News

Representative Citizens

Politic

Currently, outside of election promises, the government does what it wants without asking us. For example today they announced the end of the free COVID-19 childcare.

The government announces it. Then the media comments on it. Then when the change happens, citizens are affected one way or another. Pollsters might then contact a representative sample of society to ask how things have changed for them. Polling is imperfect – for example it is biased towards who answer their phone, and are willing to answer all their questions.

The government should have a representative sample of society that they can ask before they make changes. It couldn’t be secretive, and it would be refreshing. Imagine if Morrison said “we are considering ending the free childcare, and we are asking our representative sample how they would be affected”.

It would be a paid position, say $50 per household per month. People can volunteer by submitting their demographics, and out of those a proper cross-section can be found and chosen randomly. Maybe 1000 households would be needed?

Armed Forces – Sweden Style

Uncategorized

“To date, Sweden has executed the most sophisticated design of military forces for nonprovocative defense. Its coastal guns cannot be elevated to fire beyond Swedish coastal waters. It has a capable and effective air force, but with short-range aircraft that can’t get very far beyond Sweden… In every way, by technical and institutional design, they’ve sought to make Sweden a country you don’t want to attack, but one that is clearly in a defensive posture. This approach can ultimately create a stable mutual defensive superiority  – each side’s defense is stronger than the other side’s offense.”
Amory Lovins, How to Get Real Security

Now that makes sense!

Climate Change: What a Progressive Govt Could Do

Environment

In Australia, today, is a government totally uninterested in any new ideas to combat climate change. They do however keep repeating how they will  stick to their promises at the Paris agreement, by being the only country to use an outdated form of credits. Meanwhile our carbon footprint keeps growing, all in the name of GDP. This sounds like being buried with your riches.

At the very, very least, they could announce a fund to assess all the “radical” ideas out there that can truly attack climate change, and report back in 6 months. $10 million would do it, to put 100 academics and environmentalists in a residential think tank, on leave from their usual positions. It would, even if it had do actionable conclusions (unlikely), be an extraordinary act that would capture the attention of the world. We could easily invite the world to join in.

I’m not an environmentalist but after a few beers I have some ideas, any of which could work.

Stop exporting coal. The only reason fossil fuels are used instead of renewables is because they are cheaper. If one country ceases exporting, even temporarily, then basic economics say that reduced supply will equal increased costs. Australia is the 2nd biggest exporter, so we should at least explore the numbers. Maybe giving all of our coal workers a 1 year vacation could tip the balance?

Unfortunately things are more complicated than that. It could affect our trade agreements, other nations could subsidise their coal exports, or countries they use coal internally could start exporting it. Which is why we need experts to look at the idea.

On the other hand, once one country makes such a sacrifice, it could encourage other nations to take similar actions.

Stop subsidising fossil fuels. Usually via tax breaks, countries like Australia subsidise fossil fuel extraction in exchange for jobs. We could ask every country in the world that does this, to stop. Not stop the extraction, but simply stop giving it an artificial price advantage.

Boycott Saudi Arabia. Simply drop all diplomatic ties, and stop buying their oil.  Not officially because of climate change, but in protest of 9/11, Khashoggi, escaping criminals from the USA on private jets, hacking Bezos, and being a cruel and oppressive regime. And drop all military support – yes you USA, because you have enough other allies in the Middle East anyway, you don’t belong there, and you certainly don’t need to be there in a post-oil world.

Tax polyester. Clothing has never been cheaper. Fast fashion is faster than ever. Waste is increasing. And polyester is made from oil. Clothing and shoes contribute to 5% of carbon emissions.

Start with $5 per garment that has more than 50% un-recycled polyester. I doubt any consumers will complain much.

Grow trees. Australia does have tree growing programs, but more is obviously possible, given the 5% unemployment rate. Get school kids doing it one day a month, it will be good for them.

Get 100 experts together and, if I can bang out 5, they can come up with a 100+ costed and analysed radical ideas, any of which could be the what stops our climate reaching tipping point. 

 

The Political Party With No Policies

Politic

 

I just saw that a panelist on The Drum is the founder of The Small Business Party.

I thought, that is quite smart, that is a huge base to get votes from – so I visited their website to see the policies.

There are none!

No policies, no candidates, but a lot of focus on Angela, whose surname can only be found deep in her blog. This is someone who has gone mononym like a pop star.

New Foundation might not be a real political party (yet) but we have dozens of policies. It is kinda a requirement!

 

Bush Fires – We Can Do More!

Environment | Public Safety

We are not bush fire experts. Actual experts are bound to have more and better ideas, which only need funding…

In the near or distant future, more catastrophic bushfires are guaranteed to occur. It is quite possible that the fires will become worse and soon. We need a government that is proactive rather than reactive. We have situations where various projects are rejected because of the impact on the environment, and yet the environmental damage from fires dwarfs all such projects and we are not proactively fighting to defend.

  1. Free fire insurance for all Australian homes. This is a win-win in general (no insurance company profits, insignificant fraud), and a major win for people who lose their homes to bush fires
  2. Fire breaks. Commercial forests have fire breaks to minimise the spread of fire. We need to sacrifice some bush to save most bush. And do it as gently as possible. Communities can participate
  3. Surveillance. A large percentage of fires are deliberately lit. Forests have few people around, and few witnesses. We need to monitor or restrict who enter bush areas
  4. Bunkers. A good aspect of bush fires is that they move fast. Sometimes a few minutes underground is all that is needed. We need to promote and perhaps subsidise fire bunkers for at risk properties. They are quite cheap. In the USA, tornado bunkers are commonplace. This will enable people to protect their properties and have a safe space.

Fire Breaks

Fire breaks / fire lines / fuel breaks are an existing proactive strategy for reducing the impact and spread of bushfires. With the catastrophic fires of 2019-2020, it is obvious that they didn’t do the job. 

Any proactive measures we can take would be cheaper and preferable to those catastrophic fires. Especially when you consider mental health, the economy, tourism, native wildlife and the stark possibility (slight but real) that nearly all of Australia’s bush could be gone in a year of two.

After reading a lot of literature regarding firebreaks, I have come to these conclusions:

  • The word firebreak can have different meanings. It can be a strip of land which had been cleared primarily so fire appliances can access fires. The key width factor is the space required for an appliance to turn around. Or it can intended to remove fuel load to stop a fire spreading, which is what we are discussing here
  • There is no national strategy or standards for fire breaks. Even at state level they appear to be laws that private landholders should, but often don’t, abide by.
  • They are never intended to stop catastrophic fires from spreading. They can and do stop low intensity fires.
  • Cost/benefit is definitely a factor with their implementation, and with less funding there would be more and better-maintained firebreaks.

Extreme Proactive Approaches

No existing approaches are going to stop the recent catastrophes, so more radical approaches are required. We would like to consult with experts on the following ideas, getting a quick “back of the envelope” consensus, and begin implementing the recommendations immediately, while serious research is undertaken for a longer term approach.

Wider firebreaks. Existing firebreaks did not stop the spread of fires. So make them wider.

The footage of the wildfires ‘jumping’ and crossing over highways in New South Wales in 1994 not only shows the enormous power of high-wind driven fires, but also the total ineffectiveness of a 30-40m wide firebreak (such as the highway) in slowing the spread of the fire.
http://www.fireandbiodiversity.org.au/_literature_47142/Operational_Fire_Manual

Firebreaks involve splitting bushland into portions. We can begin by widening the existing fire breaks which are the most prominent and useful. 

Green firebreaks. Use native vegetation that has low flammability. When it reaches sufficient height it also becomes a wind break, something clear firebreaks is missing.

Roads as firebreaks. Existing highways can have bush removed from the edges, which will have two benefits – as a firebreak, and ensuring access for fire crews and evacuations. New road firebreaks can be created for towns that are one road in and out.

Multi-purpose firebreaks. Consider their use for agriculture, tourism or leisure. In some areas they could be used for skiing. Goats are good at reducing the vegetation in fenced areas, or on leads. Bicycle trails are another possibility, or even 4WD activities which are bound to stop the growth of vegetation.

Employment. Many “work for the dole” activities are of dubious benefit. If there is the opportunity to create jobs and new skills, then additional firebreaks has great economic value. 

Housing. We should consider a moratorium on building near bush, for now. While the latest building standards will most likely save some homes from burning down – primarily by restricting their ability to catch fire at all – that is simply protecting those who are uninsured and don’t have solid evacuation plans. Most people’s sentimental items are easily removed and are not bulky. 

Houses built to the latest standards will still have people trying to defend them, and they will still be the priority for fire crews. When perhaps stopping the spread in general could be a better priority. 

Free home insurance. For everyone. It is reasonably foolproof for the government to run, and will lessen the number of people who die protecting their home.

A federal plan and budget for firebreaks with set short-term goals that have to be met.

 

 

Coal Death Spiral

Business | Environment

This week, Wall Street behemoth Goldman Sachs announced it had ruled out direct finance for new or expanding thermal coal mines and coal-fired power plant projects worldwide, as well as direct finance for new Arctic oil exploration and production.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-20/investors-are-looking-to-a-future-without-coal-power/11814436

The most common “death spiral” mentioned regarding energy is solar power. As more people install the panels, those still on the grid have to pay more because the infrastructure is being used by fewer people. Mass production means solar panels get cheaper, and then people start noticing that it is a better option than the being on the increasingly more expensive grid. So more people go solar, solar gets cheaper, grid gets more expensive, repeat…

Grid electricity for consumers could potentially disappear rapidly.

Goldman Sachs won’t give money to coal and oil now, primarily because it sees them as dying industries, and also to be seen as a responsible global citizen. Other finance companies will do the same, and with each, the cost of borrowing for coal and oil will increase. This will make those industries look even less likely to be profitable, so more banks will join in, and finance will cost more and more. Repeat.

One big bank could be the catalyst for achieving something governments and citizens have failed to do

 

There Is Good As Well

Business

It is too easy to focus on the negative sides of business. Here is some excellent news, where business is being progressive, instead of focusing only on profits.

Emergencies When Cell Towers Fail

Public Safety

 

It is marvellous that in Australia we get bushfire alerts on our mobile phones, if we are located somewhere at risk. Unfortunately this will not work if cell towers are not functioning.

In Chile, people can receive emergency updates without any connection to a mobile phone or internet service.

It is received on your phone, via radio transmission.

This seems to be a very affordable way of making sure that every possibility is covered in keeping people safe.

More here:
http://www.sieapp.cl/en/

 

What Labor Did Wrong

Tax
  1. Too many policies.
  2. One of the main policies poorly explained

Because Labor would receive a windfall from reducing the tax handouts, they felt they had to spend it all. Two or three key areas would have sufficed. Even if it meant only ending one of the tax handouts. However I lost count of how many amazing things they would spend the money on. It was overwhelming

Labor had a month to react. The Liberals were saying that Labor would increase taxes on pensioners. All Labor needed to do was explain it better:

  • The SMSF franking credits are typically for people who have shares in banks, and the credit effectively gives a return of around 10%
  • Nobody else gets such an amazing return on their investments (people in regular super funds get a return more like 2%)
  • It is subsidised by the government
  • If the cash payout is removed, SMSF people can invest their savings into anything else they want, that doesn’t provide franking credits

An ad could show a pensioner asking what she needs to do. Easy, just sell your bank shares and buy different shares. It is “self-managed” so you should be able to do that. Or accept that a 7% return is still amazing, just not 10%.

A smart advertising agency would make that ad, and show it to Labor, for next time.

Funding Our Policies

Uncategorized

While most of the policies outlined here involve increased public spending, there are 6 which raise new revenue or reduce spend:

Capping the capital gains tax exemption on primary residences to a sale price of $2 million
Foreign Ownership Sales Tax – so we get at least some tax from the likes of IKEA
Luxury Tax – on more items that just cars
State Owned Bank – for just the basics like savings and home ownership
Less full-time soldiers – by using the Swiss system (yes, they have an army)
Online Advertising Tax – to hit Google and Facebook and others
Removing tax exemptions for religious organisations – which will save many millions

And of course we would raise taxes for the rich, but we haven’t detailed that yet…

None of these would be adopted by the current Liberal party, because they would never spend less on armed forces, never tax the rich more, and are mates with banks.

0