SPA newsletter #2

Sustainability Party of Australia newsletter #2



In this edition:

Kangaroos and California law

Promote the party

Water tax concerns

Policy ideas: tank rebates, whaling, tuna, billfish, marine parks

The green tax shift policy needs details

Current policies



Kangaroos and Californian law



Some interesting news: legislation is currently before the California state parliament to repeal the ban on the importation of kangaroo skin. I have been promoting such a move on a few American forums for a number of years now. In that time I have not come across anyone else working on this issue, so it comes as a surprise to hear that the message gas gotten through. It just goes to show that a big budget is not necessary to achieve sensible change. Sometimes, you just have to ask.



Of course, PETA is spreading lies about the kangaroo harvest, telling Americans that kangaroos are at risk of extinction because there are slightly fewer now than there were ten years ago (before the drought). One particularly dopey American I came across insisted that the ban was justified in case we start factory farming kangaroos in a few hundred years time. He didn't want to risk another animal being subjected to factory farms, even though he readily eats factory farmed beef without any qualms. Lets hope that common sense wins out over PETA's big budget and misleading, emotive arguments.



More info:



http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1179303108



http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177553978



Promote the party



I haven't done much promoting of the party since the last newsletter, so the email list is pretty much identical and the policies haven't changed much. For this party to work, it needs to spread by word of mouth, which means forwarding this email and telling your friends about the party. Australians are often shy about talking politics to all but family and close friends. We need to break through this cultural barrier. Your friends will thank you for making them aware of alternative options.



Water tax concerns



There has been some concern raised about the issue of a water tax and how it will affect the poor. The back page of the weekend Australian had an interesting article about the water crisis. It pointed out that 75% of water is consumed by agriculture, 20% by industry and only 5% by homeowners. There is no risk of people not being able to afford water for cooking and cleaning. If you can afford a connection to the mains supply you will be able to afford the water. The article pointed out the absurdity of rationing a plentiful commodity in a first world country. We do not have a water shortage problem, we have a water wastage problem. If you give something away for free, people will find elaborate ways to waste it until it is all gone. We are carrying around buckets of water for what amounts to a drop in the ocean of difference, while businesses are profiteering from water paid for by our taxes. It just doesn't make sense.



More info:



http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1179108871



Policy ideas: tank rebates, whaling, tuna, billfish, marine parks



We need some new ideas for party policy. We also need to flesh out the details of the current policies. Since the last email I have added a policy on water tank rebates. I have included the current policies at the bottom of this email in case people are concerned about following the link. I am considering adding a policy on whaling along the lines of: While there is no need for Australia to engage in whaling, international negotiations should be driven by issues of sustainability, rather than trying to enforce western taboos on people who do not share them. A more rational approach to whaling would likely assist efforts to bring the Japanese to the negotiating table on tuna and billfish, which are in a far more perilous situation. I am also working on some examples of marine parks designed as fisheries management tools, as illustrated maps. If you have any suggestions please speak up. Some pictures would work far better to communicate the ideas than words.



More info on whaling:



http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1168478179



The green tax shift policy needs details



The most important policy needing further work is the green tax shift policy. What tax should be placed on CO2 emissions? In Europe it currently costs about $40 per tonne. Tim Flannery has suggested $50 per tonne for Australia. How much would this raise the cost of electricity, petrol, meat, milk and cement? What are the effective upper limits on a tax, determined by the cost of offsetting emissions and using renewable energy sources? How much revenue would it raise? How much could income tax be lowered to offset the increase? These are the sort of details people will want to know. They will feel far more comfortable about the idea if they know what it entails.



Discuss Tim Flannery's suggestion:



http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1177892540/10#10



We also need some input for our 'how to vote' guide for the upcoming federal election:



http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1179108243



Is mining sustainable?



http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1179184900

Subsidies should only be applied where they are justified by sound economics, rather than as a knee-jerk reaction to an uneconomic industry encountering financial difficulties. Drought assistance for farmers is a subsidy and should not be given in the same area more than once a century. The baby bonus is a subsidy and should be eliminated unless the total (gross) population starts to decline. Subsidies may be applied to positive externalities where the cost of monitoring is not prohibitive and the cost to society of taxation is outweighed by the benefits from subsidising the positive externality. They can also be applied to research and new technologies, on the expectation that some of this research will pay off in the future. They should not be applied to established technologies for which there is already a market.

The adoption of voting by delegable proxy in the Queensland parliament or the federal senate.

An end to the baby bonus and limits on immigration to achieve zero net population growth.

An end to the first home owner grant. This is largely self defeating because it has caused an artificial spike in house prices.

Greater use of public lands in urban areas to grow fruit and nut trees. Where the economics justify it, this will extend to maintenance of these trees to increase productivity. However, no artificial pesticides or herbicides will be used in urban areas to support this scheme. As well as producing food for local consumption, this will facilitate public education on species suitable for the local soil and climate.

Greater use of marine parks as fisheries management tools, with a focus on heavily fished areas close to population centres, rather than more 'pristine' areas.

Advertised bank interest rates are currently deceptive. The advertised annual interest rate charged on home loans etc is smaller than the actual interest rate. Banks 'compound' interest and advertise rates as being compounded daily or monthly, but calculate the daily or monthly interest rate as a 'simple' rate. Are the banks really incapable of calculating the true compound interest rate that matches the advertised annual rate?



Foreign policies:



We call for an immediate end to:



farming subsidies, especially in the US and EU

bans on taxing fuel for international flights

bans on the importation of Kangaroo meat (for example into California)



We support the immediate ratification of the Kyoto protocol and support efforts to include developing countries and to further restrict emissions. The federal government should retain emissions rights on our behalf. It should tax emissions to keep them below our allotted targets and generate income by selling emissions rights. While developing nations should also make efforts to limit their emissions, lack of action on their behalf should not be used as an excuse for inaction on our behalf, especially while our per capita emissions are far higher. Countries should be compared on a per capita basis and Australia should not expect to be able to emit more per person because of our low population.



We support the spread of democracy and promote electoral reform in countries with clearly inferior voting methods (primarily 'first past the post' systems).