other point in your article but for start I disagree with you views about the Greens.
Read please the Greens Platform which it is not perfect but better that the one from both big parties
https://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-energy
https://greens.org.au/policies/natural-resources-forests-mining-fisheries

Quote from their page:
A prosperous and sustainable economy relies upon a healthy natural environment. Economies exist within, and are dependent upon, natural systems. Environmental stewardship is, therefore, central to sound economic management.
In order to provide for the needs of present and future generations, economic management should prioritise improving the quality of life rather than the production and consumption of material output. The pursuit of continuous material-based economic growth is incompatible with the planet’s finite resources.
Human induced climate change poses the greatest threat to our world, requiring Australia and all nations to transform to a low carbon economy. The cost of addressing climate change now is far less than the cost of failing to do so.
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 5:59 pm

Thanks, when you respond, can you also please point out where I have expressed an opinion about The Greens? Except to tell Shorten to leave the environmentalism to them?
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 6:03 pm

Placing the workers of Qld’. at the centre of the politics is a tad difficult to justify and a tad unfair to utilise.

I am at a loss how you see this as a point I have made in this article. Some of the things you talk about however, do connect to the article. That is why I am suggesting a set of national reforms, to counteract various issues. Not just see renewables as the simple solution.

If you placed the worker at the centre of the framework and the coal you speak of was phasing out or didn’t exist? What are the answers to your own questions?
diannaartJune 15, 2017 at 6:10 pm

Let’s just mine all coal to keep workers in jobs until all fossil fuels run out.

Apparently to suggest that mining workers be retrained for post fossil-fuel-run-out is not a consideration. In fact it may even be ‘elitist’ to suggest that mining workers be retrained for alternative technologies.

Just one question. When fossil fuels do run out. What happens to workers then?

Another question. Telstra, yet again, is “restructuring” itself by slashing the jobs of 1400 workers. Where’s Labor’s outcry? Or are only certain jobs not “elitist”?

Damn it, more questions. Why do you favour mining sector jobs over other jobs? Why create a division between workers at all?

That is hardly “inconsequential” now is it?
FreethinkerJune 15, 2017 at 6:13 pm

Joseph Carli, the argument put by many regarding lost jobs due to closure on mining is wrong
In USA as an example ( a fact that Donald Trump does not like) solar energy employed 374,000 people over the year 2015-2016, making up 43 per cent of the sector’s workforce, while the traditional fossil fuels combined employed 187,117, making up just 22 per cent of the workforce.
This confirm the argument put by Richard Di Natale regarding solar and wind energy in Queensland.

Also we have to remember that it is the intention of the mining companies to automatise the machinery and transportation of the coal which will have as a result job loses.
If the argument that will be difficult to training miners to work in the eco-energy plants, the same we can say about few of these workers operating robots, computers and automatic machinery.
Joseph CarliJune 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm

You : ” The Author argues that climate change activism is led from a position of privilege. To counter this, the worker must be central to the climate change debate.”….

ME: “Placing the workers of Qld’. at the centre of the politics is a tad difficult to justify and a tad unfair to utilise.”

You: “I am at a loss how you see this as a point I have made in this article.”

You: “What are the answers to your own questions?”

Me: “The difficulty in this current situation, is the double fact that all mining projects currently operating or planned are run on the capital / shareholder based economic structure and with a federal govt’ not interested in govt’ owned energy producers, there is little ambition to move those miners employed and the young folk from the regions into alternative energy employment..and most employment in the mining industry is of a skills level relatively easily managed in training.”

The federal / State govt’s must reclaim control of the energy producing industries, both raw materials and production / distribution..There is the opportunity for security of supply and delivery, security of apprentice training and “end of working life” support. But as I said above… there is no appetite at the moment for such large ventures to be taken up by either State (except, it seems; South Aust’ ) or Federal govt’s. A tragedy, because blind Freddy can now see just what a mammoth and spectacular failure and disaster privatisation has been.
FreethinkerJune 15, 2017 at 6:20 pm

Trish Corry June 15, 2017 at 5:59 pm
Thanks, when you respond, can you also please point out where I have expressed an opinion about The Greens? Except to tell Shorten to leave the environmentalism to them?

Exactly Trish, why environmentalism to them?
Are you suggesting that the Greens only are interested in the environment and do not have any other policies or concerns?

Trish without healthy environment there is no quality of life and no jobs as well, we are part of the ecosystem, just one tiny part of it.
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 6:25 pm

The comment is about Shorten’s narrative, not the Greens. As the article is about the working class. I think I made your last point in my article as one reason we can’t talk about a serious jobs and economic transition.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Why equate environmental activism to elitism?
Why use the same ploys of hijacking positive language for reverse meaning with probable negative consequences?
Why be prepared to play the same semantics and eloquent debating tactics as the little Liberal twats who have done that through their student and young Lib years?

People need jobs. Even more so as this Lib/Lab dinosaur duopoly persist to frustrate and reduce our diverse lives of many opportunities. (That’s why we need further discussion of equitable concepts such as the Job Guarantee as espoused by Modern Monetary Theory, so that every role in society is given both a social and economic worth.)

However, just coz we need jobs, does not mean any job will do. Working on the Adani mine and assisting with the destruction of the Great Barrier Reef equates to economic prostitution and can be equated to its social kin which many people put their noses up against.
LeahJune 15, 2017 at 6:50 pm

Meanwhile there are predictions that within the next decade, and from then on, countless thousands of formerly relatively “secure” and reasonably well paid jobs will be replaced by robots.
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm

Thanks Leah. I forgot to mention in my article that was another consistent reason given by CC activists as to why we can’t talk about a serious transition for jobs and the economy towards a post coal world.
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 7:08 pm

Because it needs to be pointed out Jennifer so workers are not forgotten and workers are the focus as we move towards a post coal world. Urgent reform is needed for jobs and economy now. Not later. Sorry if the word makes you or anyone else uncomfortable.
helvityniJune 15, 2017 at 7:36 pm

“Why do you favour mining sector jobs over other jobs? Why create a division between workers at all?”, Diannaart asks the Labor….

The Coalition and Anna (Labor) want to concentrate on mining jobs at the time when world wants cut down emissions…Maybe our saviour, who promised ‘jobs and growth’ will take care of the 1400 people losing their Telstra jobs, and no doubt of all other jobless people….
Mal , please prove that you are a man , not a mouse, and honour your promises:’vote for us and the job numbers will GROW.’

‘You just have to get innovative and agile’ ; I’m all that the jobless say, but I’m still not rewarded.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 7:55 pm

Unless you’ve been blind, Trish, you will have noticed I care almost mostly for workers unless they’re not workers or families in destitution or the homeless or the dispossessed or the savaged environment or abused animals etc, etc, etc.

Sadly Trish,

the way you argue for workers’ rights still appears to be elitist in your focus coz they still have something to grasp onto. Your stubborn support for Pliberchuck’s pathetic response gives both you and her no merit coz it is now well documented that Adani cannot address Qld growing unemployment and under-employment.

Time to tell Pliberchuck to get off her butt and collaborate with grassroot groups to decide smart solutions for alternative employment opportunities in renewable energy industries that Queensland is well known to be able to provide otherwise why should YOU be called “the Sunshine State”?
FreethinkerJune 15, 2017 at 8:01 pm

Jennifer, Qld is in grave danger of becomes the Toxic State instead of the Sunshine State.
There is not a tad of political will to look for options, instead in the same all traditions of Joe “solutions” make a quick dollar without caring for the consequences.
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 8:03 pm

If it is viewed as elitist to put the worker first and argue strongly for a serious economic and regional focused jobs transition, towards a post coal world, then the powerful right wing conservative worker hating bourgeoisie have already won.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 8:13 pm

Sadly Trish,

your Qld coal workers and coal workers elsewhere have had their opportunity to mobilise for primary alternative energy industry opportunities for decades.

To be still crying about lack of such opportunities at this late stage after minimal if all effort from such worker bodies, does not cut the mustard.
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 8:43 pm

After having a long convo with an ex Hazelwood worker and unionist the other night, in the context of this article, your comment is particularly heartless.

I do hope some may read this article and actually take on the challenge to pressure political leaders and fellow activists to do better for the current and future displaced workers, and entire communities affected, rather than finding someone or something else to blame for inaction.
paulwalterJune 15, 2017 at 9:27 pm

Look don’t bother with it.

Don’t bother with anything she writes until she becomes a bit honest. It has all been dealt with previously and on many points refuted, yet Corry peddles, unmodified, the adversarial nonsense she was propagating last month as if all the comments returned her might as well have not been written since they weren’t read.

It’s just not good faith stuff, just alibis for the worst of Labor’s enviro outlook, regardless of whether this outlook is a sincere attempt at a factual representation or not. All it does is make me the more suspicious of Australian Blairite or New Labor and Corry herself.

Honest broker here?

Nah, move on…
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 9:30 pm

Our hearts go out to the now unemployed Hazelwood worker your spoke to.
Where was his (maybe her) heart when Latrobe became biggest unemployment region 20+ years ago?

Also, has your unionist friend considered how his/her workmates can automatically transfer into renewable energy industry which his/her comrades are building today???

Did you bother to ask that???
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 9:32 pm

True, Paul

Sadly Trish has lost her mojo 🙁
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 9:40 pm

If you read the article Paul, you would realise it is not an anti climate change, nor a pro coal stance. Disregarding the personal rot on here and the slurs towards me on Facebook by you, in the context of making excuses for Labor, considering in the article I call them out, your comment is just nonsense.
It is clear so far that many people including you are unable to move forward and demand better action on jobs and rethink how we handle the economy as we progress forward acting on climate change. It reinforces that many activists consider workers as inconsequential byproduct of their activism. I’m pretty sure the pro climate change lobby has won. It’s time to think about what we want the country to look like in terms of jobs and the economy moving forward towards a post coal world. If that’s dishonest, I can live with the accusation.
paulwalterJune 15, 2017 at 9:42 pm

If Trish wanted to REALLY impress me as to her credentials she would have been discussing why so little coverage of the Telstra sackings, 1400 workers, eg addressing the REAL issues of neoliberalist Oligarchy that mitigate against the working classes as to democratic representation in tandem with the despoiling of the common wealth including environment.

That is, not bellyaching against the left because it demonstrates again the ever present contradiction between what capitalism, including Blairite Laborism promises and what it actually does.
paulwalterJune 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm

Here, just reading this half an hour ago:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2017/06/the-difference-between-liberalism-and-leftism
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm

Jennifer you said the other day you community applauded the closure of Hazelwood. The person I spoke to is a champion. You have no idea. He is most likely more educated on this topic of how we should transition than anyone reading this, including me. I am asking for a much bigger picture than renewables in this article. If people could put down their weapons for five minutes they may actually see that.
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 9:46 pm

Why would I want or need to impress you Paul? I didn’t write the article for you. A very odd comment indeed.
FreethinkerJune 15, 2017 at 10:03 pm

Trish,
Workers are inconsequential by of the politicians that do not come with policies, the party members that do not put pressure on the politicians in their own party to change or be replaced and last but not less the people that are prepared to work in a industry or activity that damage the environment.
I am not a member of the ALP because I do not agree how it is working, but members like you, that are concerned with the environment and jobs should be active asking Anastasia Palaszczuk to come with better solutions and policies or just move to one side.
That is were your passion will get results, not in this site.
paulwalterJune 15, 2017 at 10:11 pm

Don’t worry, Trish. You don’t.
Trish CorryJune 15, 2017 at 10:12 pm

Completely agree. A serious transition plan I am talking about in my article should have commenced over ten years ago. If is urgent we have a vision of what we want this country to look like. Do we want the many pockets of 20% unemployment that Jennifer mentioned or prosperous regions? Hence my inclusion of Labor not putting workers central in this. I personally have been doing as much as I can. I’m off to bed now. I’ll respond to any other comments tomorrow.
Mick ByronJune 15, 2017 at 10:20 pm

Hi MS Corry I think you have written a thought provoking article
You really do seem to have a way of bringing out some strange responses from commenters and it seems to be the same ones who regularly lead the attack from what I’ve read of your past contributions. Personality conflicts?
Jennifer Meyer-Smith, “Trish lost her mojo”? hardly 😀
Who is “Pliberchuck’s”? I don’t mean it too sound too harsh but you rarely make sense
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 15, 2017 at 10:37 pm

Mick Byron,

send my regards to cornlegend and his housemaid whatever her name pretends to be 🙂
Kaye LeeJune 15, 2017 at 10:55 pm

Trish,

As a local, what are YOUR suggestions for employment opportunities in your area? What are YOUR suggestions for jobs that redundant coal miners could move into?

And could you please desist from your passive aggressive labelling of people as elitist because they are trying to protect the planet. The goal is to find sustainable employment.
Mick ByronJune 15, 2017 at 11:07 pm

Jennifer Meyer-Smith
And what is this all about “send my regards to cornlegend and his housemaid whatever her name pretends to be”
To use a Hanson line please explain
paulwalterJune 15, 2017 at 11:18 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive-aggressive_behavior
silkwormJune 15, 2017 at 11:25 pm

Wind and solar are industries that employ workers too, you know. Why privilege coal workers over renewables workers?

P.S. The Adani mine does not yet exist, so if it does not go ahead, inshallah, there will be no jobs lost.
Kaye LeeJune 15, 2017 at 11:39 pm

“The report said competition from Adani’s Queensland mine would reduce exports from Australia’s largest coal terminal at the port of Newcastle by 11 to 12 million tonnes a year — equivalent to the output of a Hunter Valley coal mine employing about 1,400 people.”
wayne johnsonJune 15, 2017 at 11:57 pm

we need clean energy why cant we retrain them to build the technology a lot of the miners have young children and in the environmental energy sector we can bring a lot of apprentices and during the mining boom why as the mining eventually does subside we have a lot of factory’s around to produce the equipment needed to build the technology i think we need to start training the kids now
JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 6:26 am

Trish
I consider myself working class and I would also consider climate change a sever threat to my employment.
wamJune 16, 2017 at 6:32 am

Planned obsolescence is to make money not help society.

There will be VETFEEHELP available and the institutions anointed by the rabbott will join with the ‘bums on seats’ vice-chancellors in the scramble for the debt cash. To waive that debt may be a start???

Certainly the selling of power has made money for fewer than the selling of telstra to the elite (the workers who invested are nearly on parity) but the power boys’ price hikes are in the 40-50% range not too far behind the ‘shed a couple of thousand more job’ telstra.

Heard the fryer announce the small and big business complaints about power his office has received. Pensioners and their power costs didn’t get a mention.

ps
Keep the diludbransimmiks(elites) in context as an establishment of the elite loony 10% being marginally ahead of Pauline 8% whose concept of Adani’s altruim in helping raise the lifestyle of the poor of India takes care of the neo-loonies.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 8:32 am

Kaye Lee, If a key term is overtly displayed in a heading, then in the body the argument that key term is defined by synthesising sociology/feminist and environmental bodies of literature and then detailing that support for the argument in the article- it is hardly passive aggressive. It is blatantly overt and direct. The opposite of passive aggressive.

Some of my ideas are listed as points within the article. I have no idea what you mean “as a local” This has an impact on all of Australia.

And for the record, I won’t desist.

Sadly, the majority of comments on this article, only reinforce the main argument of the article.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 8:37 am

Thanks Wayne. Some good ideas there. I list a few ideas in my article about apprentices and training as well. This article is not about Adani, it is about the progressive shift in our industry as we move towards a post coal (and possibly post beef) Australia; which has an impact on what our jobs and economy look like.

However, regardless of project, if a job opportunity was going to occur for a group of individuals and that project no longer went ahead, it could be argued that these are lost jobs. I really do not want to make this about Adani, though. It is much bigger than one project.

I agree, we need to start training kids now (probably ten years ago) but yes, now.
diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 9:46 am

Of course, this article should not be about Adani – apart from its timely example of the worst of private enterprise and government subsidising.

The decades of big business and government subsidies into large scale, low employment enterprises have resulted in Australia losing the skills of many trades and placed reliable workers into the dole queues. This trend is not unique to Australia, it is a world wide trend across the majority of the OECD nations (except for those canny Scandinavians who are able to plan for the future and care for people’s welfare).

However, the blatant harm caused by profiteers and their government cronies is not the debate here, any more than it is about Adani. The issue Trish is concerned about is the effect on jobs by elitist environmental activists.

Now it is not difficult to ascertain the damage to secure employment wrought by the aforementioned profiteers/governments, I see examples of it every day; from people sleeping out in the CBD to people working for less hours and less pay for the basics of life’s necessities.

I have not been privy to the impact on workers by elitist environmental activists – I hadn’t even heard the term before until Trish introduced it to this forum. No doubt they exist, human nature lends itself to feeling superior to others at every opportunity – which is why communism never really worked, but I digress.

Trish, I read your analysis of what elitism is, could you please identity exactly who these elitist environmentalists are (names, groups)? Being on a very low income myself, I rarely come into contact with the wealthy.

What percentage of the environmental movement do they hold?

… and detail the damage to employment prospects.

For convenience, you need only discuss the impact here in Australia by these elitists.

Thank you.
Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 9:59 am

Action on climate change and concern about the environment has nothing at all to do with privilege or elitism. It is about survival. “Leave the environmentalism to the Greens” is an astonishing abrogation of the responsibility we all must take to defend the planet.

As I mentioned before, the goal should be sustainable jobs and the reason I asked for your employment suggestions as a local is that you mention regional solutions. Opening Adani might provide a few jobs for regional Queenslanders temporarily but at what cost?

At the peak of construction, Dr Fahrer estimated, there would be about 2400 workers. But there was a catch. He found that these jobs would come at the expense of around 1500 jobs in manufacturing, agriculture, and from other mines. Overall, Fahrer said the Adani mine and railway would create “on average around 1464 employee years of full-time equivalent direct and indirect jobs”.

Should the medical profession who exposed the dangers of smoking not have done so because of the jobs that would be lost in the tobacco industry?
JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 10:23 am

Trish
I would like to the end of massive military expenditure, millions of JOBS are tied up with the military. What about the person in the factory building ground to air missiles or cluster bombs etc. These jobs would have to go for a more peaceful planet.
Mick ByronJune 16, 2017 at 10:24 am

Trish Corry
I took the time to look up some of the terms used in your article
Ideological elitism is often combined with compositional elitism. Ideological elitism accuses environmental reform proposals of having the underlying purpose of distributing benefits to environmentalists and/or costs to non-environmentalists, particularly to the least privileged. In other words, accusations of ideological elitism charge that concerns for environmental protection is a subterfuge for the pursuit of self-interest.

http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~hallman/ELITISM.htm

Aside from at-home environmentalism, the rich can afford to support state and federal policies favoring the environment without considering personal financial impact. For example, a Pew Research Center Poll found that two major voting groups oppose the Keystone XL pipeline: Democrats who make more than $100K annually and Democrats with college or advanced degrees. Vast environmental implications aside, constructing the Keystone XL pipeline would tangibly benefit the poor, who at present can’t afford gas accrued by lengthy commutes and old cars.

While the poor are understandably more concerned with job creation and saving gas money than saving the planet, the rich can deride from a distance anyone in favor of Keystone XL’s construction.

https://www.elephantjournal.com/2014/12/is-environmentalism-elitist/

I understand the concerns of many about the cost of power and at present renewables are out of reach of the many. I have spent almost $80,000 to get to a carbon neutral position but speaking to others and my employees their greatest concern is having an affordable energy source to provide the necessities of life at an affordable price.To them renewables are the future but the costs are beyond their means,They seek an affordable energy source and at present that is coal.Of course they have concerns for the environment and future generations but unfortunately they have to survive,provide heat light and power on an affordable here and now.Many dread the next power bill and that occupies their thoughts much more than debates about coal or renewables,one being hardly affordable to them and the other beyond their means
RoswellJune 16, 2017 at 10:37 am

Why do you favour mining sector jobs over other jobs?

Very valid question, diannaart. I like it.

To put it into context, “why favour a small percentage of jobs in a sector that has no future over a large percentage of jobs in thriving industries?”
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:02 am

Kaye. This is much bigger than Adani. I have listed a set of questions to be asked in the article as the reason we need a set of national progressive reforms as we move with action on climate change.

Action on climate change, when it disregards the impact on workers who will be displaced, is indeed from a position of privilege.

I have used an analysis of the literature, rather than just putting forth my own opinion for a reason Kaye.

Environmental elitism has three constructs detailed in the article below. Impact elitism is the one focused on as discussed. To ignore the impact on jobs as one champions for those jobs to be extinguished for a (positive) change, then the focus is only on the positive action, ignoring the negative consequence of job loss. It is indeed a position of privilege. Unless you are a coal or heavy industry worker and look forward to a world of unemployment with nothing else in its place for the greater good – then you are a Martyr. Essentially, the argument here is some commenting want displaced workers to be martyrs for the greater good. That is indeed privileged. Don’t they deserve for us to fight for a just transition for them?

Activists have said to me in the last few weeks that they would consider beef on the agenda next, as beef farming it is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. One even put up a detailed scientific explanation of how they can now reproduce beef without cows.

When climate activism (for a positive action) seeks to shut down beef farming, will activists be more sympathetic to farmers than they are coal workers? Is Beef Farming “less icky?”

Please reflect on action to job losses when it is an externality that we don’t agree with, such as the Government removing subsidies from the car industry and SPC. I still ONLY buy SPC to this day. I will always drive a Holden, but that is another story.

Please reflect on the position of caring for the jobs that will be lost if we don’t act on climate change. Is that a faux reaction of sympathy and outrage for workers, or a meaningful one?

Then reflect on the position of not caring for jobs in an industry that is despised and needs to shut down for positive change.

Then reflect on the position that says we can’t talk about a new future for these workers, and it is shouted down because in doing so means that you do not believe in climate change.

Then reflect on the position that says we can’t talk about a new future for these workers, and it is shouted down because climate change matters above all else.

Then reflect on the position that says we can’t talk about a future for these workers for the other million reasons that will follow.

Do you not agree that a positive action such as action on climate change that is being fought for to shut down an entire industry has negative consequences? Or do you just think it will be all apples? Or do you think the workers are insignificant? If not, what should be done about it?

The point is, CC is agreed upon, the change IS here. As more calls for change from activist emerge and Govt responds, the more our industrial landscape will change. My article argues for a series of national reforms to coincide with the action taken on climate change. Displaced workers need activism for a JUST transition. I point to the ACTU meme in the article. I don’t see any party getting off their arse and doing a thing about encouraging new industry to make jobs long term and sustainable in this shift. We need to think about what we want the country to look like. Not just smile and say “we did it! too bad about the unemployed though!”

This answers Dianna’s and Roswell’s question as well. Why care about jobs at all? It is clear many commenting here do not.

If this article sticks in anyone’s guts who hasn’t given a thought to advocacy around displaced workers in the coal free world you fight to have (with beef farming possibly next to kill off). It is meant to.
Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 11:03 am

I cannot understand using the power bill debate as a defence for coal. We do not have a price on carbon, we provide billions in fossil fuel subsidies, and power prices have still skyrocketed. Coal and gas aren’t cheap.

Solar energy is now cheaper in Australia than retail power prices in most capital cities after dropping 58 per cent in the past five years. The cost is predicted to fall a further 40 per cent to 70 per cent by 2040.

As for jobs, the solar sector employs 2.8 million people globally, outnumbering coal jobs. In the United States, solar now provides
twice as many jobs as coal. Over 8,000 Australians are now employed in solar and solar has the potential to create thousands more jobs as it grows.

Nationally, coal mining is projected to cut its workforce by 21 percent by November 2020, according to Commonwealth Department of Employment projections.

In Queensland, all parts of mining (coal, as well as gas and other resources) are projected to fall by 7,400 jobs to 2020.

Even disregarding the environmental cost, if you care about people having secure jobs, coal mining is NOT the way to go. You are making false assertions when you say the commenters are ignoring the need for jobs. It is those who pretend that coal mining will provide them who are being the privileged elitists who want those very high wages they have enjoyed to continue regardless of the consequences.
Hettie LynchJune 16, 2017 at 11:12 am

Three points.
1. There are NO jobs on a dead planet.
2. It’s not that the 69,000 jobs depending on the Great Barrier Reef individually have more importance than the 50 direct and indirect jobs that Adani’s own sworn testimony claims (if you allow a 30 year life for the mine- 1464 job years ÷ 30 = 50 near enough). It’s that those are jobs now, held by workers who spend their money in the local area, pay tax here, keep the local economy humming. The most wildly over optimistic estimate of 10,000 Adani jobs is still only a tiny fraction of the jobs that will collapse with the Reef.
3. The push for environmental responsibility may be led by the better off, better educated, but the people who will suffer first and most from climate change, are starting to hurt now, are overwhelmingly the worst off, the least educated. Those who can’t afford air con, let alone afford to run it for long periods.
Those who live far from their jobs and have to pay a big chunk of their income to get to work.
Those who rent substandard housing that is vulnerable to storm and cyclone damage, because they can afford nothing better.
Mining employs only a tiny fraction of the workforce. Renewables employs far more.
It is difficult to find comparison figures for Australia, but several websites state that in the US, jobs in the renewable sector outnumber jobs in the fossil fuel sector (which includes oil as well as coal and gas) by a factor of 5 to 1.
Jobs for women in renewables are also increasing rapidly, now 29% of the total.
So sorry Trish, but your analysis is deeply flawed, clearly driven by ideology not evidence and ultimately does both you and your cause a grave disservice.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:15 am

Case in point from Hettie above of WHY we can’t talk about displaced workers and why anyone is concerned about the impact on jobs as we move with these new changes is shouted down as a climate change denier.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:16 am

Thanks Mick. A good addition.
JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 11:31 am

Trish
What are your suggestions about how the transition could work ?
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:31 am

I am amazed (well not really) at the amount of commenters who position me a climate change denying pro-climate banshee when the article clearly calls for unity in moving forward in unity WITH these changes.

This article does not speak about resistance to CC at all. This article calls for those who ONLY talk about climate change to start thinking about a new way forward for jobs and using the same energy used in climate change activism towards activism to DEMAND a just transition for workers.

Not platitudes, not ‘feelings’ but action.

Where will the Govt build these renewables and when?
Where will they be?
How many short term and long term jobs?
Is that enough?
Do we need to attract non-energy related industry to keep certain regions viable as well?
Do we need to reskill people? How? At what cost?
As coal industry dies, will the revenue be replaced by other means? if not? What does that mean?
Will certain regions be impacted more than others? if so, what needs to be done?
and a million other questions, some, not mentioned by any commenting here, are listed in the article.

Rather than reflecting on the personal and taking offence, look at the bigger picture. It might feel nice and safe to be amongst the band of people calling for change, but stepping out of that and asking the questions about what happens next once the goal is achieved (which is is now being achieved), is not as comfortable is it?

Hence the article’s conclusion:
Reframing and placing the worker at the centre of the policy debate and self-identifying privilege is the first step. A step towards a synergistic policy framework of positive climate change action united in positive progress for the worker.

Going by the comments on this article, there is a long, long, long way to go.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:32 am

Labor has put out a transition plan which I have linked in the article. I’ll write a piece on that later on.
Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 11:38 am

Case in point of you entirely misrepresenting what Hettie said. She in no way “shouted you down as a climate change denier” and, far from ignoring workers, the majority of her comment was about jobs and future employment opportunities.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 11:40 am

Case in point that it is the same lecture given that there is no reason to worry about jobs because renewables (that are not happening in abundance by the way) are better. The lecture in itself about climate action instead of engaging in a discussion about jobs for displaced workers, is the case in point. One which you are continuing to engage in Kaye.
diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 11:57 am

I have never called you, Trish Corry, a climate denier. You are misunderstanding people when they point out the cruel reality, that to ensure our future and this includes employment, we must do a lot more to repair and maintain the environment.

As others have pointed out, ad nauseam, finding short term jobs in a dying industry such as coal mining, is a mistake.

You claim people here at AIM are not understanding your position on job creation. The majority of posters here have clearly stated their concern for workers and the future.

You deliberately reframe MY questions – well at least the single one you answered:

This answers Dianna’s and Roswell’s question as well. Why care about jobs at all?

I did not ask “why care about jobs at all”. I asked very clearly, why care more about coal mining jobs than other workers?

In your previous article “Australian Politics – an Aimless Discourse”, I gave the example of the Hazelwood closure in some detail. You did not bother to comment at all. However you have since suggested above that you are now concerned about the Hazelwood workers having spoken to a former employee. What you have not done is made clear the reasons for the Hazelwood closure.

The plant was ancient and failing and owned and closed by foreign investors – nothing to do with environmentalist activity.

Hazelwood was closed with only 5 months notice to workers – there were NO plans for worker retraining until AFTER the fact, both Labor and the LNP knew well in advance the age and imminent close of the plant if not the actual date. There is NO excuse for such poor performance leading to the unemployment of many workers.

As processing plant age or become obsolete plans can be made for workers. This responsibility is within the power and ability of both business and government. Both are failing us.

Instead you wish to argue that workers are being disadvantaged by “elite environmentalists”?

Again I ask, who exactly are these influential elitists that they concern you more than the lack of accountability by government and business?
BlairJune 16, 2017 at 12:05 pm

So, no mention that mining companies are automating from “the pit to the port” so there are very few jobs anyway. Corporate shill!
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 12:06 pm

Sorry, I forgot to mention that is another reason why we can’t talk about a future for displaced workers. It was mentioned about. For the record I have absolutely nothing to do with the mining industry. No family works there either. My concern is about jobs. Thanks.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 12:23 pm

Dianna, I don’t normally reply to you. but I would like to outline this from you:
As others have pointed out, ad nauseam, finding short term jobs in a dying industry such as coal mining, is a mistake.

There is absolutely nothing in my article that speaks to the continuation of coal. You are however, still finding excuses about why we can’t talk about what the post coal world will look like and how we get there in terms of sufficient work. Cheers.
paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 12:30 pm

So you “dont normally reply” to Diannart either. Are you a snob?

What “intellectual elitism” is this”?
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm

No Paul. I am not a snob.
Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Annual direct FTE employment in renewable energy activities in Australia was estimated at 11,150 in 2015-16, a decline of 8,070 FTE (-42%) from a peak of 19,220 in 2011-12.

This decline in FTE employment in renewable energy activities has mainly occurred due to a decrease in the number of roof-top solar photovoltaic (PV) systems being installed on the roofs of homes (over a 60% decrease between 2011-12 and 2015-16)

Total annual direct FTE employment in wind power has been varied, with a high in 2013-14 of 1,720 to a low of 620 in 2015-16

In 2015-16 NSW recorded the highest level of annual direct FTE employment in renewable energy activities of any state or territory in Australia, with 2,920 FTE employees. Queensland recorded 2,710 Victoria 1,900 , Tasmania 1,190, Western Australia 1,060 and South Australia 710. The ACT recorded 550 FTE while the NT recorded 110.

The largest fall in FTE employment occurred in Queensland, where employment fell from 5,570 to 2,710 between 2011-12 and 2015-16

Employment in renewable energy activities is influenced by policies put in place by federal, state/territory and local governments including renewable enrgy targets and feed-in-tariffs.

Aside from renewable energy projects, displaced miners could work on mine regeneration and reforrestation. Power interconnectors could be built between states.
diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 12:46 pm

@Paulwalter

Trish doesn’t like to answer my questions, nor my comments and gives me the distinct impression I am on some kind of personal vendetta.

I think she doesn’t like me. 🙁

Now.

Trish.

You haven’t mentioned specifically coal mining in your most recent piece of writing.

You have in the past.

However, lets let bygones be and talk about the future – you are in support for planning for the future? (rhetorical question).

Where and how should retrenched workers be retrained and redeployed? Oh, and what has this got to do with these “elitist environmentalists” you keep banging on about – as I have stated previously, the future of all workers is under threat and great change due to new technologies and preparation for climate change; which neither big business nor government are doing very much about (unless a little to make themselves look good).

Hint: Read Kaye Lee’s excellent post above.

Why are a small percentage of environmentalists with too much money and not enough to do, taking up so much of your precious time in research and analysis?
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 12:47 pm

Dianna – can you please re-read the section about what environmental elitism is? Thanks.
diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 12:58 pm

Trish

I understand that elitism is and I understand what environmentalism is.

What I am asking you is: WHO ARE these environmental elitists?

Do they have organisations or are they just an annoying percentage of sincere environmentalists?

You do understand what I mean by ‘sincere environmentalists’, don’t you? I am happy to explain, but have to go out now.

Ciao
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 1:01 pm

Dianna if you have to asked who the environmental elitists are then you still do not understand the term as defined by the literature outlined in the article.
paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 1:08 pm

Geez,

Still with the passive-aggressive?
JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 1:13 pm

Kaye
Aside from renewable energy projects, displaced miners could work on mine regeneration and reforestation.

Reforestation would be great and it would also be great if the land clearing happening today in Qld is very quickly stopped.
Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 1:36 pm

“The cost of reducing energy costs benefits the wealthy and excludes the poor. (Older cheaper cars versus newer Tesla cars).”

They haven’t made Tesla cars compulsory. Cheap second hand cars are still available. The poor are excluded from many things. That does not mean it is wrong for those who can afford and are willing to reduce personal emissions to do so.

“Solar panelling and insulation benefits wealthier home buyers and excludes those who rent.”

If those who can afford improvements reduce their energy drain on the grid then theoretically that should translate into cheaper prices due to decreased demand.

“People from poorer countries live in unhealthy environments. This is because they cannot afford the infrastructure or cost of electricity for a healthier, cleaner environment.”

Our coal would not make one iota of difference to that problem.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/05/linking-adani-coal-mine-to-social-uplift-in-india-ridiculous-says-conservationist

“Purchasing a set of environmentally friendly shopping bags as a choice between an inedible bag or much-needed food.”

A set of 8 reusable shopping bags is a one off cost of $8.99. Perhaps you could suggest to the Labor Party that, rather than paying millions for advertising, polling and endless leaflets and junk mail, they send each of their constituents a set of bags with an approriate logo like “The ALP cares about our planet”

“Wealthier advanced countries advocating against poorer countries accessing fossil fuel energy. Although this may be a step enable fuelling, farming, agriculture and new industry.”

Wealthier countries have been asked to contribute to the Green Climate Fund designed to assist developing countries in adaptation and mitigation practices to counter climate change. At its board meeting in South Korea held in March 2015, the GCF refused an explicit ban on fossil fuel projects.

“Activism to shut down an energy intensive plant, even though its closure will result in mass layoffs.”

Can you please provide an example of activism shutting down an energy plant? The closures of which I am aware have been due to aged equipment which was not economically viable to upgrade or to unprofitablity.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 1:44 pm

Hang on…. I’ll email the authors from the articles in the literature who gave the examples. It might take me a while to track them down ?
Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 1:48 pm

What’s that mean? Don’t you have an opinion? Am I not allowed to comment on their opinions? Are my comments/thoughts unworthy of response and I should just accept what “the authors” say without discussion? Did you even read my responses?

You are quick to tell others they don’t understand. Perhaps you could correct my understanding of your examples of environmental elitism by responding to what I said rather than sarcastically rolling your eyes.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 1:55 pm

Do you Kaye? Do you have any thoughts on if we need a set of national reforms for job creation? Do you think that displaced workers deserve advocacy and activism? Do you think the ACTU meme that is asking for the same thing I am is wrong
Do you even believe that the actions pushed for on Climate Change such as shut down coal will even displace workers? That’s a key question. If you don’t, you won’t see any value in what I have written. You are not commenting in any seriousness of what the article calls for. Basically this nitpicking rubbish that has continued since it was published adds nothing.
Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 2:01 pm

“Do you think the ACTU meme that is asking for the same thing I am is wrong”

I totally agree with the meme and see no resemblance between it and your attack on what you call environmental elitism or your assertion that environmental activism comes from a position of privilege.

It is apparent you do not want discussion. You want unquestioning agreement as you persistently and wrongly accuse everyone of not giving a shit about jobs.

I give up.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 2:09 pm

Kaye you REALLY need to move beyond the personal offence you feel. If you cannot understand that activists who only care about the positive action and not the negative consequences from that action, which then is from a position of privilege; then I can only assume the argument is too complex for you and I cannot help you further. It is explained in detail with two different points of view from socialism and environmentalism. Do you have an understanding of what it means to put the worker at the centre of the debate? If you do, and you do that, you may view climate change action (which I am not saying is a bad thing) has a negative affect on the worker.
Don SutherlandJune 16, 2017 at 2:10 pm

Most of the comments so far have focussed on some aspect of detail that Trish has used to reinforce her main thematic and, also in my opinion, critical strategic point. I do not agree with every single point either. However, Trish is profoundly correct in pushing a discussion that focuses on the centrality of workers in the transition from a fossil fuel based economy / society to one based overwhelmingly on clean renewables. That is what should be focussed upon in the discussion that she is provoking. She is not the first to do so, but that she, here in this moment in the Australian context, has done so is necessary and reinforces the discussion that is happening in other parts of the world and pushed by others here in Australia.
Fossil fuel energy production, in its whole process exploits nature: that is, what is drawn from the earth and the associated collateral damage is not restored or repaired and inflicts greater harm in the atmosphere as its end product. The earth and the atmosphere are exploited. In this total production process, that is also a labour process, the majority of human beings are simultaneously exploited (and in various ways alienated in the process) by being paid a wage that is much less than the value that each and all of them have created. When working miners together work on the machines to take ore from the ground they are paid only a part of the value of that ore. The owners and boards of BHP, RIO TINTO, ADANI, FORTESCUE AND SO ON do not do any of that work. They take the the lot and then pay a portion back as the wage. That is exploitation. And their ongoing capital accumulation depends on that exploitation being left undisturbed. Each form of exploitation, one of nature and one of working humans, is interdependent in the total process. The strategy to slow down, reverse, and ultimately prevent exploitation of both nature and humans in a new type of society starts now rather than one where we start now to prevent the exploitation of nature by a minority but wait until that happens until we then address the exploitation of most humans by a minority of them.
Check out various books and articles at Monthly Review for more on this and the web site Trade Unions for Energy Democracy.
For a home grown Australian case study of the principles at stake: that the state of the environment and control by workers over labour processes are powerfully interdependent, turn your minds to the Green Bans led by Mundey, Owens and Pringle and the members of the BLF.
RoswellJune 16, 2017 at 2:17 pm

Trish, forgive me if I’m wrong but you made it sound that I don’t care about jobs. That couldn’t be further from the truth.

I would rather support a number of industries that would support, say, 30,000 secure ‘green’ jobs over (again), say, 10,000 jobs in a coal industry that has no future.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm

Thanks. Look up “Not all Men” we are in a similar position here it seems.

It isn’t about what we support. It is an inevitable future.
The question is, is there a movement pushing for the serious questions of how we transition to this new coal free energy efficient landscape. I do not see one. I am asking that people start thinking about the negative consequences of job losses. Climate change isn’t good! We have fires and cyclones here. However as someone who takes a worker’s view, creating poverty for the greater good, isn’t a world I want either.

I will reiterate again, there is nothing in my article nor my personal position that is pro coal, but pro jobs, regardless of the myriad of people who misrepresent my position and prefer to believe what they like.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 2:27 pm

Thanks Don. I will certainly look at that info.
Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 3:08 pm

“Kaye you REALLY need to move beyond the personal offence you feel.”

I feel no personal offence whatsoever. I feel incredible frustration at unproductive blaming.

In the vain hope that some of us are still trying to be constructive….

60 biggest market opportunities related to delivering the Global Goals

http://report.businesscommission.org/uploads/Exhibit_2.png
diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 3:27 pm

Trish

Dianna if you have to asked (sic) who the environmental elitists are then you still do not understand the term as defined by the literature outlined in the article.

FFS. Your definition of environmental elitists does not provide any names of such people or, failing that, evidence of these people.

A definition is not proof of anything.

I have already noted in previous comments that elitists are an unfortunate part of human nature – no doubt there are some riding the environmental wagon. I agree these people could place unreasonable requests as we transition to sustainable technology.

What I want to know is who they are and, specifically, what damage they have caused.

Are these “elitists” as much of an obstacle to finding long term permanent work for all who want a job, as are big business and government failure to act in favour of the worker?

Am I not clear enough?
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 3:38 pm

Dianna in simple terms, it is an action given by an inherent set of circumstances as detailed in the privilege definition. If you do not care about the negative consequences of your activism (which harms people by changes to industry causing job losses) then as detailed in the examples it is from position of privilege, because your own set of circumstances inherently ignores consideration of that plight, your activism (positive as they may be) cause. That is the accepted definition of environmental elitism, more specifically the 3rd construct impact elitism.
Anyone who takes that position is participating in environmental elitism as defined by the actual academic term.

I hope that is now clear.

If the worker was a central point for anyone and they viewed these changes from the position of the working class, they would understand why reframing is important and why the worker needs to be placed at the centre of this climate change debate. They would not be hung up on the personal nature of the terms elitism and privilege. They would see the serious transition plan as the important part of the article to discuss.
jimJune 16, 2017 at 3:59 pm

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2817-right-wing-governments-increase-suicide-rates/ why
paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 4:25 pm

I gave it a second closer read and it is not as bad as I first thought- if I have re read it correctly.

I found the remark about Shorten favouring enviro over the worker peculiar, but that is because I don’t think Middle class Labor cares much about either except as to the symbolism of the language as it relates to its own self presentation and its use as false binary in itself playing workers and environmentalists, as do the Tories even more energetically.
It is a big problem in modern politics, which is dominated by things like the media 24 hour cycle and dumbing down in general; if I use my imagination I can eventually see where and how a proposed gendered nature of politics within this (designed?) evolving environment certainly precludes honesty for the “masculinist” ) does greed have to be gendered?) pursuit of the illusory delights of power, rather than a possible feminist politics inclusive of use value prior to exchange value.

That is, use of enviro that includes human need without thought-out conservation of resources. Less defence spending and wars, more spending on basic agriculture, housing and education, perhaps a better outlook that would see all people in society satisfied at seeing kids in Yemen recovering from agonising cholera, say.

If Trish Corry is proposing the oligarchy as the (grasping) elite it would seem a different employ of the term elite than a claiming that ordinary people like most here thoughtlessly ignore the effects of change on workers and most here would be be in sync with what she is possibly suggesting.

Certainly it resonates with the Marxist notion of commodification; the relentless casting aside of resources human and material alike, the in built disregard for the well being of any sentient creature and the bizarre behaviours of creatures like Murdoch, the Koches and Trump, who themselves are fitful and cold creations of the system they superficially appear to dominate. I suppose that not even they desired to be emotionally crippled from being born into an out of control late capitalist world and would if they knew any better, as with most of us, prefer something that combined an aspect of the productive process that allowed room for the concept, practice and experience of “humanity”.

How humanity can be de brainwashed or deprogrammed at this stage of history I don’t know, but I’ll take that away from this conversation for now.

If I’m really stupid, anyone is welcome to knock me off my perch in the meantime, because even I know that wounded pride and correction can be a small price to pay for enlightenment.
king1394June 16, 2017 at 6:13 pm

Overlooked in the coal equals jobs mantra is that coal/electricity etc have been great thieves of jobs. Once you needed 300 people with picks and shovels to do the work of one bulldozer for example. Jobs have disappeared with the growth of fossil fuel use and people have become redundant because their physical presence is not required.
diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 6:29 pm

What

Evidence

Do

You

Have

for

Elite

Activism

Causing

Loss

Of

Jobs

?????????????????? WHO ARE THESE ELITISTS?

You are deliberately insulting my intelligence, Trish.

I have had enough.
JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 6:29 pm

king 1394
Good point.
JohnoJune 16, 2017 at 6:33 pm

Diannaart
I commiserate with you. I think your question is valid.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 6:40 pm

Oh dear. I am really sorry you don’t understand. Maybe just ask yourself this question. Do you believe the (positive climate change) action that will result in closure of plants, mines and industry will result in job losses? If you don’t, then maybe that is why you don’t understand the arguments put forward on this article. If you do and you don’t care about those job losses because fighting climate change is the main thing, or you agree but your main mission is to shut down the (offensive) industries and you aren’t concerned about the jobs it’s just unfortunate. Then by default it is a position of privilege. Because no care is given to the negative impacts of those job losses. The article is asking for people to think about the vision of Australia without these industries by putting the worker at the centre. By focusing on the workers whilst simultaneously acting on climate change, the public can demand we transition with fairness for workers as well. I see no evidence of real discussions about how we will transition in terms of jobs. There are plenty of discussions about transitioning from coal to renewables. By putting the workers central this really impacts on how we make decisions as we move forward. See my list of questions in my article for an example.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 6:41 pm

My goodness it is not a hard concept to understand. I’ve just explained it another way.
paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 6:55 pm

Perhaps, if other settings were corrected re various social and material infrastructures- if basic standards of living and income were reintroduced- people would be less fearful of unemployment.

What is needed is an opposite approach say to Britain, where inadequacies were not “clad” in various material and cultural instances, where a less consumer fetishist culture enabled people to rediscover ignored alternatives like improved education skills and enjoyment of nature, human company, etc?

Such a beaut country and such a rich human cultural heritage, yet all millions know is the treadmill rat race with deferment of gratification rewarded in some nebulous, probably crass material way before, during, or after death.

One doubts that it well ever happen ,of course, but giving up is also unpalatable.
diannaartJune 16, 2017 at 6:57 pm

Trish Corry

You manage to sound intelligent yet, you have failed, spectacularly, to provide a shred of evidence of environmental elitism and its impact on jobs creation.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 7:06 pm

Paul you do raise a valid point. By reframing and putting the worker central to the debate the window we look through is different. In the cure debate with climate change at the centre it will look like this:
Due to POSITIVE climate action
Coal mining is eradicated
Not enough jobs created to sustain the new unemployment
The welfare is too hard to sustain and Liberals make it more tough and punitive blaming the new unemployed
The skilled unemployed take the jobs of unskilled who need a start
Extremely high unemployment in some areas
Poverty increases
Crime increases

Worker at the centre
Before all coal industry shuts down A plan is determined to plot out how to transition workers to new employment
Planning of renewables go in hardest hit areas
Non energy related industries are attracted to regions
The public accepts Government has to use tax payer funds for transitioning employees for redeployment to other industries
If still high unemployment the public realise it’s the new world and basic income support is granted rather than punitive welfare

Just a quick example. Probably has gaps, but best I can do quickly.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 7:07 pm

Thanks Dianna. It really comes down to if you believe there will be displaced jobs or not. It’s a very simple concept.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 7:09 pm

Current not cure
paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 7:12 pm

It was raised a while back on QA that Hazelwood did not need to be shut down quite as quickly as it was and Abbott’s closuring of the auto industry was just destructive malice.

The people who run things prefer churn and anxiety because they think it will distract attention from and keep them”safe”, but what use a life driven by fear?
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 7:14 pm

Yes. As more Hazelwoods occur by putting workers at the centre of debate then people who give a damn can use activism to demand a fairer outcome than the workers at Hazelwood got.
paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 7:18 pm

Diannaart, it is true that language slippage and over determination of a word’s meaning and subsequent understanding will always make these sorts of threads difficult.

I personally had trouble with the “environmental elitism” meaning also and was forced to eventually re read the whole posting which proved helpful.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 16, 2017 at 7:34 pm

We can debate to the cows come home, as to what the key imperatives are, when putting the workers front and centre in transitioning from coal to renewable energy industries.

But from my experience from the Hazelwood closure, we need Federal, State and Local Government and Statutory Authorities with their ears open and the accessibility to legislative measures that can allow flexible implementation of grassroots’ and community groups’ lived experiences of what the needs are and how they can be positively addressed.

That means we need Government contacts on board, so those possibilities are opened up for community collaboration. Otherwise, it just boils down to a feel good talk fest with little result derived from grassroots people.
Kaye LeeJune 16, 2017 at 8:26 pm

“It really comes down to if you believe there will be displaced jobs or not. It’s a very simple concept.”

Some concepts are indeed very simple. The concept that we must stop mining fossil fuels should be easy enough for anyone to grasp. The concept that automation is replacing workers has been simple to understand from the time Henry Ford introduced the production line – or even before when someone invented the loom, or the lathe, or the printing press, or the conveyer belt, or any of the other “labour saving” inventions that are part of our reality.

The real work comes, not in trying to tell others they don’t understand the job losses, not in trying to blame people who see the need for change, but in coming up with suggestions for a changing workforce in a changing world.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 9:16 pm

An excellent contribution Jennifer. If there was strong activism around that it will happen. It will take movements to get politicians to listen the same as it does for other issues.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 9:51 pm

Kaye to expect me to write an article, that includes all the answers to a transition is very presumptuous and very short sighted. An analysis of Labor’s transition plan itself, may take more than one article. An entire series of articles would be required to discuss many aspects of transition. This article is about raising the awareness of what a transition means. And especially raising awareness that people should put the worker central when they think about action on climate change. I think what the changes matter for workers, and how we deal with that change are very, very important.

There is not widespread movement of activism that is putting the worker at the centre of the actions happening around climate change. That is quite clear.

If there was, ideas about jobs transition and communities affected would start becoming part of regular conversations and topics of blogs, and even national discourse. It is not.

The reasons you list in your comment, are just some of the reasons used to deflect discussions about displaced workers. This is very consistent with every interaction I have had online regarding this topic.

Perhaps, if people admit that climate change action will displace a lot of workers, they may feel uncomfortable thinking about that. Or might need to concede some demands with activism. that is a topic on it’s own to debate.

The comments here show how difficult it is to get a conversation going about displaced workers and future jobs in relation to action on climate change.

At least Paul has finally understood what I meant and started talking about how to transition jobs. JMS also made some good suggestions, after Paul’s post, you appear to want to continue nitpicking even on day 2. You either don’t understand the arguments presented in this article, or you are deliberately trying to be argumentative for the sake of it.

Going by your logic activism and real action for climate change has come about by not encouraging anyone to speak up and rally together, but a lone wolf with an idea expected to have all the answers.

Your logic again says that when women of colour spoke up because they felt ignored in the feminist debate, the reason they were ignored had nothing to do with white feminists inherent privilege of not seeing WOC (oppressed) position and speaking over the top of it and all around it.

The workers are being largely ignored in the climate change debate. It is like they do not exist. I am sure you are not so obstinate that you can’t at least acknowledge that fact.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 16, 2017 at 10:36 pm

So Trish,

several of us have attempted to understand the premise of your article. Good.

But also it is important that you invite your Labor MPs and political machinery insiders to come on board too or collaboration is inconsequential despite our best efforts.

To pretend otherwise is disingenuous of which I suspect you hate being accused.

Remember Trish, we’re all on the same side in varying shades, so don’t take ANY of us for granted.
Trish CorryJune 16, 2017 at 10:48 pm

Of course I try to get people on board. I’m sorry but I can’t understand how anyone can misread my passion on this as disingenuous. I don’t write things I know that will cause backlash for fun. I don’t argue with people in real life within my own circles for fun. I guarantee I give you that I am 100% dedicated to making sure workers are front and centre as we navigate the changes ahead. I am only a branch member in a regional branch, I am not involved in the upper echelons of politics. I can only do what everyone else can do and that is use my voice.
paulwalterJune 16, 2017 at 11:48 pm

People we are much more together on these things than we realise. We realise that change can occur with much less conflict if only the system worked better.

But, we realise that powerful forces have yet to be convinced that a cooperative human-oriented society is the way to go.

A wall of horseshit has been erected by msm over a generation now, that prevents many from seeing that change is not oppositional to well being for the ordinary punter, in fact it can be welcome for all, even including, if they only realised it, the Oligarchs.

But despite the Meltdown, despite the multi-$Trillion dollar troubles in the Middle East, all of the austerity on one hand and tax dodging on the other,global poverty and angst, all the burlesque of politics in the West, which is the main source of political power in the world, the Wall of Horseshit has remained unbroken and much of the public thus still believes or has come to believe, that the abnormal has to be normal, that a fair society is inimical to the rights of the unitary human and that things like enviro and jobs must remain opposed as one of many false dichotomies that fly at people to keep them confused.

Yet there is also a hope encapsulated in the Corbyn comeback, say, or the Arab spring, that the people fight back, trying to mine a hole through the wall.

Probably, as ever, the movement will be undermined, but even the people who run things realise that not all people can be robots, or their system collapses for them too,m so they cannot kill humanity completely.

With the Grenfell episode, it can be seen how complacency tripped the bosses. First with Cameron/ Osborne austerity, Grexit and Brexit then May’s hubris. The result is that now they are discredited and they are shamefaced, forced to an enquiry into the evils that brought about the Grenfell tragedy at least tragedy and the signs do not look for them.

Realistically not much will probably come of any effort to remove the worst of oligarchy for any length of time, yet while there is life there is hope.

But just think for a moment.

Say Turnbull cocks up like May and Cameron did. Say rulers across the world also stuff up and get run out of town. Say a Labor government perhaps, kept honest by the Greens and somehow rediscovered of the ideals it once held, did work toward a resolution of unemployment and change with a commonsense approach to the role of the environment as resource that properly managed feeds the economy rather than eroding it.

In the era of Globalisation, ridiculous? Of course. Yet I cant help being in awe of the glimpses of the raw power of humanity that sometimes show themselves and the effort and pain that goes into it all.

I cant believe in it, yet I can’t walk away. So let;s think of how a genuine future can be actualised.
paulwalterJune 17, 2017 at 12:05 am

First thing I read on leaving here was this:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/16/manufacturer-of-cladding-on-grenfell-tower-identified-as-omnis-exteriors

Does your stomach crawl?

How can they be allowed to get away with this, then worse if they get away with it this time?

I know it is off topic, but my excuse is that I mentioned Grenfell Tower in my last post and this emphasises that.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 17, 2017 at 8:07 am

Hear, hear Paul,

to both of your last posts – except I retain hope and expectation that change for the better will happen, as we recognise how we can work together to make it happen.
Joseph CarliJune 17, 2017 at 8:32 am

Fully agree with you , Paul…and I believe it is only the Left-wing who has the sympathy and the empathy to create policy to bring such change around in the extreme face of opposition…I leave this little episode here for anyone’s interest.

A Quiet Little Corner of the World.
KeithJune 17, 2017 at 10:14 am

There is a continuum in relation to views on climate change from Malcom Roberts; the complete moronic denier to Guy McPherson et al who believe climate change will take out humans in a decade or so.
On learning about the pingoe explosions in Siberia, Dr Jason Box stated “we are fxxked”. Since making those comments there have been further pingoe explosions and concern is being expressed about the level of methane which can potentially be voided from shallow continental shelves in the Arctic Ocean. The Siberian traps (volcanic action and greenhouse gas release) in past epochs have caused near extinction according to a recent study.

https://www.livescience.com/41909-new-clues-permian-mass-extinction.html

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-domes-frozen-methane-blow-outs.html

It is not that long ago that ponds were first noticed on Greenland ice sheets, now:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/06/15/scientists-just-documented-a-massive-melt-event-on-the-surface-of-antarctica/?utm_term=.ca26e4a977e1

Though whether the same mechanisms have occurred in Antarctica as occurred in Greenland is being questioned; whatever, it is not a good sign.

There are numerous research studies which display concerning signs which would suggest we are not at the end of the continuum as suggested by McPherson et al but certainly reaching a dangerous area. Knowing where runaway tipping points are is not able to be identified, but pose more danger than ISIS.

Many jobs have disappeared since I began work 49 years ago, some have been created through the development of the computer chip; but, now through artificial intelligence many jobs are beginning to be eroded. Not the fault of activists; for example, mechanism in the forestry industry has destroyed thousands of jobs. Where I lived in a rural area as a youngster there were a number of small sawmills within a ten mile radius, they no longer exist; industrial forestry took out those positions.

Gigafactories are being built in the US and China to produce electric vehicles and batteries; which will have an impact on the internal combustion engine. These giafactories are not being built by activists but by shrewd business people.

Clean coal is being promoted by the LNP; yet, the technology is in its infancy, and the carbon capture and storage technology adds extensively to the cost of production of energy. Battery storage is now getting to a price which is becoming increasingly affordable.
To suggest that coal sent to India will help those living at a subsistence level is very thin when the infra-structure of poles and wires are not in place.

Research and development in renewables and instalation of industrial sized plants and house sized units provides employment.

Something being lost in discussions on energy having implications for employment, has been privatisation by ideologically driven governments.
paulwalterJune 17, 2017 at 11:51 am

Yes, Keith, it is interesting how they persevere with clean coal even after the alternatives seem to scrub up better.

Fifteen years ago Australia was advanced at developing alternative energy technologies, but Howard and his Philistines knee capped progress in a thousand ways for the benefit of the fossil fuels industry. The IPA and social conservatives hobbled this country out of greed, stubbornness and ignorance.

Australia and its society are very much like Joseph Carlis shunned idiot child buried out in the sticks for reasons of cheapness. Does any neo liberal mourn her?
diannaartJune 17, 2017 at 12:08 pm

People are starting to discuss transition from old tech to new for workers – after a long belly-ache about “environmental elitism”.

Better late than never.
diannaartJune 17, 2017 at 12:13 pm

Joseph & Paul & Keith

The trust in ‘deregulation’ so-called ‘freedom of choice’ and the (controlled by the most powerful) free-market were always about placing old Dracula in charge of the blood bank. The citizens of London must needs maintain the rage…
paulwalterJune 17, 2017 at 4:00 pm

You can hope diannart. It would be a long time coming.
diannaartJune 17, 2017 at 4:10 pm

paulwalter

Pragmatism is not always a bad thing, yes, it is used to exploit and violate, it is also the only way to survive.

Pragmatism will be the backbone we need to change along with circumstances that occur regardless of human preferences.
Joseph CarliJune 17, 2017 at 4:47 pm

Paul..:” Australia and its society are very much like Joseph Carlis shunned idiot child buried out in the sticks for reasons of cheapness. Does any neo liberal mourn her?”….you hit the crux of the tale right there..; “does any body mourn her / him ” (forget the neo-liberals) …yes…the character ; “Andy” does..one person there who represents all of us, WE mourn the “lost soul”.. which is the core cry of John Donne’s most beautiful line : ” So ask not for whom the bell tolls…” and I am with Jennifer on this one..I maintain optimism.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 17, 2017 at 7:23 pm

Joseph Carli,

thank goodness I’m not the only one who defies negative barriers to what we believe common sense, common decency or simply, self-preservation dictates which equates to the magnified wider community.
paulwalterJune 17, 2017 at 8:54 pm

Glad for last few comments because it encourages a return to the underlying central point of the Trish Corry posting, the “worker centred” idea.

I think at back of it is an idea to do with “othering” and decentring, or getting oneself off one’s own case for long enough to see how others are going.

This week we saw the burying by media of Telstra sacking 1400 worker. We saw no reportage on the cholera epidemic in Yemen and the selfishness arrogance and greed at bottom of the Grenfell Towers mess. We saw 2000 odd refugees finally get a skerrick of relief in the courts, but still no sign that politicians have learnt the lessons of being involved in murderous wars.

We have to ask Trish, for progess can we identify whether human nature is genetic or culturally induced, or do we give up on the idea that the press and media can report news in a way that reasserts humanity over the wants of vested interests requiring of a manipulated public. If the press and media are not at fault how is human nature changed if the public is not fear filled and brainwashed toward all sorts of battlers but behaving”normally”, biologically?

What then?
Trish CorryJune 17, 2017 at 9:46 pm

As my field is organisational behaviour and not biology; naturally, my school of thought aligns with culturally induced.

The media are powerful. However, the media is a symbol. To look at this through a symbolic interactionist lens, the way the media creates meaning in how we view the world, is fast becoming a symbol of distrust. Activism is so powerful and it can overcome the media.

Activism is so powerful because emotion IS contagious. By placing the worker (HUMAN BEING) at the centre of the climate change debate, you are forced to view the climate change ACTION, as an externality that impacts on said human.

The question is how other humans react to this. Do we react and demand dignity, respect and safety for those who will be displaced?

Or do we react by believing the workers are an unfortunate consequence in a must do action for the greater good?

There are some environmentalists I have spoken to on this, who strongly believe, human life is secondary to the planet. Climate change above all else. These environmentalists will never, ever agree with my main arguments here. That is because the worker is not framed as central, but as by product of the main goal (I hope that makes sense).

By placing the worker at the centre of the debate, and using activism, it is a force to lobby Government to have a more emotional and human response in how they implement action on climate change.

This is a VERY simplistic answer and there is so much more to this, in terms of humans interacting with other humans and how powerful humans can be to enact change and why.

The question is not really biological or nature, but as humans in a country where we have agency, what do WE want the country to look like as we progress with action on climate change? Do we want pockets all over the country of very high unemployment and crime? Or do we want to transition, considering the human factor and keeping an even balance of fairness?

I’m not sure if that is the answer you are looking for, or I have misinterpreted your question.
Kaye LeeJune 17, 2017 at 10:58 pm

“There are some environmentalists I have spoken to on this, who strongly believe, human life is secondary to the planet.”

Human, and all other life, is not secondary to the planet. It is dependent on the planet.

I don’t see environmental activism as anethema to jobs. I have tried, in my posts, to stress that we must move to sustainable jobs and given several suggestions – I have many more. There is no reason for people in Australia who are able and want to work to be unemployed.

We must focus our education and reskilling on the future for people rather than bemoaning job losses in dying industries. Rather than blaming and labelling people as thoughtless elitists, we should be exploring the sustainable employment opportunities.

There are already pockets of crime and very high unemployment in the country. They have absolutely nothing to do with environmentalism.
paulwalterJune 17, 2017 at 11:51 pm

Both replies fit.

I think the agency question is problematic in our world, as we saw with the parallel Telstra example of ruthless job cutting for “efficiency”.
or, OTH, a lot of ugly stuff that passes as “development”, eg Deepwater Horizon, ruptured dams polluting whole ecosystems etc. given downstream costs). We see how cheap life can be with Grenfell Tower in the privileged West, let alone in the more grim examples of Mideastern warfare and say, global starvation. For over the span of my life, history has been the history of Oligarchic obstruction at every turn, from monopolism through to interference with attempts to modify use of the enviro to a more rational level by vested interests. Consider the shining example on offer of Trump and his close mates like Murdoch and the Kochs.

Hence, Kaye Lee’s comment resonates bell-like also.

I wonder how it can change on ANY front, with the times as they are.

Enviro and human rights must not be seen as a unresolvable binary, the two ideas should be assimilated easily enough in a rationally governed world, yet huge slabs of the population don’t see them as complementary, because both factors have been abused in practical situation by proprietors and governments seeking to avoid responsibility. And these oligarchic forces are the forces with the truncheons and bogus laws and monopolies on black propaganda fake news that keep things muddled and militate against the solutions rational people would want to see.

It seems to be a water tight system as to ALL species of human rights. from transitional packages for workers through to the rights of humans to fresh air, water, enviro etc, for the short term illusory gain of a very few.

What is going to change the world mentality.?

What magnitude of a Grenfell Towers before any mentality or thing even begins to change? Did things change all that much after Fukushima?

In isolated places like Australia the minimum is some times done, but its against the back drop of atypical salvage in a globally chaotic system,
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:20 am

Kaye, we have just had a tragedy in UK where many lives were lost. The decisions made by Government caused these deaths.

The decisions made by Government and what the public demands Governments do influence decisions made by Government (otherwise, CC action probably would not be happening).

When Governments take action on climate change mitigation, the decisions they make will impact on workers (humans). How activists demand we take action on climate change is very important as this does influence Govt. Otherwise, what is the point of activism at all? My case is to place the human being at the centre of this advocacy.

I am in no way relating the absolute devastating tragedy to a loss of job – but to demonstrate how political decisions impact on human lives.

The activism that will follow this tragedy will demand that Governments take a more humane response to vulnerable people and build dignified and safe housing. This activism places the human at the centre of the debate about housing for vulnerable people.

If activism just appealed to the Government to build houses, anything to put a roof over their head, not placing the person at the centre to ensure dignified and safe housing, then what is lobbied for is very different, as the action (solve homelessness) is the primary and the human is secondary (ie not at the centre of the debate).

Is ignoring the plight of vulnerable, when you demand action on homelessness because you do not seek to understand the position from ‘the lens of the vulnerable’ a position of privilege?

Is ignoring the plight of workers, when you demand action on climate change, because you do not seek to understand the position through the lens of the worker, a position of privilege?

Are you seeing any parallels at all yet?
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:39 am

Nope. The reason the fire in London happened, it seems, is because the developers went for the non-fire retardant cladding because it was cheaper – the profit motive.. I am not sure where dignity or government action in response to environmental activism fits into any of that.

Opposing new coal mines does not lead to job losses as those jobs have not yet eventuated. Let’s find better, more reliable and sustainable jobs for those seeking employment – one possible area being the construction and management of affordable and emergency housing.
paulwalterJune 18, 2017 at 12:47 am

Hold fire, please, not sure if the question is directed to readers in general.

Forgive fumbling intervention if not..

Don’t know it was the government or bad government as symptom of oligarchy. We need to know what induced the unholy neo lib attitude that saturated the tiers of government and business involved in the tragedy and whether sufficient qualified people exist in the world to deal with the uncountable legions of bureaucrats, politicians, business people and members of the public Grenfell towers seems to demonstrate seem deeply, deeply inculcated with the new black ideology of self first, whatever it takes that precludes rational responses to irrationally induced situations like Grenfell Towers.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:54 am

Kaye, there are three things I can take from your persistent line of questioning:

You do not believe privilege as a concept exists.
You understand privilege exists, but do not understand the underpinning constructs or antecedents to privilege
You are being deliberately obtuse.

Good evening.
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 1:14 am

Or perhaps I just don’t equate action on climate change with privilege and elitism or new coal mines with jobs.

Dormez bien
RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 5:17 am

Kaye said:

Opposing new coal mines does not lead to job losses as those jobs have not yet eventuated. Let’s find better, more reliable and sustainable jobs for those seeking employment,

How is that being obtuse?

Fifteen hundred jobs in renewable energy are a lot more permanent than fifteen hundred jobs in coal mining.
RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 5:28 am

On top of that, tourism along the Great Barrier Reef generates employment for 50,000 Queenslanders a year:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-05/great-barrier-reef-in-danger-listing/8093548

Let’s destroy it for 1500 jobs, shall we?
JohnoJune 18, 2017 at 8:07 am

Rosewell re the link

The Barrier Reef. Is it just simply death by a thousand cuts and cc/warming water is the final act. Similar to the 700 kilometers of mangrove habitat across the top end. From the article, no one wants to take the blame and directly or indirectly we are all to blame in one way or other. Basically, we need to clean up our act big time as these problems are in everyones backyard.
KeithJune 18, 2017 at 8:56 am

Trish

I think a false dichotomy has been established … by the argument that those who are activists in relation to climate change do not care about human circumstances; against the primary consideration we should be placing the well being particularly of those who are vulnerable from being pushed around, with the emphasis being on creating employment set as a central theme. Those concepts are not mutually exclusive; I wonder where refugees fit into your arguments? They have been treated abysmally by the LNP and Labor as shown by the recent payouts to refugees from Manus Island.

Avarice is a strong factor underlying the neo con ideology; a strong component of LNP ideology and to a lesser extent Labor.

The unemployed are hounded in Australia by a by a cruel government creating untold misery for those being pushed around.

Millions of people are dying or suffer respiratory illness through the emissions of fossil fuels.
On a yearly basis thousands of people die through the impact of climate change or are in a state where famine and lack of water resources are being experienced. Crops being lost through flooding or drought, and even fresh drinking water diminishing.
In other communities huge flooding events are happening where infra-structure is being destroyed, houses are washed away or burnt, and motor vehicles are damaged through floodwaters. Already a number of communities are needing to be moved through sea level rise in Alaska.
Disease vectors are changing.

Some scientists are suggesting that we could experience an iceless Arctic in 2020 for a short period; the significance being that sea ice ensures that temperature is maintained around freezing point. Once the ice is gone water warms rapidly; which can be shown in an experiment by half filling a glass with water and topping up with ice. The temperature of water will decrease to near freezing point and then rapidly increase once the ice has melted.

What’s Not To Like? Extinction Radio, Vanishing Sea Ice, EcoShock

Many scientists I gather suggest we are facing an ice free Arctic by around 2030; though it is highly conceivable that the Arctic could be ice free well beforehand. Temperature will soar with detrimental impact on climate once we reach an ice free state. It will then be the case that Earth’s carrying capacity of humans and other species will be hugely diminished through the impact on climate. Civil unrest and war are obvious results. The US military have been studying the matter of climate change impacts for many years.
JohnoJune 18, 2017 at 9:50 am

The relentless push for fossil fuel goes on..

Greenpeace
Ah Scandinavia. Clean and green, right? So why is an oil and gas company out of Norway planning to drill in the pristine waters of the Great Australian Bight?

We’re not Big Oil executives, so far be it for us to speculate. But in a colossally stupid move, Statoil – an oil and gas company backed by the Norwegian Government – has signed a deal with BP to take over the very permits to drill for oil in the Bight that BP abandoned last year. Statoils want to start drilling the Bight by October 2019.

Yeah, nah. That’s not happening.

OR

Wilderness Society
Recently, community groups from Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania lined local beaches in unprecedented numbers to show their opposition to the push by Big Oil to carry out risky, deep sea drilling in the Great Australian Bight whale nursery.

Late last week, Statoil revealed plans to drill in the Bight after taking over two of BP’s exploration permits. For governments to allow oil companies to continue with this madness—after BP withdrew and released oil spill modelling that showed catastrophic risks—is beyond belief.

When BP was up to this last year Canavan started banging on about jobs.
We don’t want another deepwater horizon, that’s what we don’t want, not to mention the cc impact.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:10 am

Keith Asylum seekers policy is indeed set from a position of privilege- would you disagree?

If you reframed the current Asylum seeker policy and put Asylum Seekers at the centre of the policy development, what would change?

Is this also meant to try to convince me climate change exists and how urgent is is to act? Because my article supports the position we need to act.

Do you believe there will be no displ
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:12 am

Is this a general statement or do you see my article as a relentless push for fossil fuels?
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:17 am

Roswell Why are the workers who will be displaced by zero carbon progress less important than GBR workers?
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 10:22 am

Trish,

you are correct to argue that any action plans for the transition to renewable energy industries away from coal mining should have workers’ needs and interests in centre place so they are well represented in the new sustainable industry opportunities.

However, the environment is more important than the workers, whoever they are. You need to make it clear that you understand that.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:28 am

Jennifer IF we don’t act on climate change there will also be massive job losses. No one speaks from this position either. Apart from “There are no jobs if there is no planet” as a general statement when deflecting arguments so we don’t need to talk about displaced workers. The worker is far from central in the narrative on action for mitigating climate change. It’s almost as if they do not exist.
RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 10:33 am

I thought I answered that, Trish. There’s more of them. Lots more of them.

Perhaps I should ask you why 1500 coal workers are more important than 50,000 tourism workers?

It is just so bleedin’ obvious.
Mick ByronJune 18, 2017 at 10:33 am

Trump’s Clexit from the Paris agreement and his next target likely to be UN-CLEXIT – withdrawal from all UN climate agreements and obligations, and defunding the government climate research will be a major setback for the planet.
My fear is there will be other countries sitting eyeing of Trumps stance and if they slip Trumps way we are in for a whole heap of pain which could be a major setback in the fight against CC
RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 10:35 am

Jennifer IF we don’t act on climate change there will also be massive job losses.

Great! Now let’s focus on renewable energy and forget coal.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:35 am

No you haven’t Ross. Stating GBR workers are more important than coal workers, frankly is a sickening position of privilege. Coal workers too icky to care about are they? They should just be martyrs for the cause should they?
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:36 am

Heads up Roswell, this article says nothing about the continuation of coal jobs.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:38 am

And by not fighting for a fair transition for workers people are giving the climate deniers even more fear based ammunition. To stop people like Trump, the workers need to be central to the debate. Something so many people have trouble seeing.
Mick ByronJune 18, 2017 at 10:38 am

Roswell “1500 coal workers are more important than 50,000 tourism workers?”
where is it stated that if we have 1500 coal miners jobs 50,000 will lose theirs?
I haven’t read any reports as to this calamity so if you could provide a link to any studies that declare so it would be appreciated
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:40 am

It is a common theme amongst activists except the jobs lost number has climbed to 70k I think
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 10:42 am

Trish @10.28am,

that is an unfortunate generalisation yet again. Frequently on AIM when we are talking about this issue, commenters equate the importance and expectation of replacement jobs in the new sustainable industries that will be created.

In fact, the expectation is that those jobs will far outnumber the ones disappearing.
RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 10:46 am

Trish, you asked me a question so I answered it. And now you suggest I’m off topic. Don’t expect me to bother any more.

Mick, I linked to the article a few comments ago. I apologise in advance if I’m not around on this thread to discuss it further. I’m outta here. Differing opinions are not welcome, so it seems.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:52 am

Jennifer I spent four weeks deeply immersed in discussions on climate change to collect data to write this article. The qual analysis Used theming and these are indeed very common themes. If individuals are lobbying for how displaced workers will be treated as we move forward then obviously their behaviour is not consistent. In qualitative research even rare responses are important; however four weeks of data did not show one person talking about how we will transition workers. However some people will respond that renewables will create jobs that are better than coal jobs, which is not advocacy around a fair transition, but one fact to negate another in a context where transition is raised. If people actually cared as you say they do, at one point someone commenting would have discussed the merits or otherwise of the questions to ask to ensure a just transition in the article. No one has.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:53 am

Also I often see your last line often. The Govt can’t even decide on the Finkel report. They hardly look like they are making moves in planning a just transition.
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 11:04 am

“The worker is far from central in the narrative on action for mitigating climate change.”

I completely disagree with that. False promises of employment in a dying industry help no-one. We certainly have an unemployment problem, worse in some areas and in some demographics than in others, and destined to deteriorate as automation increases, so we should be looking at real jobs for these people and at training people for the jobs of the future.

“Activists who do try to engage only have one solution – all the coal workers will now work in renewables.”

or….

Construction of affordable housing
Mine regeneration
Landcare
Reforestation
Building public transport infrastructure
Power grids and interconnectors
Energy storage systems
Meat and food processing
Organic farming
Sustainable aquaculture
Pest eradication
Energy efficient vehicles
Information technology
Aged care
Child care
In home support services
Waste management, recycling and reusing.
Education at all levels
Tourism
Park rangers
Nursing
Police and security
Research

etc etc
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:05 am

Opinions are welcome Roswell. Not all will be agreed with. Free country do what you like.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:07 am

Kaye did you spend four weeks collecting qualitative data on this topic? I did. The themes I mentioned are indeed prominent.

The fact the you STILL believes this is somehow trying to cling onto coal, means you do not understand what a fair transition means? Is there anything in my questions in my article that alludes to clinging onto coal?
townsvilleblogJune 18, 2017 at 11:11 am

I really don’t like two giants of AIM arguing Trish and Kaye you both are fantastic people and your arguments so well researched and delivered that you both should be proud of your essay’s please try to compliment each other instead of argue, please.
JohnoJune 18, 2017 at 11:21 am

Trish
When BP was stopped/ or decided to abandon their drilling attempt in the Bight, Canavan began discrediting environmentalists and gave the usual job mantra. If you didn’t want the new current attempt by Statoil to go ahead what would you do ?
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 11:26 am

You blame “environmental elitism” for “mass layoffs”.

Can you give me one example of this?

The vast majority of job losses in the mining industry are because of falling commodity prices, falling demand, and automation, not environmentalism.
The car industry didn’t die due to environmentalism.
Manufacturing is dying because companies are offshoring to where there is cheap labour and bigger markets.

Blaming environmentalists for unemployment doesn’t stack up in my opinion and labelling them as privileged elites misses the point.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:33 am

No I am NOT blaming environmentalist elitism for Mass Layoffs.

I’m sorry Kaye. I cannot explain the concept of privilege in a fifth way. It’s not a new concept.
Mick ByronJune 18, 2017 at 11:36 am

Roswell
just in case you do pop your head back in thanks for the link – which outlines how many are employed but nowhere coild I find expected job losses.It seems that if 50,000 jobs is bandied around people will come to believe that number will be job losses- not the case
What I did ask for is predicted tourism jobs destroyed and I can’t seem to get any research on that or even if there will be any job loses in tourism at all
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:40 am

Kaye are you denying that there will be
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 11:44 am

As I said on June 16 @ 7.34pm,

community activists exist everywhere but they also need well-meaning government officials who genuinely strive to facilitate community activists’ involvement and collaboration with ideas borne of the people at ‘coal-face’ so their needs are addressed.

We also need those government officials to be on hand to provide assistance to other community groups with inspired ideas to promote grassroots’ alternative industries that can provide an array of goods and services.

Those same government officials must be able to interpret and adapt legislation to support such positive public infrastructure and service projects with the over-arching objective that each initiative is equitable, sustainable, innovative and time effective.

That was not my experience with the State Labor Government, Latrobe City Council and Latrobe statutory body especially set up.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:44 am

Kaye are you denying that there will be job losses as we move to a zero carbon future? No existing jobs in a country heavy in the resources industry will go? The international council of Trade Unions disagrees with you. Along with action on climate change UNLESS You also address the needs of displaced workers you are acting from a position of privilege. The privilege doesn’t displace the workers, the action of what you demand the action be, when you ignore the displaced workers in that demand is the ACTION of privilege. Well there you go, I can explain it five ways.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:45 am

And how do we get Govt to listen?
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:48 am

Kaye it states in discussions from stakeholder groups in talks for the Paris Agreement that many workers will be displaced as we move to a carbon neutral society. To flip this off as these jobs are all going anyway and it has nothing to do with action on climate change, is in disagreement of the discussions held in the biggest climate change forum to date.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:51 am

My reply wasn’t meant to distract from your points Jennifer, you are spot on. The only way leaders listen and do the right thing is if we loudly insist on justice for displaced workers as we move ahead. My data I collected of four weeks of narrative shows opinion is very deep that ex resource workers are an unfortunate by product, which does not have to be the case.
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 11:52 am

“Environmentalists must question if their position is so pure that negative consequences, such as mass layoffs are inconsequential. If mass layoffs are inconsequential, and workers can’t put food on the table, then does one’s activism come from a position of privilege?”

Sorry, I took that to mean you feel that mass layoffs are a negative consequence of environmentalism.

privilege: a special right, advantage, or immunity granted or available only to a particular person or group

I do not understand how this is applicable.

“Kaye are you denying that there will be”

I am not sure what you mean by this. The nature of employment is, and always has been, changing. Jobs are certainly important but they are not incompatible with environmentalism. I am not ignoring changing employment. I am offering suggestions for real jobs for the future.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:54 am

Kaye very, very simply yes or no, do you believe there will be displaced workers as we move towards action on climate change?
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:55 am

Kaye very simply, do you believe that action on climate change is an externality that will cause job losses in existing industries?
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:57 am

In addition Kaye, my article calls for action in tandem, if you are suggesting a list of jobs well that must mean you believe jobs will be displaced? Or will resource workers be working in shut down mines and coal based energy plants and your list is additional jobs?
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 11:57 am

Trish,

your answers to comments in this commentary provide information that frankly is more palatable than slabs of your article. Your language in parts of the article assumes a disapproving and divisive tone, which is unfortunate coz you have a valid argument in defending the rights of displaced workers.

Instead of taking an implied anti-Greens and overt oppositional stance to well-meaning environmentalists, you should encourage collaboration with those groups so it’s a Win-Win for us all.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:01 pm

Jennifer my article is MEANT to get under the skin of people who have not given a thought to the worker in this. I won’t apologise for the tone of the article. As I said, I collected a lot of narrative over four weeks. Dismissing or ignoring the worker are the two most prominent themes in this data. As someone from a pro worker position I found this deeply disturbing.

If people truly believe they are putting the worker first, they will have no problem using activism to ensure workers are not left behind.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:04 pm

And can I just clarify this is not to do with the Greens Party. There are many environmental activists in Labor and as pointed out, even Shorten is NOT placing the worker at the centre of the debate as we move forward. People appear to be taking this as some individual attack on the party they favour- the Greens, which is not so.
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:04 pm

Mick,

Based on surveys of Chinese, UK, American and domestic tourists, results show that tourism areas adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef risk losing over 1 million visitors per year, worth over $1 billion in tourism expenditure. This expenditure supports around 10,000 tourism jobs in regional Queensland, which are also considered at-risk.

http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/Swann%20Campbell%202016%20Great%20Barrier%20Bleached%20FINAL%20w%20cover.pdf
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:12 pm

Thanks for making it “very very simple” for me Trish. Perhaps I can do likewise. Do you think climate change will cause job losses and destruction of livelihoods?
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:17 pm

Yes Kaye. If we DON’T act on climate change there will be a lot of job losses. However even from this perspective it is not centred around the worker. The data I collected shows this argument is used overwhelmingly to deflect an argument if the question of displaced coal workers is used. Existing workers who will be displaced deserve our compassion and fairness as we move ahead.
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:19 pm

Which is why I am making suggestions for sustainable employment rather than trying to “get under people’s skin”. I am not trying to “deflect” anything at all. I am looking for practical solutions.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:23 pm

If the worker was central to this debate activism would be very loud around Adani to push the Government urgently invest and build alternative energy to create jobs in this region. Sadly it is a very minor theme. The overwhelming theme of the narrative is to stop Adani and the jobs it is proposed to offer are irrelevant. That is a very clear message to people who can’t put food on the table, that they are irrelevant. Not putting the worker central and lobbying to negate job losses, allows the fear used by cc denialists to fester and cause resistance to progress. Environmentalists are hurting their own progress if they continue to ignore the plight of displaced workers. This is the beginning of change, not the end.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:28 pm

Kaye I have not written this article for you. I have written for the overwhelming voices who ignore the worker and just assume “she will be apples.” I have listed a range of questions to be asked about a fair transition, yet even those who say they care about jobs have not even commented on them. You keep saying “I” did you miss the part where there is an entire movement out there and this is drawn from their narrative? I’ve explained that quite a number of times.
KeithJune 18, 2017 at 12:40 pm

Trish
You stated: “Asylum seekers policy is indeed set from a position of privilege- would you disagree?”

That was my point; if you have ever seen Maslow’s pyramid you would realise that in a very general sense that it is those who are not continually fighting for survival who are the people who will advocate and lobby.

From your current article, and what you have previously written, you are advocating for the Adani mine as you believe employment will be created. Barnaby Joyce on Insiders was suggesting 30,000 jobs would be created. Adani suggested at first before being caught out that 10,000 jobs would be created; the figure has now disappeared and is more like 1,500.

A coal mine the size of the one proposed by Adani will negate any promises in relation to reduction in emissions promised at Paris. It really doesn’t matter whether the CO2 and other pollutants are voided in Australia or elsewhere, we still in the end have to contend with a changing climate.

Blaming those who advocate against fossil fuels is logically inconsistent with your premise; people pushing for action on climate change are fighting for humanity.

Beyond all the hype expressed by political parties; a business as usual situation ultimately leads to extermination of the human race and other life forms. Even Turnbull has stated a business as usual approach is unsustainable; but, he says the words and doesn’t follow through with the required actions.

Tony Seba, discusses how new technologies have quickly superseded old ones; he begins with the horse and cart and first motor vehicles, coal is equivalent to the horse and cart, and renewables with batteries is like the motor vehicle. He uses a number of other examples to push his argument.
A number of giga factories are currently being built to produce electric cars and batteries expected to be operational beginning in 2018:
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:44 pm

Since January 2016, Queensland has seen an unprecedented level of investment in renewable energy, with 17 large-scale projects either commencing construction or finalising commercial arrangements.

These projects will deliver almost 1200 megawatts of clean power to the state, boost investment by more than $2.2 billion and create 2200 new jobs, mostly in our regional centres.

Achieving a 50 per cent renewable energy target has the potential to deliver broad benefits to the economy, particularly in regional Queensland. The Expert Panel found that the target could drive $6.7 billion of new investment, and deliver a net increase in employment of 6400–6700 full-time equivalent positions on average per year between 2020 and 2030.

The Government will undertake a reverse auction for up to 400 megawatts of renewable capacity, to commence in the second half of 2017, with priority given to projects that support local jobs and businesses.

Seems to me it is far from a “minor theme”.

I do not agree that we are ignoring the future of workers. You can’t be displaced from a job you don’t have yet (Adani) and it is not the fault of environmentalists that employment is changing.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:44 pm

I have been advocating for the Adani Mine? No I have been advocating for jobs using the same message trying to get people to understand the importance of jobs. Unfortunately your misguided assumption and interpretation of my anything outside of this article is wrong. The statement I make that I will not stand against Adani unless there is a serious transition in place, is a protest for jobs. Not a protest to keep Adani. I suggest you stop misrepresenting my position as it adds nothing.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:48 pm

Kaye, have you had a look at the questions on my article about a fair transition. In contrast to reality, these sort of statements whether they come from you or politicians are platitudinal and do not address the wider shift in thinking that needs to occur. It’s like saying Hazelwood workers are ok cos we are building a solar farm in Sydney. There is no doubt renewables will create jobs, However a transition needs to be concentrated and fair.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 12:52 pm

Kaye demanding to stop a project that will offer jobs, and advocating for nothing in its place, is ripping opportunity and hope from the unemployed. I would strongly argue that is a sickening level of privilege . Yet you fail to see what I mean about privilege.
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 12:59 pm

“advocating for nothing in its place”??????

Every comment I have made contains suggestions for things in its place. Sheesh.

“It’s like saying Hazelwood workers are ok cos we are building a solar farm in Sydney.”

Far from being “platitudinal”, those 17 projects I mentioned are happening now in regional Queensland.

And by the by, Hazelwood didn’t close down because of environmental activists.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 1:03 pm

Thanks for looking at the Questions in my article Kaye. You still think this article is all about you. The very huge movement is just calling for Adani to be shut down with nothing in its place. If you can’t see that, you haven’t been paying attention. The argument that you are trying to put forward that people are actively concentrating on mitigating harm to displaced workers simply does not exist. Labor even has a transition plan that is not good enough in terms of addressing workers for goodness sake and they are the party of the Worker!
KeithJune 18, 2017 at 1:21 pm

Trish

Did you make comment when the Abbott gang destroyed the motor vehicle industry?
There was a loss of jobs, not jobs that have merely been projected by a very dangerous undertaking.
Do you rail against the LNP for their abuse of people unemployed?
Did you complain about the cruel Abbott budget publicly?

Many of those you are complaining about now, did advocate against the plain nasty decision making and out of touch neo con politicians.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 1:27 pm

Everyday Keith. It’s probably good not to start personal attacks towards me and speak to the article.

Advocating (positive) action on climate change is not implicit in advocating to mitigate the negative consequences on the worker. In fact, conversation about displaced workers is largely absent, from activists to the media to politicians.
paulwalterJune 18, 2017 at 2:44 pm

What a depressing day’s group of comments. Sorry, wont go into it further, won’t say any more.

I’ve got to get away from the computer… put an axe through it? Why is there no sanctuary?

Gimme shelter.
KeithJune 18, 2017 at 3:32 pm

Here is quite a long article about how scientists are feeling about climate change, the human factor is loud and clear.

My opinion is that it is the most important matter that confronts us now:

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a36228/ballad-of-the-sad-climatologists-0815/
diannaartJune 18, 2017 at 3:54 pm

Just managed to catch-up on 69+ posts since I went off for a well earned nap.

One of the observations I made to myself but did not publish at the start of this thread, was that Trish has done a lot of work.

This thought was immediately followed by, who is this work for?

I doubt there are many commentators here at AIMN who do not care for the worker (which I do believe is ourselves, isn’t or wasn’t it?). Anyone who does not care about workers, piss off now.

I asked, therefore, for evidence of environmentalist elitism causing loss of jobs.

I got absolutely nowhere.

Which is a shame.

Now I do not want to go over old ground, such as “I do not understand Trish’s article”, because I bloody well do. I may not be the most intelligent person here, but I have enough smarts, as do many others, that there are better ways to make the argument for the binaries of long term employment and action on climate change.

I know I am preaching to the converted when I state:

“Protecting, repairing and maintaining the environment, protects, maintains and repairs all of us”

Not just a few, everyone, even people who are parasites, like most of the government and big business.

We do not need the approval of the neo-conservative control-freaks to take action.

We are already doing so, with huge take up of solar on individual homes, factories, schools etc. All of which fits in well with Capitalism – people source materials, make solar panels, sell to other people. That’s how it used to work – until the early 20th century advent of the private for profit monopoly.

We need to return to genuine competition, rather than the confected chimera we are pretending is Capitalism now – Rupert Murdoch/MSM, massive food processing companies, fossil fuel cultists and more.

Think local, is not just a cutesy saying, it is a big finger to the 1%.

We can build small wind turbines, solar panels, water gravity power generation in our back yards – we can most certainly do this at a suburb or town or local council level.

…and all this creates jobs.
Helen BatesJune 18, 2017 at 3:59 pm

My husband has family in Charters Towers and Bowen and the politician in their area that didn’t support the Carmichael Mine would be on the dole queues real quick.It is ok for you lot in Brisbane Sydney Melbourne all in your little homes almost certainly built on clearfelled rich agricultural and grazing land to lecture Nth Queenslanders. How about if you move out of your houses turn your areas back into pristine land and go live in a cave and stop burning fossil fuels then the locals might listen.It is ok to stand for the environment as long as it isn’t in your backyard apparently
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 4:24 pm

Helen..This old chestnut of ; “why don’t you lot give back / invite into your home / return your land back into / live in a cave..etc is a worthless , lazy attempt to shift responsibility from destructive right-wing ideology onto the shoulders of those trying to salvage what pristine land left to the lost cause of marginal return projects that have little or no hope of long term survival.
If you read my piece on the pioneers of this area where I live,( On one side the night so dark), you would be better informed on what happens when hard-working people are driven by forced necessity to exploit their land..ti becomes marginal then totally unproductive to the point, and I will quote a farming cousin from of one of those pioneer families..: “We are no longer dirt-farmers, we are chemical farmers” referring to the amount of chemical fertiliser and herbicide / pesticide they have to use to produce a one-in-five year profit crop…many are now moving out or considering such and the soil / environment left behind is ravaged beyond a fifty year turnaround…perhaps longer.
There is only blind stupidity in once again going down that route in this day and age where there are other alternatives..marginal land does not improve with more desecration, it just becomes more unviable and unlivable..
WE..of the “progressive left” are trying to be part of the solution…when we can see there is no point continuing with the problem.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 4:35 pm

Helen Bates,

how’s your business welfare tax concessions from Snotty Morriscum coming along (since you run your own ‘small’ biz)?

Better be careful or the peasants will come with their pitchforks to force you out, so it can be run by a grassroots collective with clean, green energy.
Helen BatesJune 18, 2017 at 4:59 pm

Jennifer Meyer-Smith
We pay plenty of taxes so did you collect your dole payment last week paid from our taxes?
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 5:08 pm

“Environmental activists must cease the perverse accusation that one is a “climate change denier” if displaced workers are a major concern.”

Laborists must cease the perverse accusation that one doesn’t care about jobs if climate change is a major concern.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 5:21 pm

Helen..you are a “wasted space” as far as trying to “educate you” on the notion of the social contract in a nation goes..you do not read, you do not reason, you do not analyse even what you are arguing about…you are one of those right-wing deniers who become social cannibals as a means of survival…

“… It has used the stupid to attract the stupid, much like one uses a cut piece of bait from the one fish to attract and catch another of the same species. The Right-wing has used those now familiar fools so clumsy in their knowledge of politics and social needs, but so rat-cunning in their use of phrasing of tongue so that it appeals to the most gullible.”

You praise a party that is run by a millionaire investor who supports and once was a member of a party run by a multi, multi-millionaire tax evader who lives in one of the most exclusive residential areas in Sydney and you ask us , many of whom are struggling with paying a mortgage, for US…US…to surrender OUR little piece of hard-worked for ownership and you do not even think to look to those parasites you praise to give any piece of their unearned wealth back to the nation.
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 5:24 pm

Helen, people who earn over $37,000 are on a significantly higher tax rate than businesses big and small and they have little opportunity to minimise their tax by deductions.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 5:36 pm

I’m not trying to be part of the solution Joe, by asking people to stop just fiercely advocating about the environment and start advocating for a decent transition for workers? If we get closer to that 2 degrees who do you think are going to be the casualties in this if Govts shut down existing mines in quick succession? The workers and the poor, that’s who. A transition plan should have started ten years ago, but apparently just having confidence there will be jobs is enough. Hear Helens plea – don’t brush it off. If people pushed the Government to build new work strategically Adani would not matter. Why can’t people see this?
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 5:41 pm

You comment something like that after Helen put her case foreword? Wow! People seriously don’t get this? Does anyone stop to think why Gonski is said to be successful? Because it is a student centred Policy. To not draw anything from that shows you have great difficulty understanding the workers plight in all this. Not just Kaye. Everyone who does not get this.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 5:43 pm

People who are desperate for jobs are a waste of space? Wow!
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 5:46 pm

” People who are desperate for jobs are a waste of space? Wow!”….Now THAT..Trish..is a classic example of “quoting out of context”…something I would not have expected from a research academic.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 5:48 pm

Helen Bates,

you still haven’t answered how your tax concessions are going for your so-called ‘small’ biz.

By the way, have you heard of Modern Monetary Theory which explains how your and my tax dollars work? Probably not, since you made that erroneous statement about your tax dollars paying for somebody else’s rightful Constitutional social security.

And since you asked about how I’m doing, I’m doing fine thanks while working many volunteer hours for the community. Mind you, that is an aspect of this current neoliberalist system that fallaciously undermines the integrity of the citizen.

When you read up on Modern Monetary Theory, you will find that the Job Guarantee component is long overdue for ascribing a monetary value to EVERY occupation in society.

If a job is worth doing; it is worth being paid for it. Don’t you agree? Or are small biz owners like you (as defined by the LNP fascists) only entitled to pecuniary benefits?
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 5:55 pm

I wanted to stay out of this arguement on the grounds that your thesis has moved fluid-like to find higher ground each time a contested point is raised..a “troublesome position”…I will join this accusation if you persist to misquote me and argue that the claim that putting the worker at the centre of a nation-wide unemployment problem is nothing but playing one section of unemployed against another and using the worker as little more than a “trump-card” in the gamble of corporate poker, where the “kitty” is little more than short-term employment relief…
My earliest reply to this article gave what I saw as a solution and I will leave it there..ie: the re-nationalising of essential utilities and raw material supplies so that there can be both permanent, secure employment and transition to newer technologies when inevitable.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 5:55 pm

I would expected more from someone who shows compassion. Someone comes on here and states their case about jobs and she gets nothing but ridicule. You told her she was a waste of space. Not educated. Others have started ridiculing her political beliefs. And people wonder why some think someone as dangerous as Pauline Hanson is the only one listening. Everyone commenting is making this about their hurt feelings of whether I don’t think they care about jobs. If they cared about people having jobs the main thing they would have taken from this is the urgent jobs and transition plan, the questions to be asked about how to develop it, would have been the most things talked about. Apart from JMS who listed the urgency to have levels of Government listen to community, no one has even come close. For your info, I work in management, I am a skilled researcher, but that has stuff all to do with my position on anything.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 5:57 pm

PS…Helen’s “case” was little more than an “overnight travel bag”..not a “case” at all!
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 5:59 pm

Well I rest my case. People just don’t see the worker as important. There is no point in trying to put this argument forward to people who can’t be humble enough to put theirselves in the shoes of people facing the dole.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm

Trish,

Helen Bates has elsewhere said she wants to vote for Pauline Hanson already. Why bow to her ugly, antagonistic, uncompassionate sneers?

Those people who are facing the dole because the industry that they have grossly been overpaid for for decades and which they have gladly done despite its environmental and health threats, need to get mobilised right now and do what a lot of other marginalised people have done and start looking for alternative solutions.

A dead industry that causes environmental damage has no right to exist.
diannaartJune 18, 2017 at 6:04 pm

People just don’t see the worker as important. There is no point in trying to put this argument forward to people who can’t be humble enough to put theirselves in the shoes of people facing the dole.

Am I take to this comment as a generalisation?

Or, are you making this claim about everyone who has commented on your article?

I would appreciate the clarification.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 6:05 pm

Have you asked yourself why she thinks Pauline is listening?
JohnoJune 18, 2017 at 6:16 pm

Helen is a troll
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 6:17 pm

Anyone who can’t understand Helens plight about desperation for jobs, and unable to reframe this debate with the worker at the centre, commenting or just reading and the hundreds I’ve spoken to online, the comment is directed at. That’s the clarification.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 6:22 pm

I have no idea about her participation here, but her plight about jobs underpins the entire article and the responses to her when that is raised is the very loud narrative that seeks to ridicule and lecture anyone who raises the issue of jobs is the overwhelming theme of four weeks of qualitative data analysed. Frankly the attitude of some people I have come across online towards people who are scared about job losses or even raise them as an issue, is disgusting.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 6:24 pm

” For your info, I work in management, I am a skilled researcher, but that has stuff all to do with my position on anything.”

A skilled researcher you may be, but when I see 207 replies to your thesis WITHOUT yet reaching consensus with ANY of those people, I have to suspect that it must be either your contrary nature or the clarity of the written arguement..

I have no fight with you..and I don’t see why you want to start one with me.
Helen BatesJune 18, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Wow where to start
Joseph Carli did someone buy you a book on socialism and you didn’t fully understand
as for “You praise a party that is run by a millionaire investor who supports and once was a member of a party run by a multi, multi-millionaire tax evader who lives in one of the most exclusive residential areas in Sydney” please direct me to where I said that or praised Turnbull in any shape or form or are you just full of it and make up things to make you try to sound intelligent? FAIL
Jennifer you didn’t answer about your dole payments, how much longer are you going to suck on the public teat?you’ve made about 10 comments that could have been job applications {use your time more productively!} as for this MMT please direct me to one place it is in place and working and not just some unproven”theory”
As for the environment my family have 4 properties over 12,000 acres and had them for over a century and I dare say the land is in better shape now than when my forefathers set foot on the land and I have spent my 32 years here and will continue to protect the land till they bury me in it.It is in our interest to do so or else it would probably end up clearfelled and covered in little boxes like Sydney and Melbourne.Let me know when you all will make personal sacrifices and return your properties back to the wilderness in pristine condition or doesn’t it count. I would like the Sydney harbor bridge torn down to stop all those filthy cars spewing fumes all over.Let’s start a campaign on that
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 6:27 pm

Do you think the only people commenting on here are the ones who read the article or who I talk to? Because Kaye Lee and the regular few who disagree with every single article I write, disagree with this one, my article is a load of crap? Joe welcome to AIMN. You fit right in. Disappointed.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 6:30 pm

Trish,

do you accept Helen Bates is a nasty little troll who has capitalised on your divisive article that threatens to entrench further current divisions?
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 6:34 pm

Trish..Have you heard of the “$8 an hour man” ? I have met him many times, many more times HE is a woman employed by those same “small business” people all over the country, just trying to “help out” and “keep those unfortunate unemployed people in a job”…just “doing my bit for the unemployed”….by making a deal with an unemployed person to pay them $8 an hour cash and they can then keep their dole money and so make what could be called “above the poverty-line wage”…a ; “win-win” situation surely..because , Hey!..they are “so worried about the plight of jobs”.

I would think “Helen” should ask HERSELF why she thinks Pauline is listening.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 6:39 pm

Helen Bates,

my secret is out. You’ve exposed me! OMG! Where will I hide?

I almost wish you were a real person coz then you could prove how ignorant, selfish and uncompassionate such types, as you pretend to be, are.

I also could say, “Well if you want me off my bum and earning me dinner, give me a job, then hey!” I said the same to cornlegend once, but he went eerily silent.

I find it amusing that you and your prototype think it’s ok to scratch sores but refuse to offer solutions, which could be within your grasp.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 6:39 pm

Trish!!…you “challenged ” me from the first comment I made of this article and I felt compelled to show you just where you had been mistaken…I wondered THEN just where you were coming from and so desisted any more commentary..but with your challenging my reply to Helen, I saw THAT as once again challenging me to some sort of verbal duel…I have to ask : Just what is your gripe?
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 6:44 pm

And as for “Helen”…give it a rest..we all know what Helen’s biggest gripe is..: The lowering or remission of the diesel fuel / fertilizer subsidies and other Agricultural “helpies” that once, like a kind of Ag-dole for many, gave that little bit of “pocket money” for those little “extras” when they took themselves and the kiddies to town.
RoswellJune 18, 2017 at 6:50 pm

Everyday Keith. It’s probably good not to start personal attacks towards me and speak to the article.

Trish, I read Keith’s comment. All I saw was that he asked you a few harmless questions. I can’t possibly see how that is a personal attack towards you.

If you want to see a personal attack, just read what you said to Joe.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 6:53 pm

By the living Geezus, I gotta say, Trish…you’re one hell of a “scrapper”..I reckon you’d take on a bloke over the thickness of the froth on two schooners of beer!
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 6:53 pm

No I have no idea who she is. However her comment about the fear of no jobs with climate change action is real and should not be sniggered at. Threatens further divisions? As far as I’m concerned I am absolutely despised by the AIMN vocal commentators, I’ve learnt not to take it personally, because it doesn’t mean my different perspective is wrong either, or that I have no right to speak up. The division is expected every time I publish and as Mick pointed out way earlier by the same people. Who cares is my answer. I’ll still publish what I write regardless. As I’ve said. I don’t write for a fan club. if I voted on the right side, I’d probably be labeled a troll as well. Getting personal about someone who disagrees with the vocal consensus of opinion here doesn’t help me try to defend my argument that climate action needs to include action for displaced workers at the same time. What Helens point did was actually highlight the privileged position of those who chant with smiles on their faces to shut down jobs. And don’t stop to think to use activism to put something in the place of those jobs. As my article said, some admitted to me beef farming will be next to target to curb emissions? Will the general mood out there be as viscous towards Farmers as it is to people who work in the resources sector if that happens? Her response about people in Sydney giving up things to neutralise carbon instead of insisting it’s only resource sectors that do it, is a response I’ve witnessed many times. As the lessons post Trump and Hanson have taught us, the world doesn’t happen in our own little bubbles. Unless people start taking jobs seriously when their activism is a threat to these jobs, people who are under threat will see nothing else but attack and division. As we move towards the 2% and displaced jobs aren’t managed and it becomes urgent, the biggest victims will be regional and rural workers and the poor because as it becomes urgent, coal mines and plants will be shut down very quickly. We have a space of a year or two to get this right. It is urgent for a serious jobs transition now, that looks after targeted workers and regions now.
Helen BatesJune 18, 2017 at 6:55 pm

Joseph Carli there you go making more things up.Look the bottom line is I am a proud Queenslander and I do support One Nation. I am content in the knowledge that in Queensland there are more people who think like me than you poor Greens and the next State election will again prove that.
Jennifer I don’t care what someone else may or may not have done but you would have no hope of a job with us as you sound like you are “entitled”
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 7:03 pm

Helen,

I wouldn’t want to work in your enterprise either. I’ve met many people like you pretend to be and I know you’d make me sick.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 7:03 pm

You have my number Joe. If you have an issue you can call me or inbox me on Facebook.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 7:06 pm

” I am a proud Queenslander “…what’s THAT?..what is being born within vague state drawn boundaries got to do with your last few comments..I’m a mix of several ethnic groups and born in this geographical location…that gives no weight to m arguement that cannot be gleaned from the four corners of the globe..and THAT claim of “proud Queenslander” places you in contradiction to any claim, surely, that you have the interests of the rest of the country at heart..I’d bet London to a brick you are of the “secede” crowd.
JohnoJune 18, 2017 at 7:07 pm

Trish
You say ‘Her response about people in Sydney giving up things to neutralise carbon instead of insisting it’s only resource sectors that do it’…… Many people live in Sydney on the smell of an oily rag, catching buses, riding bikes, walking…. WTF we are all in this together. Cityfolk and countryfolk alike.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 7:10 pm

Trish…I’m not ringing you ,man..not until that blowtorch you got threatening my nuts is showing less of a blue flame!
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 7:16 pm

I am simply reporting to you it is how they see it. People in Melbourne and Sydney screaming to shut down hope and opportunity albeit a mine that is harmful to the environment. But with nothing else in its place it’s all these people have. People say Corbyn gave them hope. The people where jobs are plentiful screaming at people where jobs are scarce is terrifying and hopeless when you reframe it from their perspective. If people took a bit more time to understand the element of reframing in this article, they might see things differently. Pauline comes in there and says she will fight for jobs. WE know she won’t and has no solid policy solution but it is this hope they cling onto. Although I vote Labor they are not introducing the narrative of making sure job fears are eased when we talk about action on climate change. If they wonder why they lose seats, they haven’t looked at this right. People want jobs. It is not about hanging onto coal. In a country where we are fighting to act on climate change, and when a coal mine is the only source of hope, something is terribly wrong and that is, the worker is not central to the climate change debate.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 7:21 pm

Trish,

it is not the only thing they have. They have become lazy and complacent depending upon something that had a limited timespan and they have been caught out when they have had plenty of warnings.

Tell Helen and her sooky-la-las to get off THEIR bums and work out a path out of their situation. Hanson won’t provide the answers but then modern Labor won’t either, so the answer has to come from the community.

For the record, I’m starting to see there’s more to you than I have given you credit for. You need to think grassroots alternative thinking and not Labor neoliberalism.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 7:26 pm

Joe. As someone I’ve chatted to for hours, personally I am at a loss as to how you cannot see putting the worker first is essential and why ridiculing someone and calling them a waste of space because they or their family truly fear job loss and poverty from this because no other offers of jobs to replace coal are evident….well I don’t understand how people think that’s ok. I don’t understand how for some it is so hard to look through their eyes. I don’t threaten people either. I certainly haven’t threatened you.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 7:33 pm

Sorry Jennifer but the workers do not have full agency here. It is up to the Government to get this right. The unemployment you talk about in your area is absolutely unacceptable. Malcolm Turnbull’s position is to make your own job as the market shifts. That’s a radical free market perspective. A socialist perspective would be to automatically invest in (Govt funded if needed) infrastructure and services to create more jobs. Socialist Governments interfere in the job market for job creation. The Liberals think it should be left alone and let the people lift themselves up by the bootstraps to find work. The latter is not my position, i will refer again to the questions raised in the article about development of a serious jobs and economic transition plan. Hanson doesn’t provide any solutions. But until Liberal or Labor do, they will believe anyone who says they do. Even if that is a huge lie.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 7:46 pm

I refer back to my 7.21pm comment.

I know you’re worried about losing these morons more to Hanson but I’m not sure what to advise except that you could get up and act as a Labor affiliated Independent, who they can aspire to vote for.

At the end of the day Hanson is a disguised Liberal functionary, who happens to be on the take for running her own party.

You could do well acting for people, who are caught between the raw realities of changing socio-economic community by representing Labor and OMG! Greens-leaning people, who are about to be personally impacted by Adani being told to f*ck off.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 7:57 pm

The Hanson factor is not the main issue. The media does over inflate her popularity but it is strong in pockets, but mainly traditional LNP voters. But some Labor voters too and a lot of swinging voters. I’m sorry I don’t know what your last paragraph means. If people were lobbying Government for a real investment in alternative jobs, because they seem to have trouble doing it on their own, Adani wouldn’t even be an issue, There are other ways to invest in jobs and even help India. However, what is required in terms of the way we spend our taxes to do that is not going to pass the pub test right now, Fear for jobs with action on climate change is not isolated to QLD, it is international. The International Trade Union movement raises it as an issue. It doesn’t have to be jobs or environment. By placing workers at the centre it can be both. What they said about Trump was right. Obama acted on Climate Change and Left resource workers behind. He didn’t find solutions for them. Until jobs are lobbied for, the right wing, including Hanson will continue to care about the worker. I raise that point in the article too.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 8:00 pm

Lol sorry that should read “PRETEND to care about the worker as a reason to not act on climate change”
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 8:02 pm

I was trying to encourage you to try to get elected, as a Labor-affiliated Independent so that dissatisfied Labor and Greens voters can vote for you and NOT Hanson when the shit hits the fan at Adani’s expulsion from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

Those voters will be wanting an alternative to the parasite Pauline Hanson, who unashamedly supports the Liberal Party.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 8:08 pm

Oh. No I’m not interested in being a politician. The closest id come as a dream job is a researcher for a senator because that’s the only place to stop bad legislation. Labor is the party to do this. If Shorten came up with a detailed transition plan for jobs and impacted economies. People would not be so fearful about ending up in poverty. Labor does talk about staged closures which is good, but their narrative needs to change as well and a more serious and vocal position on combating both climate change and employment.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 8:18 pm

Well said Trish.

You need to keep showing thousands that you can also see Labor’s shortcomings when the rest of us need them most AND the Greens against RWNJ’s in Liberal/National/PHON/LiberalDemocrats/FamilyFirst/etc/etc
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 8:31 pm

“Because Kaye Lee and the regular few who disagree with every single article I write”

I engaged with this article in good faith trying to make some suggestions about sustainable employment. I should have realised it would be pointless. What you seem to want is, not suggestions about how action on climate change can be synergistic with future employment, but rather some admission that I am a privileged elitist who couldn’t give a shit about jobs. That is totally false.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 8:33 pm

Alright..I’ll put forward a synopsis of why I think You ; Trish and Qld. Labor are pushing this “Why won’t anybody think of the workers” line so determinedly..:

The Ardani mine may or may not get off the ground, but if it does AND if those jerkoffs in the LNP “govt'” give the little “shoeboy” the one billion forelock tug, and it does get a start at least..The Qld. Labor will be on an election ; “win-win” proposition..
A: The inland railway could get built and THAT would serve the developing beef industry there (AND “Helen”s humble little spread).
B: If the mine gets off the ground we all know the major employment numbers are in the development stage which could take several years, thereby giving the Qld. govt’ kudos for regional employment prospects.
C: If the project fails for lack / lowering of export contracts after development due to India going renewable quicker than first thought, there will be no loss of “Face” on the Qld. Govt’s part and by then they would have phased in a plan (we hope) of transition…another electoral “win”.
D: If and when this LNP federal govt’ wakes up to the fact that coal is screwing ALL the environment and the Reef by association, and is forced to cut coal mining, it will be “out of the hands” of the Qld. govt’….no loss to the electorate there either.

Nothing but “good news” ahead for politics, as long as we “place the employment of the workers” at the centre of the discussion……dontcha know?

Oh…and f#ck the environment.

And I think your thesis is VERY cynical…very cynical indeed.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 8:34 pm

Oh for goodness sake it isn’t personal Kaye. I just say Kaye Lee and everyone instead of listing everyone’s names. It’s not like this is new.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 9:08 pm

Actually no Joe. That has nothing to do with why I’m pushing this. To imply my position is disingenuous is mind boggling. I have no ulterior motive to stand up for workers. This is bigger than the Adani mine. The Adani mine is insignificant in the whole scheme of things. What about when coal mines and brown coal plants need to be shut as a matter of urgency? This isn’t some happy exchange where jobs are just going to magically appear as we take climate action. It’s an international concern by trade unions and worker displacement needs to be a huge concern. If we act or if we don’t act on climate change. Workers and the poor will suffer either way. I am really tired of this short sightedness with Adani when there is a much bigger picture here.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 9:09 pm

Well at least you are honest that workers are insignificant and how cynical it is to give a damn about them Joe. At least you are honest.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 9:26 pm

If that is not why you are pushing “this”, then you are politically naive…and there I have some doubt..This whole Adani issue is political…workers jobs come and go, esp’ in mining…and even if YOU are not aware of the political implications of both the railroad to Gina’s “Bonanza” beef projects and the regional employment prospects the development of the Adani mine mean, it is there that the “care of the workers” will be fought out.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 9:29 pm

And will you PLEASE stop framing and argument around words or implied notions that I did neither say nor hint at.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 9:32 pm

Frankly Joe, I’m insulted. Very insulted that you think I’d make a passionate plea for people to look at how they are participating in climate change activism and also speak up for the worker, because you have some weird idea this is about Adani. Go and read the concerns from International Trade Unions in Paris talks and you will see my position has stuff all to do with Adani. And once again if people gave a damn about making sure workers were not left behind, politicians and billionaires wouldn’t have the weight to use it as a reason to not take climate change action seriously.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 9:38 pm

What on earth are you talking about?
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 9:43 pm

Pray tell…: Just when was it decided that “the worker” was a separate individual from “the climate change activist”…when many many more working-class people are active in environmental activism, particularly around the issue of the reef. I have had about a gut-full of this “I’m for the worker” crap…we ARE the “worker” we are not stupid, many here can see the shadowdy hand of the Blair/ Labor “third way” in this agenda…They ought to take care not to alienate their base..we are all watching..we are not silly.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 18, 2017 at 9:44 pm

Trish,

it seems to me that you need to heed what Joe and Kaye are saying in their own different ways so that your perspective can evolve to the finesse on this subject of employment for grassroots people, which it may deserve.

You have good intentions but you don’t have the entire way of framing those good intentions.

Listen to advice of other good people and break the party-line delineations to arrive at those good intentions.
Joseph CarliJune 18, 2017 at 9:45 pm

This : ” Well at least you are honest that workers are insignificant and how cynical it is to give a damn about them Joe. At least you are honest.”….I will not continue on this post..
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:06 pm

I won’t heed what Joe and Kaye are saying Jennifer Thanks. They seem to struggle to understand the main argument of the piece itself. Which is about the working class.

Frankly, you are the only one who has made a serious contribution on the actual point of the article. Mick also made a contribution, explaining the key terms more.

Imagine how good the commentary would have been if people could have engaged in THAT topic of getting Govt to listen about jobs and how we configure all of that to help the working class in tandem with these changes. how good would have those comments been?

There is a series to be written on this and this is the first. Well kind of second. Please don’t make out others are good people and I am not IF that is what you are trying to make out.

My intentions are good intentions, that is to see that the working class who will be displaced by climate change action are looked after. This may mean we need to change the entire landscape of the country in how we do things. Taxes, jobs, social security, education, services, everything.

If then entire world hates my guts for it, then so be it. I will live with it. But I won’t just sit down and say nothing, as thousands of workers are under threat of joblessness and poverty as they are going to be displaced. I won’t shut up. If people don’t like it, it is tough for them. More activism on the workers would be ideal, but I’ll lobby the Government, Labor and Unions on my own if I have to. and I certainly won’t have it implied it is for some other reason that is not genuine, like being pro-adani- or links to mining or being corporate shill. I’m none of the above.

This article was meant to get under people’s skin. the same way as any identification of privilege is supposed to get under people’s skin. If they only think about moving towards zero carbon as the sole aim and not what happens to people along the way – it is indeed a position of privilege.

It is clear you don’t like Helen, and there is some history there, but her comments about jobs in Townsville Region and the reactions to her comments about jobs are a clear example of the prominent experience of anyone who raises the issue of jobs in this space. It is really wrong.

The Working Class and the poor will bear the brunt of all of this, if we act on climate change AND if we don’t act on climate change. I spent four weeks fully engaged in online conversations with people, trying to raise the issue of jobs transition and asking people their thoughts on displaced workers, I literally themed hundreds of comments and frankly it was a sickening experience. Abusive, vile and sick. To even mention jobs to MANY means you must be against climate change. The same experience is felt in this thread. That is not the case.

The narrative of Labor is not one that places workers at the centre and says, we need to do X on climate change, but this is how we will look after workers who’s industries will shut down in the future. This is how we will be planning for it. But one that is purely from an environmental focus. That makes me feel ill too.

As I progress with these articles, I am sure people will see it more clearly, but my fear is that they will not. Frankly at the moment, I do not see an overwhelming concern by anyone for the working class and how these CC Changes will change the shape of our country.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:07 pm

Unless you want to talk about how we can lobby for a decent serious transition for displaced workers, please don’t.
KeithJune 18, 2017 at 10:14 pm

I have mentioned artificial intelligence earlier; whether we like it or not jobs are going to be lost by such technology. Yet, it is something which is hardly being discussed. Structural change has been an issue which the LNP particularly does not wish to countenance; an area they handle particularly poorly.
Rather than wait for the crisis of even fewer jobs caused through artificial intelligence, planning needs to occur in how to deal with the matter. It might begin by treating unemployed people with respect. Planning how those made redundant can live in dignity. Dignity might be provided by the implimentation of a universal wage?

Already there are driverless trucks being used at mines, passenger cars are heading towards being driverless, and a huge push for electric vehicles is not far off; meaning the potential loss of positions as professional drivers and mechanics of internal combustion engines; these being areas where a huge amount of employment appears as though it will be lost.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:21 pm

Thank you Keith. This is exactly what we should be talking about. The International Trades Unions say there will be serious structure change in employment with climate change action and as a country we need to fight for what we want that to look like. we need activism, because the LNP don’t give a stuff and they use their caring for the working class as an excuse not to progress. Along with climate change action, there is automation, off shoring, climate change action is a conscious structural change imposed from Government. it is not through incremental or radical innovation like technology and automation. It can be planned out to respond properly. It may mean the Government may need to own more means of production and buy back privatised assets and many other things that could be done.
The conversation has to start though, by putting the worker first, or it will never happen.
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 10:54 pm

The 1986 Dunlap article that you reference made the following conclusions:

“The evidence bearing on each of the three types of elitism is examined in some detail, and the following conclusions are drawn: Compositional elitism is an exaggeration, for although environmentalists are typically above average in socioeconomic status (as are most sociopolitical activists), few belong to the upper class. Ideological elitism may hold in some instances, but environmentalists have shown increasing sensitivity to equity concerns and there is little evidence of consistent pursuit of self-interest. Impact elitism is the most important issue, and also the most difficult to assess. It appears that there has been a general tendency for environmental reforms to have regressive impacts. However, it is increasingly recognized that problems such as workplace pollution and toxic waste contamination disproportionately affect the lower socioeconomic strata, and thus reforms aimed at such problems will likely have more progressive impacts.”

Dr. Hallman of Rutgers University makes the following observations:

“by the compositional criteria, the opponents of environmentalism come closer to being an elite than do core environmentalists. Much of the most vocal, coordinated opposition to environmentalism comes from the top levels of corporate management. Such objections to environmental reform are hardly above suspicion as representing upper-class interests, even if frequently couched in a rationale of concern for general welfare.

Over the past two decades the impacts that have received the most media coverage deal with plant closures and layoffs. Yet there is reason to believe that the number of jobs lost through pollution control regulations in industry is small relative to the number of jobs created by such regulations.

Impact elitism is the bottom line. It is the accusation that environmental reforms create, exacerbate or sustain social inequities. It is the basic reason that the question of elitism is a matter of concern. It is also clearly implied in most accusations of compositional and ideological elitism. Yet the evidence for impact elitism is on the whole less clear than for ideological or compositional elitism, and the evidence for even these is scant.”
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 10:56 pm

I’m not sure what you point is here Kaye.
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 11:13 pm

“The International Trades Unions say there will be serious structure change in employment with climate change ”

Trade Unions and Climate Change
ITUC Contribution to UNFCCC COP22

The times when climate action was raised as a job killer are behind us. Ambitious emissions reduction and adaptation policies are now recognised as vital to protect jobs, people and communities from the impacts of climate change, and investment is creating jobs in renewable energy, public transit, energy efficiency in buildings, sustainable agriculture, forestry, water and more.

The ILO has found that most studies show a positive net employment effect of policies facilitating climate transition. Net gains are up to 60 million jobs, combining economic growth with environmental improvement.

While all sectors hold opportunities, the key to the transformation of our industries and our communities is energy – reliable, renewable energy.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:14 pm

Yes, what is your point?
Kaye LeeJune 18, 2017 at 11:19 pm

My point is that there is little evidence to support the accusation of “environmental elitism” and that there are many job opportunities created by action on climate change, caring for the environment and sustainable practice. I understand your point about supporting workers in a transitioning economy. I don’t understand your attacks on environmentalists.
Trish CorryJune 18, 2017 at 11:45 pm

Kaye, I’m really truly sorry you do not understand the structure of my article. I tried to structure it as clearly as I could. It is a big topic to tackle in less than 2000 words. I have demonstrated the term “Privilege” which is used widely in the sociology literature.

A term most of us are familiar with. I then demonstrated that there is terminology used relating to environmentalism. Of course, in the environmentalism literature, it is a rebuttal. However, it does not mean that this is a term that does not exists. Privilege and environmental elitism clearly have the same underpinning constructs. As stated before, I can only draw three things from your persistent line of questioning, one is that you do not understand the underlying constructs and antecedents to privilege.

The “attack” as you put it, is to ask people to not just champion on climate change. To use the terminology in the sociology space on privilege. I am asking people to “check their privilege” and place the worker at the centre of the framework and look at how you will tackle climate action by looking through the lens of the worker. This is demonstrated by a comment left by Helen, the people who will be displaced – all they see is others (who don’t live in those areas) screaming to have opportunities taken away from them and threats to their community existence. This is a real fear. It is not a joke. If the worker was at the centre of the debate, the way we look at climate change action would be very different, than it is now. The responses were attacks, not compassion and not thought provoking discussion about what else can be done. The latter is what I think we need to be doing.

There is a myriad of people out there (as I said, I analysed over four weeks of narrative) who only champion climate change. If jobs are brought up, if how we transition workers is brought up, then it is met with three things: Abuse, Ridicule, or a lecture on the importance of climate change.

Unless people start to put the worker front and centre and start thinking about the jobless and concede that there will be job losses due to climate change action (an idea overwhelmingly refused by many I have spoken to) but not only will workers be displaced (some areas will be affected immensely) but it will impede progress on climate change action.

I am calling for people to lobby and use activism to use their voice regarding the plight of the worker and what should happen to them. How will we manage it, if action becomes urgent and say five mines need to be shut down quickly in succession? What about those workers? Should we be prepared? I have a series of questions in my article that speaks to this.

As I said, this is not about Adani. This is much bigger. If you read the entire raft of information from the union stuff you posted before, you will note that there is only a few years with the 2 degrees increase limit. That means, if our country does not get it right and start making sure workers are looked after, two things will happen. We don’t act on climate change properly and there will be devastation and disaster and jobs will be under threat, economies could collapse.

If we act on climate change and not ensure enough jobs are in place and we don’t re-jig the economy and look at safety nets such as welfare by ensuring displaced workers are looked after, then there will be huge pockets of poverty if action needs to be taken very urgently so we don’t hit the 2 degrees. The detail about the 2 degrees was in 2015, I’m pretty sure the consensus is that action is now urgent.

I know people see me as some sort of enemy of climate change, but that is certainly not the case. I am pro-worker. Worker focused. I view the world through the worker and disadvantaged.

If we act or do not act on climate change, the worker and poor will bear the brunt of these changes. The worker and the poor do not have complete agency as they rely on others, work, govt to live life. They deserve to be protected.

As I said, Labor is not leading a national conversation on the envisaged displaced work of the future and that completely ignores the workers who will be displaced. They have good ‘intentions’ by writing a transition plan. However, in my article I raise a lot of questions to think about in what a transition plan should look like. This is not just about ‘the Greens’ It is about anyone who isn’t putting the worker first. Believe me, I’ve wanted to jump through the computer and yell at Shorten sometimes too, when he ONLY talks about reducing emissions and not the workers who will need to be retrained, replaced, redeployed etc.,

Anyone who doesn’t care what happens to jobs and people who work in those jobs because we need to act on climate change, is acting from a position of privilege. I feel it is important to demonstrate this because simply asking people to think about the worker does not work, as describe above, it is met with absolute hostility, and the belief that the person raising the issue is not convinced by climate change. It simply does not work.

As my conclusion states, activism needs to occur to ensure a synergistic framework that combats climate change and looks after the worker.

As you will note from the International Union literature you read before, they say, we don’t need to make the same mistakes of the Industrial revolution. We can do both.

These conversations and push to make sure politicians do the right thing can never happen unless the worker is put front and centre of this debate. Not doing so, is a position of privilege, because if everyone looked like the people in my photo, they would all be worried about the worker. They would be pushing damn hard to make sure people will not be left in poverty and communities left as ghost towns.

This does not have to be jobs OR environment pathway. It can be both.

I hope that clarifies.
Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 12:14 am

Trish, the way you speak to people is unlikely to unite them in a common cause. You are patronising and dismissive and totally misrepresent what others are saying. I’m out.
Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 12:15 am

The feeling is quite mutual Kaye. Night.
paulwalterJune 19, 2017 at 12:59 am

I think Helen Bates’ mistake has been in attacking concerned people in cities rather than LNP tax cheats for the lack of money available to facilitate regional development/redevelopment.. Don’t forget, Turnbull wants to turn $60 billion MORE over to big business and the wealthy over the near future and am thus surprised at Helen Bates’ ignorance as to where the REAL financial drain on the system is emanating from, resulting thus in others appearting surprised at Helen Bates’ comments which indicate lack of seriousness through lack of research as to causes.
diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 7:57 am

I, Kaye Lee, Keith, and many others have discussed ways of transitioning workers from defunct industries to sustainable ones. We have pointed out the need for both government and big business to act responsibility in a changing world and to provide training and support for workers.

Yet, Trish, you keep telling us that we are not concerned about workers.

I am confident in saying all of us are workers or have retired from working. Many of us have experienced retrenchment, stressful work and long hours, some of us were harmed by our jobs.

Yet, because we question your wisdom in choosing to target what you term “environmental elitists” you claim that we are unconcerned about workers.

This makes no sense.
FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 8:02 am

Trish Corry, quote: Anyone who doesn’t care what happens to jobs and people who work in those jobs because we need to act on climate change, is acting from a position of privilege. End of quote

How wrong you are!
JohnoJune 19, 2017 at 8:19 am

Freethinker, Diannaart…. I agree with you both. Most, if not all the activists I know are workers and definitely not elitists. They are just average people who are sick to death of the treatment by often seemingly large untouchable companies who run rough shod over the environment.
Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 8:21 am

Dianna, give yourselves a pat on the back. Despite explaining countless times this is not about you. It is about a wider movement out there who I engaged with daily for four weeks to understand them. If you don’t know this is a very prevalent in ignoring the worker, maybe expand to a few other platforms.

However, the difference between the comments here and the ones from people who see this article about putting the worker first, are very different observations about the article. Instead of thinking it’s about them they make suggestions like “you should send those ideas to policy committee. I know they are talking about transition.” And “absolutely, a conversation on climate change should always include the worker.” As examples.

Not one person even has given any thought to the most important part of the article and that is the section with the questions we should ask to develop a transition plan.

Take the article however you like. Despite the length of comments, the distaste is relatively concentrated. If I get more people to start asking questions about workers and using activism to insist on a fair transition, frankly I don’t care who thinks this is personal. Because it isn’t.
Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 8:28 am

Nope. Certainly not. If you don’t care about what happens to the workers then you are indeed speaking from a position of privilege. People forget unemployment creates poverty and poverty also kills people. If you don’t care about purposely creating unemployment as activism insists to shut industry down (you do know there are people who want to shut all coal mines down right?) or gloat and celebrate the closure of Hazelwood because it was a filthy coal plant and your concern isn’t about how those people feed their kids, then it’s a position of privilege. As a friend pointed out. There should never be discussion on action on climate change without including the worker. Spot on I say.
diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 8:46 am

If you don’t care about what happens to the workers then you are indeed speaking from a position of privilege.

No one here has said they don’t care about workers, quite the opposite.

As for:

There should never be discussion on action on climate change without including the worker.

Tell that to big business/government who are ignoring workers, scientists, landscape planners and any who beg for a sustainable future.

PS

I have never claimed this discussion is about me, nor have I gotten personal. I just happen to disagree with part (only part) of your article.
Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 8:48 am

What part of “this is not about a few people on AIMN” that you don’t understand? Again instead of making a suggestion, it’s easier to blame something else. There is a pattern. You just can’t see it.
diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 8:50 am

Not one person even has given any thought to the most important part of the article and that is the section with the questions we should ask to develop a transition plan.

This thread has been full of support for and ways to find transition plans.
Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 8:51 am

Lol ok
JohnoJune 19, 2017 at 9:00 am

What would you say about the Sea Shepherd. You could not get a more direct action group of activists. Would you consider them as elite privileged activists.
FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 9:01 am

Trish, read the attached link, it is not the silver bullet buy IMHO is a good step.
https://greens.org.au/sites/greens.org.au/files/Caring%20for%20Coal%20Workers%20FINAL.pdf

Are you aware of any ALP plan?
RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 9:12 am

Trish keeps saying that we don’t care about workers. We’ve been saying all along that we care about workers, so I can’t figure it out.

If she looks at what we’re saying she’d see that we care more about ten workers than two workers (not in those words). But all she sees is that we don’t care much about those two workers, therefore we don’t care about workers.

I’d like to think that we could have jobs for those two as well as those ten. We can’t. It’s one or the other.
Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 9:13 am

I’ve linked Labors transition plan, it’s just the pro worker people on here exhausted discussing the merits of it. ?I have read Greens plan though. I’ll be writing an article on the transition plans later on. Thx.
Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 9:18 am

Roswell if you are leading some type of activism about a fair transition of workers, if you are engaging with the wider movement and raising work transition within, if you are writing about why we need to put workers first etc than it’s not about you. Frankly the pattern is, let’s talk about how offended I am that Trish thinks I’m privileged instead of discussing the important part of the article which is about jobs transition and responding to climate change through a worker framework.

So no, I don’t see what you saying because everyone has been focused on the term privilege and making cases for how they aren’t and how horrible I am to say so, rather than discussing what a worker led response would look like.
FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 9:27 am

Trish, is the ALP Strategic Industries Taskforce and the Just Transitions Advisory Council up and running or the ALP wait for people be unemployed to start doing something about ?
diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 9:32 am

I don’t see what you saying because everyone has been focused on the term privilege

Trish, please give example.
Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 9:34 am

Goodness sake Dianna, just go and read through the comments yourself. The commentary certainly hasn’t been about workers.
FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 9:41 am

Trish for the last 10 years, since Howard government the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) said quote:
“We need a massive investment in low emission coal technology.” ref: Tony Maher
Also he said. quote:
“A coalminer or a power station worker isn’t going to leave their job on $120,000-plus with well-regulated shift arrangements and decent conditions to install low-wattage light bulbs or insulation,”

So, in some ways there are in the same page than the Coalition, any solution as long as we use coal.
RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 9:42 am

Trish, I wasn’t referring to your article. I was referring to your comments. Either you’ve misread what people have written or you’re putting words in their mouths.

Do what you’ve asked Dianna to do: just go and read through the comments yourself.
Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 9:49 am

“everyone has been focused on the term privilege and making cases for how they aren’t and how horrible I am to say so, rather than discussing what a worker led response would look like.”

That is so not true. You blame “environmental elitism” for job losses yet cannot provide one example of where this has happened.

I, and many others, have discussed alternative employment. The obvious area is renewable energy. The second very obvious area is mine regeneration (which the Greens focus on) as this could provide employment in the mining communities where jobs are being lost. I won’t repeat the much longer list of alternative employment I posted earlier as it will no doubt just be ignored again.

“activism insists to shut industry down (you do know there are people who want to shut all coal mines down right?) ”

Even the International Energy Agency, in their report published a couple of weeks ago, has said that coal has no future without carbon capture and storage, and only a limited one with it. Under the 2DS scenario, all unabated coal must be phased out by 2045. Under the more ambitious B2DS scenario, the 1.75°C target, coal generation must be gone by 2040.

They could hardly be called environmental activists.

The nature of employment is changing economy wide and it has very little/nothing to do with activism.
diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 10:00 am

Goodness sake Dianna, just go and read through the comments yourself. The commentary certainly hasn’t been about workers.

You are not prepared to prove anything you claim.

I HAVE read through the comments, which is why I am confident you will not find anyone here (by ‘anyone’ I mean regular AIM commentators) who have argued they are privileged.

Ditto your claim that no-one has commented about workers.

You have terrific energy, determination – I wish you could concentrate on what has been agreed upon, which is most of your article, with the exception of your issues with “environmental elitists”.

You seem intent on creating problems rather than collaborating with others to solve them. Now you may well be actively working with people outside of AIM – as are many of us. However, you allow no dissent at all, when some part of your writing is questioned.
Helen BatesJune 19, 2017 at 10:01 am

JohnoJune 19, 2017 at 9:00 am
“What would you say about the Sea Shepherd. You could not get a more direct action group of activists. Would you consider them as elite privileged activists.”
Now this may shock you Johno but I support the Sea Shepherd and donate to the cause regularly and have downloaded all the tv shows but I would consider them as ” elite privileged activists.” able to afford to walk away from the burdens and costs of everyday life to pursue their belief. I don’t think the checkout operator struggling to feed a family or the Council Labourer struggling to pay a mortgage if he could afford one could just pack up on a whim and go to sea for months on end no matter how dedicated to a cause they might be,Do you support them and if so why aren’t you on board?
I believe I know people who are probably more committed to the cause than some on board but are anchored at home with the responsibilities of home families jobs and responsibility
KeithJune 19, 2017 at 10:03 am

It really is powerful elites ( leeches ) who need to be tackled in relation to workers; they are able to take advantage of tax breaks not possible for workers. The well healed are able to stop young people from buying homes being on the gravy train of negative gearing, politicians are in on the gravy train through buying investment properties so it is not likely we will see change here. Negative gearing is a great way to reduce taxable income.

We have known about the 1 percenters in the US, but they are here in Australia as well.

Workers and those pressing for real action in climate change pretty well have the same enemies … those residing at the big end of town, though naturally there are exceptions. Currently, it is mainly people living at subsistence level who are impacted by lack of food resources and adequate water supplies; though some wealthier people are being hit through flooding, erosion, and wildfires.
Munich Re has stated that for 2012, 180 billion dollars of damage had happened through extreme events, mostly climatic; for 2016 the figure was 175 billion dollars. Those figures do not account for properties not insured; so children, young adults and elderly are effected and affected. Workers would clearly provide a significant proportion of those having lost assets.

Scientists respond in a very rational way to evidence they find to support, or otherwise, any data they collect. The long Esquire article referenced earlier describes the psychological pressure climate scientists are under through the data they are collecting and the orchestrated efforts of powerful groups to provide fake news trying to undercut scientists. Those groups undercutting scientists represent the leeches of the Planet. Those leeches undercut the wages and salaries of workers and place humanity generally in real danger.

Trish, I do not agree that those pushing for real action on climate change are as big a problem as you present. There certainly is debate about how best to present views on climate change. Investment in renewable energy has been thwarted by neo con politicians in Australia; yet, many jobs have and will be created in this sector. We go with innovation or push a dying industry; the first being beneficial for workers, the second creating heartache all around.
Helen BatesJune 19, 2017 at 10:20 am

“We have known about the 1 percenters in the US, but they are here in Australia as well.”
How come you lot get so worked up about the 1%ers. They are exactly that ONE PERCENT.
We do live in a democracy and America sort of democracy as is the UK and most of Europe from what I know so what responsibility are the 99% taking at the ballot box to reduce the 1%ers influence or is it just a handy line to use for political benefit. Do you believe in the power of the people?
Do you think that the majority don’t see the 1%ers as evil as it seems a minority do? after all they keep voting in the likes of Abbott Trump May Turnbull
Have you stopped to think the majority may be right and you lot wrong?
Trish CorryJune 19, 2017 at 10:30 am

Dianna. I write. If the main thesis is criticised I will defend my arguments. It’s really not up to a small group of people on AIMN to tell me who I am, what to think or what I should be doing. Last time I looked academic freedom was still a thing. As for not allowing dissent, it’s in abundance every single time I publish. I don’t tell anyone what they can or can’t say, but I reserve the right to explain my position if it is claimed to be wrong. You reserve the right not to read or comment if my writing or person are so offensive, rude, obnoxious or whatever else, as pointed out enough.
diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 10:51 am

Trish

I have NEVER in all my time at AIM described you as offensive, rude, obnoxious.

You say you * reserve the right to explain my position if it is claimed to be wrong* – I am not making claims I have proven you are wrong in your claims of the impact of “environmental elitists”.

The pendulum of the mind alternates between sense and nonsense, not between right and wrong.

Carl Jung
KeithJune 19, 2017 at 11:04 am

Helen

There is much evidence of how a process of socialisation towards neo con views has happened in the US from the time of Reagan onwards. The Koch bros have been very adept at moving into communities influencing opinion. We have Heartlands who try to influence American State legislatures; so, it wasn’t an off the cuff comment. Remember prior to the 2013 Australian election we had some LNP politicians going to the US to learn techniques used by the Tea Party.

Abbott was knifed due to his continual poor showing in opinion polls.
Trump now has the lowest rating of any past President; he is being investigated by the FBI and Special Investigator Meuller. MI5 certainly believe allegations about Trump are true. The Dutch have also put together an explosive film about Trump.
Turnbull was very lucky to scrap in, polls now are not in his favour.
May only just scrapped in and the question arises whether she will be leader of the Conservatives in a years time.
Major Parties have just been bowled over in France.
Newman was knocked out in Queensland, and it is now likely the same will happen to Labor at the next election.

Career politicians are beginning to stink in the electorate no matter what Party they belong to.

Politicians generally are now seen to be at the bottom of the pile as far as integrity is concerned, per Readers Digest.
Helen BatesJune 19, 2017 at 11:08 am

Trish Corry you and I may have different views on a lot of things but I do believe in a fair and equitable return for a working person and the right of all to employment. I can understand why the little group of regulars who seems to have nothing better to do with their time and lurk around they keyboards all day and night it seems have it in for me so bad because I support One Nation and the Katter Party but you. it seems it is personal.Some don’t want their territory invaded and some have their set ideas and you won’t budge them with explosives. I understand you are a regular writer here so if you intend to return with another article go visit a disposal store and buy some protective gear because I can predict what will happen even without you writing a single word.For peace and harmony don’t rock the boat Trish or the meanies will get you
RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 11:10 am

I’m happy to back you up there, Dianna. You have never been offensive, rude or obnoxious.
RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 11:11 am

Helen Bates, what pure rot.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 19, 2017 at 11:15 am

diannaart,

your contributions are always welcome.
Helen BatesJune 19, 2017 at 11:24 am

Rosswell I just discovered that I could go back and read old Trish Corry articles ans reckon you might need a refresher as to the attack dogs try these articles just as a sample there are more and the same old culprits
Stuff the Silent Majority. It is Your Time to Be Heard
Australian Politics – An Aimless Discourse?
WA Voters: Disrupt the Disruption. Let’s Blow This Shit Up!
Assimilate but GTFO – of our billboards
JohnoJune 19, 2017 at 11:38 am

Helen
Yes, I am surprised you support sea shepherd and I am glad you do. The ocean creatures need all the help they can get. I would disagree with your views of them being privileged like you say. In fact I look at what they do as a job ie work. Albeit they are mostly volunteers whereas greenpeace crews are paid.
Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 11:48 am

The enormous increase in capital investment in mining in Queensland from 2010-2015 was not accompanied by a significant increase in employment or fall in unemployment in regional Queensland.

Pressures created by the construction boom mean that increases in mining employment have been offset by stalled growth and job losses in non-mining industries like tourism, agriculture and local manufacturing. Job gains in the more mining intensive regions of Mackay, Outback Queensland and Fitzroy were largely offset by falls in Cairns, Townsville and Wide Bay.

Perhaps surprisingly, more than a third of all mining workers in Queensland live in the south-east metropolitan corner of Queensland

There are currently calls to use taxpayers money to be used to subsidise large resource projects that would otherwise be un-commercial, and for governments to reduce environmental protections to reduce costs to the mining industry.

The lesson for regions that have become dependent on mining is to prioritise the long term non-mining industries rather than tolerating collateral damage to these industries in a headlong rush to profit from temporary mining booms. Mining booms are by definition short term, and it is the long-term industries that are displaced by excessive mining that continue to employ the vast bulk of people from these regions.

http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/P293%20Queensland%20regional%20jobs%20FINAL.2.pdf
FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 11:53 am

diannaart, I always read your comments, they are constructive.
RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 12:23 pm

Helen Bates, how could I ever debate with you? The communication barrier is too high for me to climb.

I yield. I yield.
RoswellJune 19, 2017 at 12:35 pm

Kaye, brilliant find. Hard to argue against that.
Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 1:18 pm

On a more constructive note…..

More than 4,000 Queenslanders are now back on the job, thanks to the Palaszczuk Government’s $100 million Back to Work regional jobs program.

Employment Minister Grace Grace said the government was already more than half-way to achieving its target of 8,000 new jobs through Back to Work, less than half way into the two year program.

“Back to Work is already supporting 4,017 jobs in regional Queensland, where they’re needed most,” Ms Grace said.

“There are a further 1,146 pending applications being processed.”

Back to Work

Two-year program running to July 2018 that provides employer support payments for eligible employers who hire an unemployed worker
$10,000 for an unemployed worker
$15,000 for long term unemployed (out of work for 12 months or more)
$20,000 for hiring a young jobseeker aged 15-24 (from 1 December 2016 to 31 October 2017)

Jobs Supported by $100 million Back to Work Regional Jobs Program

Far North Queensland 877 (including 407 Youth Boost)

North Queensland 841 (including 414 Youth Boost)

Mackay-Whitsunday 574 (including 257 Youth Boost)

Central Queensland 643 (including 366 Youth Boost)

Wide Bay 793 (including 411 Youth Boost)

North West Queensland 108 (including 39 Youth Boost)

South West Queensland 181 (including 109 Youth Boost)

http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2017/5/24/back-to-work-program-supporting-4000-jobs-in-regional-queensland
diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 1:28 pm

Kaye Lee

Backing your claims with evidence – I expect no less.

🙂
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 19, 2017 at 1:34 pm

We need a back to work program like that in Gippsland.
Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 1:43 pm

JMS,

You had a similar program in Victoria but it has been fully subscribed. There is some left for specific industries.

The $100 million allocation for the scheme has been fully subscribed. A $15 million allocation will be set aside for retrenched automotive industry workers and dairy industry workers. These workers will continue to benefit from the scheme. A further $1 million is available for employers of unemployed people living in the Latrobe Valley and retrenched workers from the Hazelwood power station.

Claims for the following categories will remain open until the $15 million fund is fully subscribed or 30 June 2018 (whichever occurs first):

Dairy industry workers ($5000)
Retrenched automotive workers ($7000)

Claims will remain open until the $1 million fund is fully subscribed or 30 June 2017 (whichever occurs first) for:

Unemployed people living in the Latrobe Valley ($5000)
Retrenched workers from the Hazelwood power station ($5000)

An additional amount of up to $4000 is available to employers who provide accredited training to these eligible employees.

http://www.sro.vic.gov.au/backtowork
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 19, 2017 at 2:24 pm

Thx. Unfortunately, its perimeters are not wide enough.
jimhazJune 19, 2017 at 2:37 pm

[Wealthier advanced countries advocating against poorer countries accessing fossil fuel energy. Although this may be a step enable fuelling, farming, agriculture and new industry]

Surely renewable energy research and development by the West, would eventually lead to access to energy for all poor countries, not just those that might have coal.

Personally I regard renewables as no more expensive than coal. Costs in Western countries are inflated for many reasons – not least of all excessive profit taking, but they also price according to a consumers ability to pay. China and India charge about 8c per KWh compared to 29c for Aus (2011) and I’d expect similar lower costs in renewables.
diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 2:39 pm

Further to discussion on renewables creating new and more jobs than fossil fuel:

In 2007 and 2008, more wind power was installed in the United States than in the previous 20 years combined, representing a $27 billion investment.
More than 70 wind turbine component manufacturing facilities opened, expanded, or were announced.
Moreover, according to their respective trade associations, the U.S. wind industry employed 85,000 people in 2008, up
35,000 from 2007, and the solar energy industry employed more than 80,000 people, up more than 15,000 from 2006.

http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_energy/Clean-Power-Green-Jobs-25-RES.pdf

I’d like to see more recent figures, however, the opportunities for creating long term stable employment are there and will continue to grow as our knowledge of renewable energy grows.
jimhazJune 19, 2017 at 2:46 pm

Back to Work programs, excluding large retrenchment situations, have to be just a political game and a mispend of money.

I’d rather give 100m to the CSRIO and give them the task of creating industries that can be sustained in regional areas using Australian inventions (why let creeps like those on Shark Tank rip off the inventors).
Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 3:05 pm

diannaart,

Annual direct FTE employment in renewable energy activities in Australia was estimated at 11,150 in 2015-16, a decline of 8,070 FTE (-42%) from a peak of 19,220 in 2011-12.

Total annual direct FTE employment in wind power has been varied, with a high in 2013-14 of 1,720 to a low of 620 in 2015-16

“Axing the tax”, reneging on the 1 million solar roof program, and deciding wind turbines were ugly and made you sick, cost us many many jobs but they are on their way back.

Since January 2016, Queensland has seen an unprecedented level of investment in renewable energy, with 17 large-scale projects either commencing construction or finalising commercial arrangements.

These projects will deliver almost 1200 megawatts of clean power to the state, boost investment by more than $2.2 billion and create 2200 new jobs, mostly in our regional centres.

The Expert Panel found that a 50% renewable target could drive $6.7 billion of new investment, and deliver a net increase in employment of 6400–6700 full-time equivalent positions on average per year between 2020 and 2030.
KeithJune 19, 2017 at 3:11 pm

Energy prices are going up, the promises made by Abbott were known to be hollow in relation to energy prices coming down, now there is evidence Abbott was completely wrong and remains so. The question is what impact will the cost of energy have on future employment prospects for workers?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-19/why-youre-about-to-pay-through-the-nose-for-power/8629090?smid=Page:%20ABC-Facebook_Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf89787966=1
diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 4:04 pm

…and deciding wind turbines were ugly and made you sick, cost us many many jobs.

I think we’ve finally unearthed a couple of “environmental elitists”: Joe Hockey & Tony Abbott.

🙁
diannaartJune 19, 2017 at 4:08 pm

**These projects will deliver almost 1200 megawatts of clean power to the state, boost investment by more than $2.2 billion and create 2200 new jobs, mostly in our regional centres.

The Expert Panel found that a 50% renewable target could drive $6.7 billion of new investment, and deliver a net increase in employment of 6400–6700 full-time equivalent positions on average per year between 2020 and 2030.**

Kaye Lee, acknowledging your work: I believe the above should be tattooed on the foreheads of some people who should know better.
Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 7:38 pm

Thanks dianna. I just wish I could convince Trish that we are on the same side and work together to get these dinosaur politicians to help.
FreethinkerJune 19, 2017 at 7:44 pm

Great post Kaye, I hope that it will not be skip by those that do a selective reading.
Kaye LeeJune 19, 2017 at 7:55 pm

And for comedic relief, when it was exposed that climate change denier Cory Bernardi had installed solar panels on his house, his response was “Don’t fret, I haven’t drunk the renewable energy Kool-Aid. I’ll leave that idiocy to the Labor, Liberal and Xenophon crew,”

The man’s as mad as a cut snake, as my mother would say.

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/climate-sceptic-cory-bernardi-puts-solar-panels-on-his-roof-20170612-gwpsva#ixzz4kRNXVSYS
diannaartJune 20, 2017 at 2:05 pm

Kaye Lee

Even the chronic deniers will be into sustainable tech when they realise it is simply more economical.

However, we don’t have time to wait for them, nor do we have time to argue over straw men, we need to get going.
leonbrontskiJune 23, 2017 at 1:02 am

Where Fools Fail to Trend

Jumpingin late and from a different country

But here goes.

A job is only important as long as it is the source of economic survival, social status, or personal advocation. Unfortunately in market based (capitalist) systems jobs are all three of those things to many workers. Worse still jobs are also the source of exploitation, occupational danger, inequality and alienation (both Marxists and psychological).

Capitalism only works (to the degree that it works at all) when there are more workers seeking jobs than jobs. Thus most (many) (blue collar) workers are in constant fear of being unemployed.

This makes us vulnerable to manpulation by bosses and politicains who play to our fears.

Greens appear to have been beaten up sufficiently by the jobs versus environment argument that (once again) “we” generate argumentation that appears to side with capitalists in that the captialist does not care about our jobs and the Greens tell us we can go from logging to tourism, lose our unions, lose our pensions, in the US lose our health care and all will be ok because there are plenty of jobs in the city (just none where we live in the rural villages and where we have lived for generations).

The common theme here is (I hope) we are not each others natural enemy but have been wedged by those who are laughing all the way to the bank.

Until we (green and worker/worker and green) can withdraw the wedge and unite the false dichotomy of jobs versus environment will persist to be defining. Unfortunately this is easier to say than to accomplish. The way forward I think begins with identifying commonalities and building trust. Then a discussion of our difference is possible. But to talk at each other as compared to with each other tends to divide rather than unify. It is possible to develop a workers centric green agenda. The challenge is that it flies straight into the face of the power structure. As long as mulitnational corporations can be green and profitable they will be green. It means that they are either externalizing their green actions onto the commons or the worker or both. Or they have found a short term method to monetized being green (cap and trade for example). But capitalism results in concentration of economic and political power. As long as the polluters and exploiters (of both human and natural resources) are in power. We end up fighitng over the crumbs.

From the belly of the beast in the US, a retired forest products industry worker who lost his union, and too many rural communities to greed.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 23, 2017 at 8:10 am

Hear, hear leonbrontski.
diannaartJune 23, 2017 at 12:50 pm

Well said, leon

Capitalism works well by segregating people, equity works by collaboration.
Kaye LeeJune 23, 2017 at 2:07 pm

The thing that has really troubled me about this thread is that we all agree that any proposed action on climate change (or anything else for that matter) must consider the broader consequences. We all agree that action on climate change is not optional and that future employment must be a consideration. So why have we been arguing?
FreethinkerJune 23, 2017 at 2:39 pm

So why have we been arguing?
My interpretation is that in one side are those that do not like to be the first ones to get out of their comfort zone (change jobs/life style) and on the other side are those that are in a situation that any change will not change their life so lets act now.
Perhaps I am wrong..
Kaye LeeJune 23, 2017 at 2:59 pm

I understand what you are saying Freethinker but don’t really agree. According to every expert, action on climate change MUST happen now. It isn’t a matter of hey it won’t affect me. Inaction will affect everyone. If we start from there then we can focus our energy on helping the affected communities who are a far smaller number than those affected by the closure of the car industry and other manufacturing which were, in part, cruelled by the high Aussie dollar that the mining boom caused. If we could agree that the Adani mine mustn’t go ahead, that no new coal mines or coal-powered energy generation should be built, then we could forget the false promises about the jobs it will create and start looking for viable alternatives.
jimhazJune 23, 2017 at 4:11 pm

[As long as mulitnational corporations can be green and profitable they will be green]

I also like your post Leon, but on this point it needed to be phrased as “…and can maximise profitibility they will be Green”

In a globalised world, wherein ethical behavior seemingly only occurs via legislation and adequate policing of that legislation, there is umm a world of difference.
FreethinkerJune 23, 2017 at 4:41 pm

Kaye, I guess that I should have expressed my self more clear.
You are saying that every expert and I add every person that have the head screwed in their shoulders should take action on climate change
and “MUST happen now “.
Well my point is how many people are starting doing something NOW and how many are waiting for the politicians, governments, etc to start first and then follow?
How many fellow bloggers are here that are minimalist or are starting to minimise now, even starting today?
How many people have reduced the energy consumption including removing the AC from the beginning of the year?
I can go on and on
Kaye LeeJune 23, 2017 at 6:31 pm

I agree wholeheartedly with that Freethinker. Aside from reducing our demand, we should also be looking to minimise waste through reusing and recycling. Periodically my local government has a day when you can take all of your old electronic stuff – tvs, computers, phones, printers etc to the showground. They did a kerbside pickup for whitegoods. Local government can help make this easier. So much furniture goes to the tip. Surely at least parts of it could be reused or refurbished. We should also be reducing packaging and using more environmentally friendly materials. And keep things for longer. I am still sitting on the same lounge that I was sitting on when colour tv started here.
JohnoJune 23, 2017 at 6:52 pm

Thats pretty good Kaye, that must be one well loved couch. I agree. With cars it can be difficult, I am still using the old 98 hilux for my tree planting business. The gear box died last week and 3.3 k later its up and running, 3 years ago it was a 6 k engine recon. Most would say goodbye and upgrade.
Kaye LeeJune 23, 2017 at 7:00 pm

The lounge , she is dead, but my husband has been reluctant to say goodbye. It’s perfect lying length for watching tv (read nodding off).
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 23, 2017 at 7:05 pm

A customer we had in an Op Shop I recently volunteered in argued the best case for recycling. As a keen sewer (the sweet smelling kind), she found the donated clothing to be a great source of quality materials that are not as affordably available elsewhere.

Antique furniture is also an example of accessing quality craftsmanship and quality materials. It’s surprising there has not been a resurgence in the antiques and collectables industry for that reason.
FreethinkerJune 23, 2017 at 7:09 pm

My wife and I also believe that we do not need so much space to live so we minimised to a 60 square meters house.
I believe that we can do even better and will see what we can do in the future.
Our yearly energy cost is no more that $1100 and I am looking into the possibilities of go of the grid if local laws allow us to do that.
We try to cook using on season products and not purchasing products that are imported when they are made in Australia.
Globalisation is a pure economic strategy but not very good for the global climate change.
Live simple, consume foods in season and local produced if it is possible ,try to restore and not upgrade, and finally minimise.
If we all do that there will be a change and further more we will have more rights to asks to our governments to act.
Jennifer Meyer-SmithJune 23, 2017 at 7:16 pm

100% Freethinker
Kaye LeeJune 24, 2017 at 12:39 pm

The largest coal mining company in the world has announced it will close 37 mines because they are no longer economically viable.

Coal India, which produces around 82 per cent of India’s coal, said the mines would be decommissioned by March 2018.

The government has announced it will not build any more coal plants after 2022 and predicts renewables will generate 57 per cent of its power by 2027 – a pledge far outstripping its commitment in the Paris climate change agreement.

Plans for nearly 14 gigawatts of coal-fired power stations – about the same as the total amount in the UK – were scrapped in May, signalling a seismic shift in the India’s energy market.

A report in February by Delhi-based research group, The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), found that if the cost of renewable energy continued to fall at the same rate, India could phase out coal completely by 2050.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/coal-india-closes-37-mines-solar-power-sustainable-energy-market-influence-pollution-a7800631.html

Every day Adani grows less likely to go ahead
JohnoJune 26, 2017 at 8:18 am

The common thread of jobs, environmental flows and climate change.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2017/03/special-report-will-climate-change-kill-off-nz-s-rivers.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/murray-darling-basin-plan-failing-environment-scientists-say/8650270?section=environment
JohnoJuly 4, 2017 at 8:17 am

“Over the next 20 years approximately 44 per cent of Australia’s jobs, that’s more than 5 million jobs, are at risk of being disrupted by technology, whether that’s digitisation or automation,” he said.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-03/how-artificial-intelligence-will-reshape-our-lives/8674576

and this is all considering in 20 years we don’t end up like this…

Prof Hawking said the action could put Earth onto a path that turns it into a hothouse planet like Venus.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40461726

Unleashing the potential of the rural and remote…

Aged Pension in Australia Makes Life a Struggle

Reality check: Monash experts navigate the future of…

Ruthless Settlements: BHP, Brazil and the Samarco Fundão…

Washington Twilight

Racing is a dangerous and sometimes lethal pursuit,…

Monash expert: ‘Fake’ news, misinformation and why it…

How many holocausts?

Environmental Elitism and the Inconsequential Worker

The Rise of Climate Change Activism

The Force of Change on the working class

Concern for Jobs isn’t Climate Change Denial

The Negative Consequence of Positive Action

What does Feminism have to do with this?

Stop Lecturing and Start Uniting

Privilege and Elitism

Reframing the Debate

A Serious Transition is Urgent

A Synergistic Policy Framework

Like this:

Related Articles

331 comments

Leave a Reply

Union calls for Julie Bishop to be sacked from ANU…

Making Kamerica Great Again!

The Rise of Climate Change Activism

The Force of Change on the working class

Concern for Jobs isn’t Climate Change Denial

The Negative Consequence of Positive Action

What does Feminism have to do with this?

Stop Lecturing and Start Uniting

Privilege and Elitism

Reframing the Debate

A Serious Transition is Urgent

A Synergistic Policy Framework

Share this:

Like this:

Related Articles

331 comments

Leave a Reply