You might want to check out the latest scores on the Commitment to Development Index. The 2007 CDI was released in London today by the Centre for Global Development. It scores the world’s nations on their commitment to development on a number of key indices - Aid, Trade, Investment, Migration, Environment, Security and Technology.
Australia has generally done pretty well on its combined score (ranking fifth overall) … largely as a result of its high performance in a couple of areas (peace-keeping, trade and immigration) … but it has been noticeably slipping during the last 5 years. However our performance on the Environment is quite frankly and international embarrassment. Equal third last.
We are ranked equal third last (with Canada) behind the US and Spain. Its arguable we might have done even worse if we hadn’t picked up some easy points we probably didn’t deserve…
The environment measure actually looks at our performance across a range of different component scores, including global climate, sustainable fisheries, and biodiversity and global ecosystems. You might want to note that the components appear to have changed a bit since 2005, so the analysis provided of the previous CDI provided isn’t as helpful as it should be. The CGD was particularly scathing about Australia’s performance on global warming issues - identifying Australia as having the highest emissions of greenhouse gasses per person.
If you read the report on AAP you might think that our poor score on the index was all about our per capita emissions and our failure to ratify Kyoto, but actually there’s a bit more to it than that (…although admittedly global climate now accounts for 5 of the 10 measures.) If you have a look at just the environmental indicators for Australia you can see that we do well on fisheries agreements, imports of endangered species, ratification of the convention on biodiversity and use of chemicals that harm the ozone layer … but poorly on all the climate indicators as well loosing some points on fishing subsidies…
However, you might be inclined to question some of these measures - for instance a simple yes/no score for ratifying the biodiversity convention totally masks how far backwards we went this year when the EPBC Act was amended (something I spoke out about at length) … and how little we’ve done to actually apply it. I’m also disappointed that sustainable agriculture and overseas development assistance no longer rank a mention.
So, its yet another black mark for us internationally - but just like the other recent international embarrassments over our record on Indigenous rights and life expectancy - I’m not convinced that the Howard government will be the least bit concerned by it.
That is “D” as in ’so who gives a “Damn”‘.
I think that there should be a referendum on climate change action. It is my observation that our elected representatives are acting in the interests of a minority, not the majority. There has never been an issue that will affect so many Australians so profoundly.
Lets find out who really does give a D___.
How could Australia get a ‘D’. Must be corruption. Who paid who to get a high ‘D’?
The real state of the ocean environment involves severe and general natural ocean food resource devastation. Future global warming is taking all attention while marine animals are dropping dead due to starvation now.
Just watch Victoria’s fairy penguins die from starvation caused by nutrient pollution from the approved deep channel dredging in Port Phillip Bay. The nutrients exposed will proliferate algae that will smother seagrass food web nursery habitat especially in Western Port Bay. Major food supply for ocean animals will be destroyed.
There is development in major Australian estuaries and combined impact must be expected.
There is a cover up about the real state of the marine environment. Google United Nations World Environment Day 2004 and see the theme about “oceans dead or alive”. Then search Australian government records on the subject. There is nothing, not even in major media.
Now the approved pulp mill is set to drain even more fresh water from ocean ecosystem rivers. Waste instead of natural food supply will then be dumped into coastal current that streams fresh water and dissolved and solid pollution to the Great Barrier Reef and beyond.
More fresher surface water pollution will be drawn into estuaries by tides and pressed onto beaches by prevailing winds. Swim in it, play in it. The dioxin will be invisible. The nutrient pollution is feeding invasive algae smothering coral.
Description of the ability of the longshore current transporting heavy sand matter as well as light weight fresher water and bonded and suspended pollution to Coral Sea, can be found through Google of: the sediment dispersal system on the south east margin of Australia.
The eastern Australia longshore current is known to geologists but apparently not to biologists or those assessing impact of the Tamar River mill on the ocean environment.
If ignorance of law is no excuse then ignorance to legislate law is no excuse either. Negligence with intent can well allow damaging development to continue, including with damage downstream all the way to the Coral Sea and beyond.
Security of world food supply is involved together with sustainability of peace, especially on Pacific islands. One Australia? What about one ocean, one planet? What about sustaining life and food supply daily for over 7 billion people, increasing, as well as for hungry ocean animals decreasing?
The biology of the SW Pacific Ocean ecosystem can not be sustained by just assessing development impact on water within Australian federal government jurisdiction. Gagging and budget cutbacks have stifled science. It is a preposterous situation with sustainable management of the world ocean environment and dwindling wildlife presently impossible.
D? Z is more appropriate.
Quoting from the link below:
‘…the “Pacific plastic soup” and stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the coast of California, right across the north Pacific to near the coast of Japan.’
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/17/2164780.htm?section=world
I was a little shocked by the existence of this monster “plastic soup” and wanted to know if the Greens have any plans to address it.
I was then a little surprised to find there is no Greens blog category on Pollution. This blog is nearest I could find.
Plastic pollution looks very bad but what negative impact is it actually and really having on the environment?
I am amazed there is no CSIRO and ABC science news about government dumped sewage nutrient pollution impact on our coast and ocean ecosystem.