Cartoons of the Week

 

Megan Herbert

Mark David

Cathy Wilcox

Meme of the Week

via @RickWatt9

A PERSPECTIVE: The petulant 'child king' Elon Musk

 

Elon Reeve Musk
IMAGE: The Wall Street Journal, 11 July 2022

Tumblr, 22 November 2022:

numberonecatwinner

I was an intern at SpaceX years ago, back it when it was a much smaller company — after Elon got hair plugs, but before his cult of personality was in full swing. I have some insight to offer here.

Back when I was at SpaceX, Elon was basically a child king. He was an important figurehead who provided the company with the money, power, and PR, but he didn’t have the knowledge or (frankly) maturity to handle day-to-day decision making and everyone knew that. He was surrounded by people whose job was, essentially, to manipulate him into making good decisions.

Managing Elon was a huge part of the company culture. Even I, as a lowly intern, would hear people talking about it openly in meetings. People knew how to present ideas in a way that would resonate with him, they knew how to creatively reinterpret (or ignore) his many insane demands, and they even knew how to “stage manage” parts of the physical office space so that it would appeal to Elon.

The funniest example of “stage management” I can remember is this dude on the IT security team. He had a script running in a terminal on one of his monitors that would output random garbage, Matrix-style, so that it always looked like he was doing Important Computer Things to anyone who walked by his desk. Second funniest was all the people I saw playing WoW at their desks after ~5pm, who did it in the office just to give the appearance that they were working late.

People were willing to do that at SpaceX because Elon was giving them the money (and hype) to get into outer space, a mission people cared deeply about. The company also grew with and around Elon. There were layers of management between individual employees and Elon, and those managers were experienced managers of Elon. Again, I cannot stress enough how much of the company culture was oriented around managing this one guy.

Twitter has neither of those things going for it. There is no company culture or internal structure around the problem of managing Elon Musk, and I think for the first time we’re seeing what happens when people actually take that man seriously and at face value. Worse, they’re doing this little experiment after this man has had decades of success at companies that dedicate significant resources to protecting themselves from him, and he’s too narcissistic to realize it. …...

A perspective on one of the serious flaws to be found in the NSW Perrottet Coalition Government's new NSW Reconstruction Authority Act

A perspective on one of the serious flaws in the NSW Perrottet Government's new NSW Reconstruction Authority Act which was offered in a last ditch effort to get at least one meaningful amendment to the Bill through the Upper House....

 

NSW Parliament, Legislative Council Hansard, 17 November 2022:

Mr JUSTIN FIELD (16:23): I move Independent amendment No. 1 on sheet c2022-241:

No. 1Disaster prevention areas

Page 18, clause 41(2)(c), line 2. Omit "potential". Insert instead "imminent".

The amendment goes to the issue of the extraordinary powers in the bill to override the planning Act in New South Wales. To be really clear for members who may not have taken notice of the extraordinary powers that the bill confers on the planning Minister, the bill entirely switches off the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. In fact, there appears to be no limit on the sort of development that could be approved at the stroke of a pen by the Minister. There seems to be no limit on the extent of the proposal, including a proposal that would otherwise be State significant infrastructure requiring very detailed planning and assessment, and there seems to be no limit on where that development could occur in New South Wales.

Under proposed section 68, the planning Minister is authorised to undertake a development without the need for an approval under the Act. This applies under certain circumstances, but those circumstances are my concern. The authorisation may be given "in relation to a declared project, reconstruction area or disaster prevention area". This is a critical point. If you take note of the specifics in the bill, a disaster prevention area could be incredibly broad. There is no requirement for exceptional circumstances. There is no requirement for a disaster to be underway or even likely to be underway in a particular area. If the authority, via the Minister and the Premier, decides that an area is a disaster prevention area, that in and of itself empowers the Minister to authorise the undertaking of a particular development.

In the second reading debate, I raised the example of the Warragamba Dam. I do not for a moment expect that the planning Minister will just authorise the construction of the Warragamba Dam using the provisions of this bill but, to be clear, there is no prevention in the bill. The bill would allow for such a significant development to be undertaken should the Minister, with the concurrence of the Premier, declare the area around the dam to be a disaster prevention area.

Rather than such an extreme example, let us consider a levee around a particular town. Questions around levees are often incredibly controversial. They are raised from time to time and they are highly politicised. Often they must go through extraordinary degrees of community consultation and planning before they are even considered. But, particularly on councils, you will hear some voices arguing strongly for a levee to be increased or a levee to be added. You will hear others warning that there will be incredible downstream impacts as a result that might impact businesses or homes or the environment. I can envisage that these sorts of powers to authorise a development with no restriction could be used to circumvent normal political disputes.

It would be better to resolve the disputes and design such infrastructure, if we were going to proceed with it, in a considered and methodical way using the planning system and all its provisions for consultation in order to go through the potential impacts. But here we have the power to simply declare a disaster prevention area. It is important for people to note just how broad this is. The Minister may make a declaration for such a prevention area if they are satisfied that part of the State is likely to be directly or indirectly affected by disaster. We have had, in the past four years, enough experience to know that any part of New South Wales is likely to be directly or indirectly affected by disaster. We have seen it happen, and we know it is only going to get worse. In my mind, there is no constraint about where this could apply.

The second aspect requires that the authority has recommended making such a declaration. I can envisage that it might arrive at that conclusion because the Minister is satisfied the declaration is necessary to help prevent or mitigate against potential disasters for a community. Not only is it broad in its scope as to where it could apply, the only test is whether the Minister considers that such a development could help prevent or mitigate potential disasters for a community. We have heard the Government make arguments like that for Warragamba Dam. We have heard certain representatives and communities make those sorts of arguments for levees around their towns. We hear those arguments when it comes to clearing of vegetation for fire mitigation, no matter how misguided and not supported by the science that is.

There is a very low test, no threshold, no oversight, no transparency and a very broad remit for an area to be declared a disaster prevention area. Once that is done, the Minister has the power to switch off the New South Wales planning Act entirely and approve a development. That might seem extraordinary, but I have tested it with the Government. The Government has acknowledged that it is true. That is the extent of the powers in the bill, but the Government says, "We don't intend to use it." I would love for the Parliamentary Secretary to clearly put on the record in his response to this amendment that the Government does not intend to use it that way. I agree that the Government would not intend to use it in some of those ways, but I ask this fundamental question: Should emergency powers be used to do preventative work at all? In fact, that is an important consideration. I raised it in my speech to the amendment regarding the climate adaptation plans.

If it is a good idea for the prevention of risk in the instance of a potential disaster, let us do it now. Let us do it in a collaborative and coordinated way. Let us engage the planning system in the way that is intended, which is to raise issues, highlight potential impacts and then mitigate or avoid them where possible. One would expect that that is how it would be done. I have been told by the Government that is not what it intends with disaster prevention areas. The Government described the situation in Lismore with the potential requirement to clear the drains and said that it would have been able to act in advance of that. I do not buy that. There are other provisions in this bill and other elements of the law that would not allow that but, if that is the case, my amendment is clear and simple. Instead of requiring the Minister to be satisfied that the declaration is necessary to help prevent or mitigate against potential disasters for a community, let us omit the word ''potential" and insert instead ''imminent".

There has been sufficient time to understand the potential risks associated with flood and fire impacts in recent years and to give time for an authority, once established, to act at that level to implement projects that could help mitigate risks. But giving it carte blanche with a broad definition "some potential disaster somewhere that it might be likely to directly or indirectly affect", would be open to abuse. This reasonable amendment will bring the bill into line with what the Government says is its intention in the first place. I commend the amendment to the Committee. [my yellow highlighting]

"What has biodiversity ever done for us? Well for a start, it has provided nearly all the oxygen on the planet. Without oxygen, all animals including us, would be dead within minutes."

 

IMAGE: The Young Naturalist Australia

Environmental activist Lauriston Muirhead writing in The Border Mail, 23 November 2022:

Our numbers alone will not protect us

Biodiversity is the diversity of life found in an ecosystem. The more biodiverse, the more balanced and resilient the ecosystem.

A diverse ecosystem is more resistant to shocks and will last longer.

What has biodiversity ever done for us? Well for a start, it has provided nearly all the oxygen on the planet. Without oxygen, all animals including us, would be dead within minutes.

The oxygen was created by cyanobacteria that were able to live in an early atmosphere without oxygen.

Cyanobacteria still work in green plants using the sun's energy to turn the CO2 animals breathe out, back into oxygen (and carbon to help them grow). This is photosynthesis and all life depends on it. Remember, all our food is either plants or animals that ate plants.

The biodiversity of the planet provides all our food, as well as much of our clothing, building materials and erosion protection.

OK, apart from the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and shelter, what did biodiversity ever do for us?

Well, there are the medicines. Where would we be without the willow tree that gave us aspirin or the mould that gave us penicillin.

We can now make many drugs synthetically - but without nature's blueprints, we would not have been able to create these and so many other medicines.

Who knows how many more "cures" exist in the plants and animals of the world?

Our tool-making ability has turned our sticks into bulldozers, our stones into bombs and our boomerangs into bomber aircraft. We have the power to hunt not just one animal but entire species to extinction.

If we think our numbers will protect us, just take the example of the passenger pigeon.

In the 19th century, there were more passenger pigeons than people on the planet. By 1914, they had been hunted to extinction.

We are losing species through direct killing and habitat destruction - now exacerbated by human-induced climate change.

If we keep on playing "species roulette", someday, one of the extinction bullets we pick up might have the name Homo sapiens written on it. We must do more to preserve all species in order to preserve our own.

So go forth, and make the world more biodiverse.

IMAGE: Living Links

On 17 November 2022 the NSW Perrottet Government and the state parliament passed into law a bill which creates the NSW Reconstruction Authority - an authority that will allow government, industry, business & property developers to control & exploit all land across the state if they so wish under the guise that they are doing a public good

“The powers of the Authority include the power to carry out development on certain land in particular circumstances and the power to direct a government agency, a State owned corporation, a local council or a person prescribed by the regulations (a relevant entity) to take particular actions in certain circumstances, with a maximum penalty of 200 penalty units for failing to comply with a direction. The Authority may work in cooperation with other government agencies and other persons and bodies if the Authority thinks it appropriate and may delegate the exercise of a function of the Authority to certain persons…..

the Minister may declare the following by notice published in the Gazette—

(a) a project for proposed development to be a declared project,

(b) a part of the State to be a reconstruction area,

(c) a part of the State to be a disaster prevention area.

The proposed Part also sets out the matters to be established before the Minister makes a declaration under the proposed Part, and provides that the notice for the declaration may specify that an Act or statutory instrument does not apply in relation to the declared project, reconstruction area or disaster prevention area.” [NSW Reconstruction Authority Bill 2022: Explanatory Note, excerpt]

Seeing the writing on the wall, the NSW Perrottet Coalition Government found a way to manoeuvre the state parliament into allowing every individual, industry or business which would otherwise have to make a case to gain consent to mine, drill, clear fell forests, pollute land or waterways and/or eradicate wildlife to the point of extinction in order to make money speculating on land, a free pass to do so. By way of the NSW Reconstruction Authority Bill 2022.

Why? Because the O'Farrell-Baird-Berejiklian-Perrottet NSW Coalition Government — ably assisted by the the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison Coalition Federal Government — having spent the last eight years refusing to face the fact that climate change was real, climate change was here and climate change was very quickly escalating, now has to act. 

However, rather than create a genuine in the public interest Reconstruction Authority, Perrottet and his mates decided to rush through, in the last two parliamentary sitting weeks before the 25 March 2023 state election, the creation of an authority which would allow those mates and their mates and their mates' mates to make fortunes out of the people's misery.  

Communities across New South Wales will rue the day this 

bill was passed.

ABC News, 18 November 2022:

The NSW government is having another crack at setting up a natural disaster authority — but this time the body will have some far-reaching powers that have some on edge.

On Thursday, the parliament passed a bill to create the NSW Reconstruction Authority to assist communities recover from disasters as well as prepare for them.

It's designed to cut through red tape but to do so, it will have a broad remit which includes the ability to develop in national parks or on native title land.

Let's look at what it means for the state.

Why was this bill introduced?

The idea for the authority came from Lismore MP Janelle Saffin during the devastating floods her community faced earlier this year.

She said the now-dismantled Resilience NSW, which was led by Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons, didn't have the necessary powers, and the state would be better off with a model based on the Queensland Reconstruction Authority.

The independent flood inquiry earlier this year also recommended a permanent state-wide agency dedicated to recovery and preparedness.

The Opposition's Penny Sharpe told the Upper House yesterday the "status quo" wasn't working and although this new model was "radical", Labor was willing "to give it a go".

But the Greens and Independent MLC Justin Field argued the new authority had "unfettered powers" which were unprecedented in NSW.

What powers will this authority have?

The Reconstruction Authority will be permitted to carry out development on land that's likely to be directly or indirectly affected by a natural disaster.

This includes developing land within national parks, protected marine areas or land subject to native title claims, so long as the development is necessary and appropriate.

This also includes the habitat of threatened species.

The authority will be able to do anything that is "supplementary, incidental or consequential" to these functions and the CEO will be able to take whatever steps they deem "necessary or desirable".

Communities across NSW are enduring more severe flooding as the state deals with the largest flood-related emergency response in its history — this is what it looks like.

It will however be subject to the minister for planning's control and direction, who can authorise development without assessment under the Environmental Planning Act.

The environment minister does not have any oversight over the authority but a "joint select committee" will be formed, made up of 10 MPs, who will be responsible for reviewing the authority's actions following any disaster.

A successful Greens amendment this week means the authority must now also take into account how their decisions will impact climate change.

What does all this mean?

Gundungurra elder Sharyn Halls said she's confused about where this legislation leaves Indigenous people who have land agreements, as there's no requirement for consultation.

The government's push to make sure the bill was passed before the parliamentary year finished also left Ms Halls uneasy, as she believes many people won't have even heard of it yet.

"It seemed to be too much of a rushed job," she told the ABC.

"I'm sad that no one's possibly looked into the consequences of this bill properly."

The National Parks Association (NPA) of NSW supports the idea of an authority, but says it's disappointed amendments proposed by the Greens and Mr Fields were rejected.

These included:

• A ban on clearing native vegetation

• A ban on developing within a national park

• The ability for National Parks and Wildlife to intervene in the case of unnecessary environmental impact

• Excluding property developers from the authority's advisory board

NPA president Grahame Douglas said the proposed amendments would have ensured the state's key environment assets were protected by future governments...

"An example of that is the potential abuse of a future government wanting to raise the Warragamba Dam wall in a World Heritage area using this legislation."

[my yellow highlighting]

Climate Change State of Play in Australia 2022: it's later than you think

According to a Nature Communications article published on 15 November 2022; The El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is the strongest and most consequential year-to-year climate fluctuation on the planet, with significant societal and environmental impacts that are felt worldwide. 

This is an Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) video explaining how the El Niño-Southern Oscillation Index (ENSO) shapes Australia's weather.

As for current ENSO conditions. BOM states that La Niña retains its strength and continues in the tropical Pacific. Atmospheric and oceanic indicators of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) reflect a mature La Niña, including tropical Pacific sea surface temperatures, the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), and tropical cloud patterns.

Its forecast for La Niña is that by December 2022 it will have weakened as ENSO begins a return to its neutral position. However, as the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) is positive and likely to continue to be positive into December, this increases the chance of above average rainfall for parts of eastern New South Wales, eastern Victoria, and south-eastern Queensland, and increases the chance of below average rainfall for western Tasmania. 

Climatologists have known for some time that the ENSO has developed greater strength since the 1950s in comparison to past centuries, supporting an emerging increase in ENSO variability under greenhouse warming.

New research is disclosing why it is that to our layman's eyes this system may become more erratic and harder to predict in its response to climate change-induced ocean warming that continues unabated.  

This research has found the influence of climate change on El Niño and La Niña events, in the form of ocean surface temperature changes in the eastern Pacific, will be detectable by 2030. This is four decades earlier than previously thought. 

What this indicates for Australia is more droughts, more floods and more intense cyclones over a wider area. 

That in all probability, all three tiers of government - and communities both large and small across the country -  have less than eight years to prepare for a worsening of the climatic extremes we have already begun to experience since the start of the new millennium.