Water, Water, everywhere... at school, anyway

So, the drought has broken, after ten long years of below average rainfall, and unfortunately, the winter has brought a cold snap which has people cracking inevitable one liners about global "warming" being some kind of a joke. I guess the move toward calling the effects of human colonisation on the world environment "climate change" was a little slow off the mark.

But still, our own John Howard, more than a little slow out of the gate on the issue, has finally put on his racing silks and saddled up. But I still can't be sure he understands the problem, as demonstrated by his "climate change" response package, which is dribbling forth in the lead up to the next election, in fits and starts. One part of his plan seems to be getting some nuclear power stations built. Though 12.5 million would barely be enough for a scale model of one, let alone any plutonium to power it. This is a completely different issue, and one that is solely related to economics, not the environment. It's about putting the economy first, and making sure it can continue to expand, and reducing the environmental impact of industry as an afterthought. It does not acknowledge that industry is the single biggest cause of emissions, pollution, waste, not to mention the driving force behind population growth, and resulting urban expansion.

Another old growth plank in the platform was the granting of schools $50,000 vouchers in order to purchase water tanks and solar hot water services. While I commend the idea, it really has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. The emissions produced by schools heating water is negligible, as very little is required on a daily basis. The catching of water from roof tops is a great idea, but is a measure against an effect of climate change, prolonged drought, and not in any way a defence against the lack of rainfall in future. I think schools would be better off covering their roof area with photo-voltaic solar panels in order to generate electricity. The Prime Minister has obviously caught on to the importance to "kids" of computers, judging by his ill advised venture on to YouTube, and they need electricity more than anyone needs hot water at school.

While the water tanks are an interesting idea, they should have been part of an existing environment policy, not simply tacked on to the "climate change" agenda to boost the apparent spending of the government. There is no reason schools should not aim to be completely self sufficient for power and water in the future, but this is just good education, not heroic policy. Next it will be suggested that schools have gardens planted in their grounds, possibly even growing food for the students. Indeed, Stephanie Alexander, celebrity chef, has already started a program promoting exactly that, along, of course, with her latest book on cooking with kids. But I think that deserves a post of it's own.

Basically, the Howard plan to reduce the impacts of climate change is a cobbled together policy where every "environmental" dollar the government proposes to spend is thrown in under their "climate change" response. It is on the surface, incoherent, and fails to recognise the source of the problem, industry and affluence, while the same government is taking credit for encouraging the very conditions that are most likely causing the environmental shift. They claim they can guarantee an unsustainable lifestyle, and save the environment as well. Unfortunately, we can't take the risk of them getting it wrong in this case. We can recover from recession, and as much of a struggle as it is, probably even from economic depression, as we have seen historically.

But in this instance, there can be no mistakes, as the consequences will be immeasurably disasterous if we get it wrong, and that's something I'm not willing to gamble on.